As per @Scalenex 's suggestion, here we are. Although I prefer conversations to arise more organically, let's give this dedicated one off thread a try. As always,let us focus on attacking ideas and refrain from attacking one another. Looks like the SJW critics didn't enjoy Mr. Chappelle's work very much, but luckily in swoop the normal non-snowflake folks and give the critics a giant middle finger. This is why I can't take critics serious anymore. They are simply too far detached from normal people. I watched the special and I enjoyed it very much. Nobody is safe from ridicule including the usual targets as well as the special protected groups that are usually shielded by the left. Has anyone else watched it? What were your thoughts on it?
Here's a very flattering biographic about him. Dave Chappelle had a very popular show on Comedy Central in the early 2000s back when I was in college. Among the people born 1978 to 1985 nearly every man i know like his show and a significant portion of women liked his show too. Then Chappelle sort of disappeared. Now I have subscribed to Hulu for a very long time. I realized I was mostly passively rewatching my favorite shows over and over and not watching new stuff, so I cancelled my Hulu subscription...they day after it renewed for the next month. So I'm basically riding Hulu into the ground then I figured I'd toss Netflix some pity bucks for a month or two before I give my money to The Mouse assuming their streaming service meets my expectations instead of Rian Johnsoning my expectations. Subscribing to Netflix for two months to binge watch the few things Netflix has exclusive rights to that I like then leaving is my favorite strategy. So in about a week I plan to get Netflix and Dave Chappelle's special will be the very first thing I watch. Even with only seeing a little bit of Dave Chappelle's press clippings, it makes me think about Jim Jeffries, an Australian comedian that I also like. He repeated a couple minutes of one of his most controversial joke clips in his usual casual style. It sounded funny. Then he pulled out of a transcript of that same joke and read it in a flat journalistic fashion. It sounded hateful. Jeffries also talked about gun control. He said something like some of you agree with me. Some of you don't care that much. Some of you disagree with me, and of those, most who disagree with me know this is a comedy show. About 10% of you hate my guts for having a different opinion, making good points, and being foreign and are running a loop in your head "If you don't like it, go home! If you don't like it, go home! If you don't like it, go home!" Along those lines, the jokes that Dave Chappelle are making that really offend the Social Justice Warriors revolve around dating. I notice this a lot. If a celebrity, even a minor celebrity like Dave Chappelle says, I don't want to date people who are X, Y, and Z. X, Y, and Z people will get angry at lash out. Also, Dave Chappelle swears a lot and he mimmicks anger and contempt during his stand up often. This means people who don't like what he is saying will accusing of being passionately hateful and prejudiced in his views.
For a while, it was sitting at 0% from critics. I think they ordered one of their critics to leave a positive review to soften the negative feedback they were getting. Rotten Tomatoes problem has gotten worse. The farther apart film critics and the general audience become, the less valuable critics become. Rotten Tomatoes is basically worthless now. In the general economy we are transitioning to what is called Mass Customization. Industrial processes that can create very specific products for very specific tastes. Media is following. Most audience members seem to prefer niche programs over mass audience programs. If I had money to burn and influence in media I would create niche critics. Basically take 20 to 100 very well known movies and TV shows. Then take that same batch of movies and have each niche critic website's reviwers analyze these movies that almost every one has seen in detail. Gothic Critic: The critics all like grim dark emo stuff. Arty Farty Critic: The critics all like brilliant cinematography and the like over story. Pop Corn Critics: The critics like simple action plots. Social Justice Critics, Religious Conservative critics, Historically accurate critics, etc etc That way everyone can figure out what style of media they like and use niche critics to pick whatever they like. Unfortunately, most professional critics are either paid shills of the production companies or social justice warriors or both. I'm not sure whether or not a mass market critic site is even possible in Current Year, but I know Rotten Tomatoes is not it. Their critics are worthless.
That was a good video. I look forward to your analysis. You can't win with the SJWs. They want to be offended. They want to play the victim. Virtue signalling has seemingly become the sole purpose of their existence. Chappelle is a smart guy, he would have known that this routine would put him in the social hot waters. But he doesn't care and he isn't afraid to stand up to them. This is very reflective of the rotten tomatoes scores. The SJW critics can't stand him but fortunately normal people are not bound by the whims of identity politics. That was covered in the second video I posted. They show the critic that gave him the fresh rating that boosted the score from 0% to 17%. RT is complete garbage. I used to like the website, but after the Captain Marvel fiasco they have proved that they are now completely agenda driven. Here is your first hire for that category... Do they even have their own critics? I thought they simply compiled and calculated a numerical critic score based on the reviews of critics working for other groups/companies/organizations.
