I mean, he’s right about Freddie. No one cared. But Freddie did. Stayed closeted right up until the end. This is the weird thing. Part of what allowed Freddie Mercury and Elton John to be so huge in the 70s was being closeted, even though just about everybody had figured out they were gay.
Seems like Brian May’s inner angry white guy was also in the closet. Cheers.
Does that mean the quotes are made up or taken out of context? I’m genuinely curious in what context the quotes have a different meaning.
Text[quote=“Limiescouse, post:1301, topic:1336”]
People arent focusing on her because its a complete fabrication that the criticism of his comments are centered around her.
[/quote]
But its fucking not.
"On October 15, Netflix fired employee B. Pagels-Minor for leaking nonpublic financial information to Bloomberg News. The same employee was reportedly responsible for organizing the planned October 20 walkout. A Netflix spokesperson said of the termination: “We understand the employee may have been motivated by disappointment and hurt with Netflix, but maintaining a culture of trust and transparency is core to our company”. Her racist and violent social media comments were then revealed.
She leaked private company information to the press. Obviously, she did this for the greater good and not to further some bullshit agenda. Right? Netflix, presumably to let some air out of the situation, later reinstated her.
It is the hypocrisy I cannot stand both by the actors in this melodrama and people commenting upon it. Chapelle is the villain of the piece because he made, what some would consider transphobic comments - on the other hand, 95% of people who watched the special give it the thumbs up and were not offended at all. Kaitlyn Jenner has voiced her support for what Chapelle said in that special. As Chappelle said "In the United States, you can shoot and kill a Black person, “but you better not hurt a gay person’s feelings.”
I gave 3 “spectacular” examples of people that were attempted to be canceled. Your response was that they were all doing ok, were still in work, etc. That is not the fucking point. People attempted to ruin their careers. In some if not all cases (Ricky Gervais) somebody trawled through old posts to actively find something to be offended about. This was defended as an algorithm function. The fact is somebody actively sought to do him harm - a complaint was made by some pathetic little keyboard warrior. And this is not only defended it is deemed as acceptable behaviour.
Social media companies went along with those attempts. Social media - those flag bearers of virtue. Can you not see the hypocrisy of social media companies attempting to be the guardians of virtue? Can you not see the hypocrisy of racists calling out alleged transphobes? Can you not see the hypocrisy of people telling others how and why and by what they should be offended? The condescension and hypocrisy within that attitude is appalling.
If you make an attempt to damage someone - whether it be physically or to their reputation, then there should be consequences. It is no defence to say - “I tried to ruin them but I only partly succeeded - they are still working, they are still rich and successful”. So no harm there then? If you fail to call out these people whose joy in life is to destroy other peoples reputations then you are complicit with them.
I will not respond any further on this matter - I defend Chapelle because he has the right to say what he likes within reason. He has materially and vocally supported a trans comedian (who was hounded to suicide by yes - assholes on social media). The vast majority of the public have no issue with him. His employers have defended him. Members of the Trans community have defended him. And yet here we are discussing this again because what he said does not fit with some virtuous imaginary agenda.
Has it not crossed your mind that his accuser may not have an issue with him or what he said, but has an issue with another characteristic of his?
This from The Atlantic -
Are Dave Chappelle’s jokes offensive, or are they funny? They’re both. Is he attacking a marginalized community, or a cabal of sadistic scolds? Both. People can be both. Chappelle is entirely right to indict would-be censors for their wild inconsistencies and their capricious attitude to offense. As a comedian, he is thrown against the bars of this illogical prison every day. Why are Caitlyn Jenner jokes more obvious grounds for cancellation than ones about white bitches getting tear-gassed? When is Dave Chappelle a Black comedian and when is he a rich comedian? Sometimes the ink blot won’t resolve into a neat outline. It remains, like life, a mess.
I’m done and will not be posting in this thread again. Perhaps COG had the right idea.
No it wasn’t ‘defended’. It was explained.
The person who complained to Facebook was quite obviously a hunting advocate looking to leave one on Gervais, and very unlikely to be someone who would break bread with the ‘woke’ left.
From that point it’s all about Algorithms. The AI that Facebook uses doesn’t look at context or have an understanding of humour. It just sees six uses of a word that triggers its filter and pulls the post.
To be fair to Ricky, from his comments he seemed less furious he’d been ‘cancelled’ and more amused/bemused by the whole thing.
As an example to bring to the table on this issue, it’s a really bizarre one to reach for.
You are equating an over the top reaction orchestrated by an individual with an entire cultural trend towards cancellation and censorship.
Of course there are bonkers people holding ridiculous positions. Of course there are people hiding an entirely different agenda behind their ‘progressive’ attacks. That has absolutely nothing to do with being ‘cancelled’.
As you’ve noted, the general public don’t appear to think Chapelle did anything wrong. Nor do Netflix. And whatever the complainers beef with him, it has had very little impact on his career.
He wasn’t the victim of cancellation. He was the victim of one person, or at most a handful of people, taking misguided offence at some content on transgenderism.
As regards the wider offence than the Netflix walkout, Chapelle can have absolutely no complaints about this. As a comedian he has made a career and reputation of operating at very the edge of offence. Doing the material he does, it is absolutely inevitable that he is going to offend some people. That goes with the territory of what he does. In fact, he’d probably be disappointed if he didn’t. The fact is that some people will inevitably escalate their offence to complaints, and some to active campaigns. This isn’t a new thing - it’s been part of culture for generations.
As a near the knuckle performer, trading on that reputation, Dave just has to accept that and deal with it.
