Dave Chappelle’s “The Closer”

[bigpern23]

So, if your position is they can't offer thoughts on his views on transsexuals unless they see the whole special, I have couple of questions:

1) Does the view he expressed about transgender people somehow change later in the special?
2) Why should a community that's attacked have to sit through an entire special after they've been attacked in it just so they can offer their opinions on his statement about their community?
3) Had he been a white comedian who disparaged blacks, would you feel the same way, that a black person should have to watch a comedian's entire special after a racist joke that attacked them if they wanted to say that the white comedian was wrong?

1) Yes.
2) It is impossible to judge his "statement" about the trans community without seeing him make said statement. Anyone can offer an opinion on it with or without having seen the show. I won't take seriously any opinion given by someone who hasn't actually watched it from beginning to end.
3) Unknowable hypothetical.

 

[JRoyal]

1) Yes.
2) It is impossible to judge his "statement" about the trans community without seeing him make said statement. Anyone can offer an opinion on it with or without having seen the show. I won't take seriously any opinion given by someone who hasn't actually watched it from beginning to end.
3) Unknowable hypothetical.

Unknowable? Sure. But you know you. You could hazard a guess how you'd react. heck, the situation has happened before. Michael Richards let loose an entire racist rant during an act. You're dodging. Which is fine. It's an uncomfortable question. But I guess your view would be no one who is black could have condemned Michael Richards unless they actually saw/heard him make the comments because they couldn't judge his statements without seeing him make them. Reading reports of them wouldn't be enough. Which is a patently absurd statement.

 

[bigpern23]

Unknowable? Sure. But you know you. You could hazard a guess how you'd react. heck, the situation has happened before. Michael Richards let loose an entire racist rant during an act. You're dodging. Which is fine. It's an uncomfortable question. But I guess your view would be no one who is black could have condemned Michael Richards unless they actually saw/heard him make the comments because they couldn't judge his statements without seeing him make them. Reading reports of them wouldn't be enough. Which is a patently absurd statement.

Patently absurd is comparing Richards' reaction to hecklers to Chappelle's act. I have heard Richards' rant and I found it offensive. But I did watch the video before I ever formed an opinion on it.

Arguing that people shouldn't actually listen to the act they're criticizing so they can create an informed opinion is an odd hill to die on.

Again, nobody has to watch it. But nobody should expect to have their opinion taken seriously if they haven't because such an opinion is uninformed.

EDITED TO ADD: Also, it's not an uncomfortable question at all. It's a pointless question.

 

[JRoyal]

Patently absurd is comparing Richards' reaction to hecklers to Chappelle's act. I have heard Richards' rant and I found it offensive. But I did watch the video before I ever formed an opinion on it.

Arguing that people shouldn't actually listen to the act they're criticizing so they can create an informed opinion is an odd hill to die on.

Again, nobody has to watch it. But nobody should expect to have their opinion taken seriously if they haven't because such an opinion is uninformed.

EDITED TO ADD: Also, it's not an uncomfortable question at all. It's a pointless question.

The thought that you have no opinions on things that you have not personally witnessed is absolutely ridiculous. And the thought that a marginalized community should have to listen to an act that attacks it and trivializes the members' experiences before they can say they find it offensive shows a gross lack of understanding of marginalized communities. I know an incredible young man who is trans and was a good friend of my youngest son, and I am acquainted with several young trans men and women who we knew through our sons' involvement in marching band, and I know the heck they went through with their own schoolmates, and to think they would have to watch someone discount their existence to be able to say the comments made were offensive so that someone who goes by an anonymous name on a message board would think their opinion is valid is ridiculous. At least the people you discount have the courage to put their names on their opinions. And, yes, expecting a community to have to endure the abuse to say that someone made insensitive comments is absolutely, 100 percent patently absurd, and it shows a wealth of either privilege or cluelessness.

 

[heyabbott]

Patently absurd is comparing Richards' reaction to hecklers to Chappelle's act. I have heard Richards' rant and I found it offensive. But I did watch the video before I ever formed an opinion on it.

Arguing that people shouldn't actually listen to the act they're criticizing so they can create an informed opinion is an odd hill to die on.

Again, nobody has to watch it. But nobody should expect to have their opinion taken seriously if they haven't because such an opinion is uninformed.

EDITED TO ADD: Also, it's not an uncomfortable question at all. It's a pointless question.