YoungRippa59 is one of the amateur critics whose opinions I trust. If likes or dislikes a comic book, TV show, or movie something there is a 95% I will share is opinion on it. Time to get political! Warning I get fairly academic here. Feel free to skip it if it's not your bag. My issue is with his "Taxation is Theft" shirt. He is an anarcho-capitalist and this leaks into his reviews. Short version. My problem with Anarcho-Capitalism is that as the saying goes "The perfect is the enemy of the good." Spoiler: Rant about Anarcho-Capitalism that is not really related to Dave Chappelle I am not a fan of anarcho-capitalists. They sort of bug me because they are really close to my views but not quite there. I live in the United States. I would thrilled if the Republicans or the Democrats embraced Libertarianism. The Republicans and to a lesser extant the Democrats claim to have a Libertarian wing but they don't. I think America would be better if they were more Libertarian, but a pure Libertarian system is a dystopian nightmare. Libertarians want to privatize all government functions because taxation is theft. If you don't pay your taxes, men with guns will throw you in jail. Well technically, that's extortion not theft. In a way extortion is a type of theft. I don't know a better system though. You cannot privatize the judicial department. If private citizen pay the judges and agents of the court, that means the people paying them are almost literally above the law. Judges will never prosecute people who control their livelihood. You cannot privatize the police force. Much like the judges, the police will not limit the activities of the people paying them. A privatized police force will basically become a bunch of armed thugs who the people paying them can sic on their enemies. You cannot privatize the army. You get some of the same issues with the police. If the army becomes the private bullies of the financial elite, that is a vehicle for oppression. Let's pretend for a second that the army is literally incapable of corruption. You still cannot privatize the military. Let's say I'm living in a tiny An-Cap nation of 100,000 people. As an An-Cap person, I choose not to pay the military. Let's say I'm the only one who isn't paying. The army cannot let foreign invaders only strike at my house while protecting the other 99,999 people. Since Anarcho-Capitalists are motivated by self-interest, everyone or a very large portion of the populace will choose not to pay the army. The only solution is for the army to force me and any other freeloaders to pay them. With taxes. Taxes that have the implicit threat of government might backing them up. Aka theft. Anarcho-Capitalism requires that EVERYONE be morally perfect to work. Exactly like Anarcho-Communism actually. If everyone is selfless, hard working and honest, we don't need any government. A lot of prominent Anarcho-Capitalism admit they are chasing a Pie in the Sky dream. In my opinion that is moral cowardess. Anarcho-Capitalists often wring their hands and say "Until everyone is fully enlightened like I am, our perfect government is impossible. Therefore I'm going to get directly involved in politics because politics is so dirty." If you ask an Anarcho-Capitalist to make some kind of concession to a government like "We have to pay some taxes" they will call you a statist. To an An-Cap, "statist" means you are an outsider or an enemy that cannot be trusted and therefore their opinion is irrelevant and their supposed facts are all lies. Similarly socialists often call their opponents "Nazis" or "fascists" or something sexist. Authoritarians call their opponents "Commies" or "Nazis" or something racist. I'm sure my dad didn't invent this phrase but he liked to say "Do you want to be right, or do you want to be effective?" Intellectually I agree that at a certain point it's better to be slightly morally compromised and alive then to be a dead saint. But at certain point emotionally, I will choose to be a dead saint. An extreme example is there is a sinking ship with twenty people. There is a life raft that can save ten people. If all twenty people get on the raft, everyone dies. You have a gun. Would you shoot ten people to save ten people? I could do this. If I was in charge, all twenty people would die because I value my soul more than a I value twenty lives. Maybe I could shoot ten people if that would save a million people, but that's a can of worms I should not reopen. Machiavelli said that he loved Italy more than he loved his own soul. He believed a good leader should be willing to metaphorically or literally damn himself if it helps his country. Spoiler: The political trichotomy, only tangentially related to controversial comedians The way I look at it there are three problems in all political systems. 