I think it’s then a bit disingenuous to base a Netflix special on being the victim of cancel culture when that isn’t what happened, and seems, in all honesty, a bit cynical.
Again, it’s just a really bizarre example to draw.
Perhaps in the midst of a conversation about how we conduct ourselves when people say things we don’t like, having a strop because people disagreed with you is possibly not the best response.
To put my cynical hat on, there’s no such thing as bad publicity. Gina Carano did rather well for being cancelled. As for Dave Chapelle, never saw his routines before. Just watched a few (and the one in question), who’d have thought people might not like him? I suspect he has sufficient backbone after many years to brush it off, otherwise he’s in the wrong job.
The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Exactly.
This whole cancel culture thing is fascinating to me, because I remember when calls for cancellation were almost exclusively the domain of the religious right. If there was ever a campaign to get something cancelled there was always usually a religious group behind it.
As ever, Hitch:
Fuck me.
So exactly what I have been saying and the polar opposite to what Limescouse said.
Im not having a strop because somebody disagreed with me - I am angry because some people on here are happier to side with a racist when it fits their virtue-signaling agenda. His accuser is dismissed as of little or no consequence and I am “weird” for bringing it up. It is the hypocrisy I cannot stand.
I withdraw my earlier remark " Perhaps COG had the best idea."
I will rephrase - COG had the best idea.
Stay out of trouble you crazy kids.
Ed Burn did a great joke on MTW years ago about things you wouldn’t hear at a party conference “Follow LibDems, the people we need to convince are the general public, and the public are fucking idiots” which still makes me laugh whenever I see that repeat.
I thought you said she didn’t matter? Make up your mind?
My whole point to you was, it doesn’t matter to this case if she is racist or not – she should suffer her own consequences separately. The only question was, do the claims have merit? Whether they do or not is completely unrelated to her. Her being a terrible person does not vindicate him.
You are all over the fucking place.
The person whose twitter comments you keep bringing up as the supposed organizer of the Dave outrage, the person you bizarrely refer to as “his accuser”, as if the criticism is coming from only one place, is Ashely Marie Preston, a fringe celebrity who was involved in the Oct 20 walk out, but does not work at Netflix
She is not the same person as the passage you presented mentioned (the clue is in the different name). Pagels Minor was a Netflix employee whose role at the company included advocating for Trans voices, both internally and with respect to how Netflix content is presented.
Amazingly, neither of them are person called Tara Fields, the other employee you mention who was fired for her conduct in the period after the release but ultimately reinstated. She is not the person accused of leaking private data.
It appears there are a lot of details about this story you havent taken the time to familiarize yourself with. Important to understand are two threads that preceded the release of the closer.
Criticism about Dave’s history of comments about trans people. This is the backdrop to him even including this bit in this special…his attempt to address those criticisms. This is inarguably a ling running issue involving criticism from more than one person
Internal discussions within Netflix on how much agency trans voices have in determining how related content is treated. Pagels Minor was the head of a group that is supposed to be consulted over such content. They were not in the case of this special and that it was kick started the internal conflict.
I think differences of opinion on the sorts of issues raised in this case are important to hear so we dont just fall back into our typical corner. What is not helpful though are knee jerk reactions to a story that you havent taken the time to understand. The blow back against Dave is not limited to just his comments in this show, and not to a single person. The walk out at Netflix was not an attempt to get Dave silenced or cancelled, but was done in response to how netflix ignored their own stated policy for handling content like this, and then subsequently for their handling of the internal complaints they received for it. Sure, I’m sure some people involved voiced individual desires of wanting the show pulled, but that was explicitly stated as not a demand of the protestors, nor was it an organizing principal of the issues leading up to the walk out.
A high profile public profile used the word Cunt in a post. The only thing unusual about this is it required someone to flag it for the post to be pulled given it is an unambiguous violation of the T&C. Using it as an example of cancel culture is really weak. Doing so from a person who has described it as a permanent ending of someone’s career is just really difficult to even wrap my head around.
The general public’s response to treatment of a marginalized group is a shit heuristic to use for evaluating the merits of said treatment. Interestingly, from what I’ve seen of the response to this special, Dave’s desire to set the record straight on this pre-existing criticism has done more to open the eyes of non-trans people to the ugliness of it than anything the trans critics had said previously.
Do you really believe that netflix conducted a good faith ethical evaluation of their actions, or did they just do what they felt was in their best commercial interest? The fact they bypassed their own stated policy for dealing with this sort of content is a pretty big indicator. This, not what Dave actually said, is at the core of the internal furor in the company in the aftermath of its release. The fact Sarandos has had to have multiple attempts at communicating their attitudes is another good indication they didnt get their shit straight prior to releasing it.
I’m not sure if he is referring to the same story. From what I read, he was attempting to make a valid point but was clumsy in doing so. Just needed to choose his words better. So many white guys come off as insensitive or uninformed when trying to comment on woke culture. Time for them to learn to choose the words carefully, lest the rapid Twitter mites have something to feed from.
Completely agree with you. I know that the general public are not any kind of barometer when it comes to measuring whether something is right or wrong. What they are a very good barometer of is whether you’ve been ‘cancelled’ or not.
I think especially given how much we have seen change over our lifetime.
Many things acceptable in 70,80s and 90s are in no way acceptable today. Be it in the work place, or a comedian in a working man’s club.
History has not been kind to those who failed to evolve. But public perception at the time was it’s funny or normal.
Canberra has always been a cesspit.
It makes Mos Eisley look like paradise