You found Richards rant to be offensive, good for you. Do you not have the same empathy for those who found DC equally offensive?

Richards never got his career back.

 

[bigpern23]

The thought that you have no opinions on things that you have not personally witnessed is absolutely ridiculous. And the thought that a marginalized community should have to listen to an act that attacks it and trivializes the members' experiences before they can say they find it offensive shows a gross lack of understanding of marginalized communities. I know an incredible young man who is trans and was a good friend of my youngest son, and I am acquainted with several young trans men and women who we knew through our sons' involvement in marching band, and I know the heck they went through with their own schoolmates, and to think they would have to watch someone discount their existence to be able to say the comments made were offensive so that someone who goes by an anonymous name on a message board would think their opinion is valid is ridiculous. At least the people you discount have the courage to put their names on their opinions. And, yes, expecting a community to have to endure the abuse to say that someone made insensitive comments is absolutely, 100 percent patently absurd, and it shows a wealth of either privilege or cluelessness.

You're being intentionally overbroad to try to bolster your weak argument. I never said I have no opinions on anything I've never personally witnessed, but you know that.

We are talking specifically about a comedy act that people are saying is offensive. Much like a film critic would be derelict to critique a film without having watched it, it is derelict to judge the content of this particular show without having watched it from beginning to end.

When forming an opinion on whether it is offensive, one can choose to view the material and make an educated critique, or one can remain intentionally ignorant to the content they are commenting on. One opinion will hold more value than the other as it relates to the content of the show. That's just life.

I can't take seriously an opinion on the content of a show from someone who hasn't seen it. I can totally understand and respect someone's decision not to watch it. And, certainly, I value someone's opinion on why they choose not to watch it. After all, there's plenty of other content out there and I don't know why anyone would waste their time hate-watching what is ostensibly supposed to be a comedy show just so they can make a point. But don't waste your time telling others how offensive the content is unless you've actually seen the content you are criticizing.

Lastly, shove it with your sanctimonious bullshirt about who you know while assuming I do not know any trans people. Seriously, fork right off with that because you don't know shirt about who I know.

It sounds suspiciously like you are saying that if I don't know any trans people that my opinion isn't valid. Hmmm.

 

[bigpern23]

You found Richards rant to be offensive, good for you. Do you not have the same empathy for those who found DC equally offensive?

Richards never got his career back.

I do.

 

[heyabbott]

I do.

If you've heard DC often in the past, is his "commentary' on the LBGTQ+ community in this performance an isolated one or does he have a history of commenting on this particular community?

And is it an appropriate standard to substitute "black" for "trans" or gay or Asian and see what the reaction would be? If a trans person made a stereotypical joke about black people and then said but my black friend would have loved it, is that OK?
What Chappelle seems to argue is that there is a hierarchy of victims of oppression, and he's the winner of being part of the biggest victim. Therefore he gets to joke about others and he's insulated from responsibility for his comments that are offensive to others. And that trans and gays can hide behind being white and escape oppression and have their privilege to fall back on, and he only has generational wealth and he cant hide and has no such privilege. And any sympathy generated for the LBGTQ+ community necessarily detracts from his black victimhood.

 

[JRoyal]

You're being intentionally overbroad to try to bolster your weak argument. I never said I have no opinions on anything I've never personally witnessed, but you know that.

We are talking specifically about a comedy act that people are saying is offensive. Much like a film critic would be derelict to critique a film without having watched it, it is derelict to judge the content of this particular show without having watched it from beginning to end.

When forming an opinion on whether it is offensive, one can choose to view the material and make an educated critique, or one can remain intentionally ignorant to the content they are commenting on. One opinion will hold more value than the other as it relates to the content of the show. That's just life.

I can't take seriously an opinion on the content of a show from someone who hasn't seen it. I can totally understand and respect someone's decision not to watch it. And, certainly, I value someone's opinion on why they choose not to watch it. After all, there's plenty of other content out there and I don't know why anyone would waste their time hate-watching what is ostensibly supposed to be a comedy show just so they can make a point. But don't waste your time telling others how offensive the content is unless you've actually seen the content you are criticizing.

Lastly, shove it with your sanctimonious bullshirt about who you know while assuming I do not know any trans people. Seriously, fork right off with that because you don't know shirt about who I know.

It sounds suspiciously like you are saying that if I don't know any trans people that my opinion isn't valid. Hmmm.