1) Those in power always have the temptation to use their power for their own good at the expense of the general population. 2) Utlitarianism butts up against the Ethical Imperative. Is doing ammoral acts for the greater good justified? When if ever, do the ends justify the means? These two are lumped together. Obviously naked corruption (problem 1) is bad. But you can argue that a leader who is unwilling to get his hands dirty for the greater good (problem 2) is also a person being selfish. Then again, maybe you believe that evil intentions always or even just usually lead to bad ends. Point three is the most complicated. 3) What happens when you are not faced with a choice between Good and Evil, but you are forced with a choice between Good and Good. I believe the political trichotomy is a better model for understanding politics than the Right/Left line or the Right/Left + Order/Freedom quandrant. The three values of the political trichotomy are Freedom, Equality and Order. These are all good things. More Freedom to make your own choices means there is less Order because everyone making their own choices causes instability and chaos. More Freedom means you have less Equality because people making their own choices will ulitmately lead to different outcomes. There will be winners and losers. Pure Freedom is Hell on Earth. Pure freedom absent any Equality and Order is a Hobbesian nightmare where the strong brutalize the weak. Pure Order absent any Freedom or Equality is an oppressive nightmare. I believe North Korea is the most Order-ful nation on Earth. Pure Equality looks like the short story written by Kurt Vonnegut called Harrison Bergeron which I recommend everyone reading. If you follow the slippery slope, this story is the end result of political correctness. Spoiler: If you don't want to read the whole short story here is the spoiler The strong are made weak, the smart are made dumb, the beautiful are made ugly. This is why I hate political correctness. At the same time you cannot simply call Social Justice Warriors and PC Police ammoral because equality is good. They just value Equality more than Freedom. I believe an ideal society should be about 20% Order, 20% Equality and 60% Freedom give or take. Freedom provides social mobility and social mobility will provide a vehicle for Order and Equality. At the very least, Freedom allows for more Order and Equality than Order allows for Freedom and Equality and Equality allows for Order and Freedom. You need a dash of Equality so the people on the bottom of society aren't enslaved or killed. You need a dash of Order so anarchy doesn't emerge. That's my ideal society. It may not be your ideal society.
For me YoungRippa is also quite good, but I regularly find myself disagreeing with him fundamentally. I'd say I agree with him to about 60% which is still pretty good compared with others. As for politics: I think the left-right dichotomy really has a lot of problems to it, the way you describe it is better. I usually describe politics in two dimensions: X-axis is freedom vs order (or totalitarian vs. libertarian) Y-axis could be basically socialism vs capitalism (although the words aren't perfect, I am still searching for better ones in English) There are other two-dimensional systems, too. I have not yet decided on one. Wiki has some of the most important ones listed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum Models that use more than the left-right axis explain some phenomenons a lot better. In fact you could easily add a third axis (and that is done in political theory a lot. But then it starts to get too complex. In fact for some people even the two dimensional ones are too complex). In Germany the situation is a lot more clearly cut than in the USA for example. There are overlapping parts of party politics, especially between the older and bigger parties, but harmless compared to the USA where only two parties exist and both cover an insanely wide political spectrum. And that's where many problems start. Anarchists and communists are traditionally both "left-wing" but they are very different. Same exists for extreme capitalists and fascists. Both are considered "right-wing" but they are usually far from each other. And if you look at extremists of both sides you often notice striking similarities, which led to the often-discussed "horseshoe theory". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory If it teaches us anything then probably that we should distrust people that provide "simple" solutions. Because nothing in politics is really simple.
I have Netflix so I figured I’d give it a go. Honestly, it was a bit shite. It wasn’t utterly awful - a couple of his jokes got a chuckle from me - but a lot of it I just didn’t find funny. It might just be my sense of humour, but with a lot of his things I could see where the jokes were meant to be but they just weren’t funny. In terms of how offensive it was I didn’t think it was too bad; it certainly got better as it went on. However, some of the things he was saying at the beginning were a bit off. It seemed to me it was edginess for the sake of edginess and as brand of comedy I hate it because it’s lazy and unintelligent. I don’t really believe that he thinks (to use one of his “jokes”) that children molested by Michael Jackson should be grateful for it (I’m not going to comment on the validity but for the sake of this (and he does the same) I’m going to treat it as true); it’s shock humour designed to get a laugh out of people because that’s the only way they can react to offensive statements like that. There’s no thought behind it beyond “this is outrageous and therefore funny”, and it isn’t, it’s just offensive. At least with the other examples I hear, despite being very much off colour the butt of the joke is ultimately the people who are doing the bad things, whereas this doesn’t even have that, it’s just making fun of those who have been molested. As I said before it does get better, and during the latter part there were a few jokes that make me chuckle a bit. But none of his jokes were really that great - the laughter for me was the exception rather than the rule. Apart from the opening segment I wouldn’t say that his show was actively bad as such, but it certainly wasn’t very good. It probably doesn’t warrant quite that low a critic rating, but it is most certainly not certified fresh in my opinion. With the whole offensive thing, many of you outside of Britain may not know him but I would point to Michael McIntyre (although he’s not for everyone) as a good example. Although his more recent stuff is quite clichéd and repetitive, if you go back to some of his earlier stand up comedy stuff he manages to be genuinely insightful and funny without being offensive. Here’s a good example I’m sure we can all relate to: I’m not saying all comedy has to be completely PC and clean like his - stuff that pushes the boundaries by all means has its place. However, if you’re just going to be edgy for the sake of edginess rather than providing good social commentary then there is no excuse, not when there are plenty of people like him who are able to find intelligent and insightful humour without offending anyone. There are ways to be ‘edgy’ while still providing interesting and genuinely funny social commentary, you don’t just have to unintelligently shock people into laughing.
Oh I just noticed that I went on a tangent and haven't said anything about Dave Chappelle yet. I haven't seen the show as I don't have Netflix, don't watch a lot of comedy, and frankly... most of the time I don't really enjoy Dave Chapelle's (or other stand up comedian's) humor anyway. But then they say that Germans don't have humor so... par for the course I guess.
Well I have been unsubscribed from Netflix long enough I got a new 30 day trial... I'm not sure if I have any real analysis. That's pretty par for the course. Dave Chappelle seems to sincerely and firmly believe that Michael Jackson was innocent of the allegations against him. You don't think any of his voices were culturally insensitive? That's very nitpicky but comedians have been raked over coals for doing less. I think it is hard to be insightful and funny without being offensive because it is very easy for someone somewhere to be offended. My favorite comedian, Maria Bamford, is a lot less edgy than Dave Chappelle, but "the Bammer" does stray into controversial stuff. She makes jokes about mental illness among other things. That's a subject many are afraid to touch. Much like a tendency of comedians to make fun of their own ethnic group, sexual orientation, or race, Maria is able to get away with making fun of the mentally ill because she had to deal with serious mental illness herself. Back to trying to provide analysis. Most of Chappelle's material on the current special tied into outrage culture so in a way he was directly chalenging social justice warriors. I cannot really go deeper into it without spoiling the jokes. I am curious about Chappelles long absence from the public spotlight. -The biographic video I started with seemed to suggest that this was strategic. -Maybe he was having trouble finding work. -Maybe he had psychological health issues. I notice there is a strong correlation between rough lives, mental illness, and careers in stand up. My guess is because humor is a way to cope with pain. That sort of knocked Maria Bamford down, but she got back up. A lot of comedians turned to drugs or suicide. Robin Williams life story is especially sad which was compounded by emotionally abuses exes bleeding him dry with alimony. "I used to think that the worst thing in life was to end up alone. It's not. The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel alone." If that's what he shared, what was he hiding? -The most optimistic explanation is that Dave Chappelle has what is known as Mahrlect You Money. If you have Mahrlect You Money that means you already saved enough money to live off of so you only work when you want to work. This is the only way to have 100% free speech because you cannot really get blacklisted for saying the wrong things since you cannot be fired.