Alright, I'll address the last part first since you've decided to put words in my mouth, something I haven't done with you and won't do. The point of my statement was to demonstrate that for some people, these jokes are personal and harmful. That young men and women like those I've known face plenty of challenges and don't need to be forced to watch something that ridicules their existence to be able to offer an opinion on an offensive section of it. Sorry you feel that you have to make up things I said. That's sad.

And as to your movie comparison, I think if a critic is writing a review of the movie, sure, they need to watch it all. But if they are sounding off about a racist character or homophobic representation in a particular scene in a movie, it's not always necessary. It's possible to talk about a portion without examining the whole. In all instances? No. But in a lot. And in this one, when he makes comments like "gender is a fact" and ridicules a trans woman's genitalia, there is no context to make those anything but transphobic. You say he comes back later and changes his view. How? Does he acknowledge what he says was wrong, and that his comments weren't how he feels? Did he back off the "gender is a fact" comment? How on earth does he back off "gender is a fact," a statement that in the context he used it discounts the experience of every transgender person in the world? And after that statement, why should a trans comedian have to keep watching to offer an opinion on that statement? That's like telling a gay man, "Yeah, this guy just said a bunch of homophobic stuff, but now he's gonna talk about himself, so you should watch the rest before you decide if it was homophobic or not." Why should they have to subject themselves to it? So that YOU feel better about their opinion. That's absurd.

And here's the bottom line: Chappelle is trying to cling to the cultural relevancy he once had. He once made jokes that were harsh but true social criticism. He lost that edge, and so he attacks other marginalized communities to try to be edgy. And he knows if he gets called on it, he can yell, "Cancel culture," and folks like you will leap to his defense. He's a shell of the comedian he once was.

 

[bigpern23]

What Chappelle seems to argue is that there is a hierarchy of victims of oppression, and he's the winner of being part of the biggest victim. Therefore he gets to joke about others and he's insulated from responsibility for his comments that are offensive to others. And that trans and gays can hide behind being white and escape oppression and have their privilege to fall back on, and he only has generational wealth and he cant hide and has no such privilege. And any sympathy generated for the LBGTQ+ community necessarily detracts from his black victimhood.

I think this sums it up pretty well although I'd quibble that he argues black people as a group, not just him, are atop that hierarchy.

It's a provocative point of view. It's also narrowly applied as he seems to ignore that there are black gay and transsexual people. His "jealousy," as he put it, seems to extend to white LGBTQ+ people who can retreat to their whiteness. He seems to consider black LGBTQ+ people as primarily black, if he considers them at all.

Alright, I'll address the last part first since you've decided to put words in my mouth, something I haven't done with you and won't do. The point of my statement was to demonstrate that for some people, these jokes are personal and harmful. That young men and women like those I've known face plenty of challenges and don't need to be forced to watch something that ridicules their existence to be able to offer an opinion on an offensive section of it. Sorry you feel that you have to make up things I said. That's sad.

And as to your movie comparison, I think if a critic is writing a review of the movie, sure, they need to watch it all. But if they are sounding off about a racist character or homophobic representation in a particular scene in a movie, it's not always necessary. It's possible to talk about a portion without examining the whole. In all instances? No. But in a lot. And in this one, when he makes comments like "gender is a fact" and ridicules a trans woman's genitalia, there is no context to make those anything but transphobic. You say he comes back later and changes his view. How? Does he acknowledge what he says was wrong, and that his comments weren't how he feels? Did he back off the "gender is a fact" comment? How on earth does he back off "gender is a fact," a statement that in the context he used it discounts the experience of every transgender person in the world? And after that statement, why should a trans comedian have to keep watching to offer an opinion on that statement? That's like telling a gay man, "Yeah, this guy just said a bunch of homophobic stuff, but now he's gonna talk about himself, so you should watch the rest before you decide if it was homophobic or not." Why should they have to subject themselves to it? So that YOU feel better about their opinion. That's absurd.

And here's the bottom line: Chappelle is trying to cling to the cultural relevancy he once had. He once made jokes that were harsh but true social criticism. He lost that edge, and so he attacks other marginalized communities to try to be edgy. And he knows if he gets called on it, he can yell, "Cancel culture," and folks like you will leap to his defense. He's a shell of the comedian he once was.