Very interesting. I agree with your 20/20/60 breakdown for the reasons you stated. Now, if the is your ideal breakdown, how do you think that the modern day USA society compares? What do you feel would be the actual breakdown by percentage through the 3 categories? Hahaha, well that is your opinion I suppose. I don't really find it shocking as you usually side with the ultra progressive SJWs. Obviously, a comedic act is very subjective, so your personal/subjective opinions are as valid as mine. However, more objectively, it would seem that the overwhelming majority of the people would disagree with you... That said, if you don't like, then you don't like it! There are not plenty of people like him. I have heard many comedians discuss him and he is usually held in very high regard among his peers. I'm not saying that there is no equal to him, but he is definitely in the top tier of comedians. As for not offending anyone, that is a horrible goal for a comedian to aspire to. First off, modern day SJWs are offended by just about everything, most of which is relatively benign. How come when my race and gender (white male) were targeted in Chappelle's act I wasn't offended? Why am I able to laugh alongside of it while SJWs get triggered? Comedians are meant to push the boundaries. His act clearly shows how certain groups exist as a protected class by the far left. If you can make fun of one group you should be able to make fun of the all. All or none! I think the title of his special was very well chosen. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. I think a better update for today's society would read something like this: "sticks and stones may break my bones, but SJWs will always be offended".
I dislike it when Ben Shapiro makes me agree with him... To see who has power over you, look at who you are not allowed to criticize. And hundreds of years ago, court jesters were the only people who could mock the nobility and get away with it. Stupid cancellation culture...If you read or hear something you don't like online, hit the X button in the upper right of the screen. But no, people want everyone to not watch what they don't like. I'm putting abstract concepts into numerical form is difficult. Hong Kong is arguably one of the most Freedom heavy society's in the world, or at least they were but the Chinese Communist Party has been hammering on them for decades. In the United States the Left is trying to control the narrative outside of elections by controlling speech and pushing narratives. Political discussions and media outlets that are Right leaning keep having people talk about a Second Civil War. Both the far Left and the far Right view the other side as a bunch of cheaters and since the other side cheated first, no method to fight them is off the table. I believe the United States is losing a half a percentage point to Order and half a percentage point to Equality every year, metaphorically speaking. Anyway I'm glad we can have civil political discussions/rants here.
I would imagine a certain part of that high rating probably stems from the fact it was rated low in the first place. The fact that Rotten Tomatoes critics have been shown to be different from the general opinion of people probably means a lot of people rated it higher than they would have done just to spite them. I’m not saying that was all of them - remove that aspect and it would still probably be rated pretty highly by all means - but I imagine that desire to stick it to the so called experts likely played a part it getting it that high. The Rotten Tomatoes have done little to endear themselves to the sorts of people that would care about that sort of thing, so it’s natural they would want to spite them. Again, I’m not saying that’s the only reason they upvoted it, not in the slightest, but I do think that that sort of psychology is becoming more prominent (on both sides of the spectrum). It wasn’t massively clear but the “he” I was referring to was Michael McIntyre. Him and plenty of other comedians I watch can find interesting and insightful humour without needing to offend anyone. At no point did I say that all humour must be inoffensive and PC. I myself am partial to a fair bit of rude and offensive comedy. However, there is a big difference between being edgy whilst still being genuinely insightful and funny, and just lazily tossing out offensive statements to bag the shock laugh. If so many other comedians can be funny without ever needing to rely on offensiveness at all then the least he can do is be witty and provide good social commentary with his edginess rather than rely on the edginess itself.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was a bit of that mixed in. Frankly, I find it much more surprising that we haven't seen the SJW mob swoop in and try to down vote it. Although maybe they have and are simply the 1% of the audience that rated it as rotten. At this point Dave is probably one of the highest paid comedians in the business and he is in a position that other comedians could only dream of. So it stands to reason that he is pretty talented and his employed strategy is clearly working. That doesn't mean that every comedian has to take his approach. There have been plenty of comedians that don't thread on such sensitive topics and find great success. I like the fact that there are a wide range of comedic acts available, which range from benign to extremely offensive. That way everyone can find something to suit his/her personal tastes. Let the market decide which acts are successful or not.
What the hell. He is right with many things he says, but he is horribly wrong with others. First: humor is NOT a male property. That's laughable and wrong, and easy to disprove. Comedy is not inherently masculine. Second: "The left does not have a sense of humor" is just wrong. The extreme left doesn't. Because extremists. Extremists have very limited humor. I can easily name dozens of left wing comedians that are hilarious, and humour that originates in left wing world views. So what they do here again is mixing up left wing and left wing extremists in the same way left wing extremists mix up conservatives with Nazis. Humor and evil is associated, but... that's simplifying too much. The main source of humor isn't "evil", it is subversion of expectations. We don't laugh about the guy in the suit falling into the mud because it is evil. We laugh because the suit is connected to cleanliness in our brains, and mud is not clean.