First, you absolutely did put words in my mouth. "your view would be no one who is black could have condemned Michael Richards unless they actually saw/heard him..." "The thought that you have no opinions on things that you have not personally witnessed is absolutely ridiculous. And the thought that a marginalized community should have to listen to an act that attacks it and trivializes the members' experiences before they can say they find it offensive shows a gross lack of understanding of marginalized communities." I clearly never said anything of the sort, yet you attribute those thoughts to me. That's sad.

I didn't intend to put words in your mouth as much as I intended to tell you my interpretation of what you said, hence the phrase, "It sounds like you are saying ..." but I'm happy to withdraw the comment. I suppose I did the same as I accused you of doing.

You keep saying things like "why should so-and-so do this, so that YOU feel better about their opinion?" As I stated multiple times above, nobody HAS to do anything. Nobody gives a shirt about how carefully I consider their opinion. I'm not asking anyone to do anything, and I don't care if anyone watches the show. However, if someone is going to criticize the show, I'm going to consider whether they have actually watched it, and I am not going to take seriously the criticism of someone who has not seen it. That's my prerogative.

There's plenty of room for criticism. My gosh, there's so many things to criticize. But I'm not going to give much thought to willfully ignorant opinions. If someone wants to skip watching the show and say to anyone who will listen how offensive Dave Chappelle is, nobody is stopping them, least of all me. I'm just not going to give that criticism much consideration. And if I were a news reporter seeking reaction to Dave Chappelle's "The Closer," I would seek out the opinions of people who have seen the show, particularly LGBTQ+ viewers. Their reaction interests me because they actually know what he said.

As to the rest of your post, you clearly haven't watched the show and I have no interest in explaining it to you.

The funny part is, you say "folks like me will leap to his defense," when I haven't actually defended the trans/homophobic jokes themselves or even him personally, really. I've been arguing since the original post that to levy criticism of his show, one should have actually have seen it.

 

[JRoyal]

nobody should expect to have their opinion taken seriously if they haven't because such an opinion is uninformed.

 

[JRoyal]

I think this sums it up pretty well although I'd quibble that he argues black people as a group, not just him, are atop that hierarchy.

It's a provocative point of view. It's also narrowly applied as he seems to ignore that there are black gay and transsexual people. His "jealousy," as he put it, seems to extend to white LGBTQ+ people who can retreat to their whiteness. He seems to consider black LGBTQ+ people as primarily black, if he considers them at all.


First, you absolutely did put words in my mouth. "your view would be no one who is black could have condemned Michael Richards unless they actually saw/heard him..." "The thought that you have no opinions on things that you have not personally witnessed is absolutely ridiculous. And the thought that a marginalized community should have to listen to an act that attacks it and trivializes the members' experiences before they can say they find it offensive shows a gross lack of understanding of marginalized communities." I clearly never said anything of the sort, yet you attribute those thoughts to me. That's sad.

I didn't intend to put words in your mouth as much as I intended to tell you my interpretation of what you said, hence the phrase, "It sounds like you are saying ..." but I'm happy to withdraw the comment. I suppose I did the same as I accused you of doing.

You keep saying things like "why should so-and-so do this, so that YOU feel better about their opinion?" As I stated multiple times above, nobody HAS to do anything. Nobody gives a shirt about how carefully I consider their opinion. I'm not asking anyone to do anything, and I don't care if anyone watches the show. However, if someone is going to criticize the show, I'm going to consider whether they have actually watched it, and I am not going to take seriously the criticism of someone who has not seen it. That's my prerogative.

There's plenty of room for criticism. My gosh, there's so many things to criticize. But I'm not going to give much thought to willfully ignorant opinions. If someone wants to skip watching the show and say to anyone who will listen how offensive Dave Chappelle is, nobody is stopping them, least of all me. I'm just not going to give that criticism much consideration. And if I were a news reporter seeking reaction to Dave Chappelle's "The Closer," I would seek out the opinions of people who have seen the show, particularly LGBTQ+ viewers. Their reaction interests me because they actually know what he said.

As to the rest of your post, you clearly haven't watched the show and I have no interest in explaining it to you.

The funny part is, you say "folks like me will leap to his defense," when I haven't actually defended the trans/homophobic jokes themselves or even him personally, really. I've been arguing since the original post that to levy criticism of his show, one should have actually have seen it.

I asked if the view he expressed about transgender people somehow change later in the special. You said they did. That came across as defense of his comments.