-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Hollywood Reporter: Dave Chappelle Slams Michael Jackson Accusers and "Cancel Culture" in Netflix Special
- Thread starter Deleted member 3812
- Start date
- Status
If you're actually disturbed by it then warrant that concern with a thread instead of a tangential side-shot in the middle of a discussion involving a specific case of it. Why would you expect that discussion to be happening here?
Go on then. Bemoaning every other person on the forum for not discussing something is bizarre when you're not making that discussion happen yourself. You're the one with the grievance and concern so establish that discussion instead of expecting people to intuit what you feel is and isn't being given focus on the forum and then assigning that to racism.
I think he did some of those things while I also believe some of it came down to money all in all I think Michael is guilty of some of it but maybe not all the claims but I'm not gonna sit here and pick apart I think he is guilty at the end
Either wilfully blind or ignorant to what child abuse is. When the sum total of the post is "He's 100% innocent but this doesn't help his case, joke is stale" don't try and mask that your intent in posting isn't just to cape for the dead child rapist.
Leaving Neverland makes it pretty damn clear that the victims are credible.
User Banned (1 Month): Dismissing Allegations of Sexual Abuse Over Multiple Posts in this Thread
What exactly am I masking? I explicitly said MJ is innocent and this special doesn't help the cause in my first comment. Rephrasing it doesn't reveal anything more than that.
Deliberately one-sided and evasive. Many articles have come out since its release questioning the timelines in the movie. The movie itself has been re-edited multiple times as it screened in new markets.
I really hate thinking that DiCaprio may have been a victim of that, hopefully not.
This:
Seemed to imply it wasn't the focal point of your post, which it was. So why is it absolutely important people know that you think Michael Jackson is 100% innocent?
User banned (1 month): excusing transphobia, trolling
Is that not a possibility to you?
What evidence is there of them lying (hint: people, and particularly victims of abuse, often don't remember timelines perfectly)? Have you seen the documentary?
We have a thread for this:
With pages of rebuked nonsense and full of the same tired arguments that were in the first thread. At least do people a favour and post whatever bullshit you have in there.
With pages of rebuked nonsense and full of the same tired arguments that were in the first thread. At least do people a favour and post whatever bullshit you have in there.
I wish people didn't think that being on a stage with a mic gives you some elevated protection against mocking and dismissing specific victims of child rape and abuse, or that it's a valid means through which to espouse your garbage views of trans people.
Last edited:
Don't try to traffic my words bro, you don't know me like that to be doing all that cussing and posturing you doing. This topic is literally about MJ. Wasn't even talking to you
What?
We have a thread to discuss the documentary itself which is where the topic was headed. I didn't even reference you in that prompt and had just been discussing the "MJ is innocent" nonsense with someone else entirely.
Then I did respond to your post in the topic with this part:
Do you believe that there are things that should be absolutely off limits to a comedian, if you do. What's the limit? Gay jokes, crack jokes, abortion jokes. When does it go from funny to offensive.
Most people understand there to be things that are off limits. I don't think a white comedian donning blackface to mock black people would be acceptable under the guise of "comedy" even if there's certainly still a crowd that would lap it up.
I mentioned two specific things in my post:
I think it's pretty clear what my stance is in that post, on the elements relevant to the program in question.
I believe Michael Jackson's accusers but I don't believe anything should be off limits when it comes to art. That said so many people end the conversation there and view it as a license to wield that right irresponsibly or as a crutch for lack of any actual comedic or artistic abilities. This whole 100% innocent nonsense is wacky and really muddies all the waters of cogent discourse.
I don't think comedy inherently gets to be assigned "art" just because it's an attempt at comedy. Much the same way that people can't just spray-paint a swastika on the side of a shop and call it art. I agree with you outside of that though. Great comedy can be art but there's a distinction between that and someone using the fact they're on a stage and have a mic as a veil to espouse their trash views.
My calling out someone specifically for their nonsense in a routine doesn't warrant some "where will it end" extrapolation. It's pretty clear exactly what my issue is with, and it's common sense that there's lines in comedy even if it's given more tolerance than other areas.
Last edited:
What Dave is doing IS art. This is a Chapelle founded thread. I don't agree with a lot of his premises recently and find this special to be especially weak in terms of comedic impact. I then ask myself "Was his output in terms of humor worth the boundaries he made the purposeful decision to play around with?" In the case of this special I don't think it was worth it and therefore I wouldn't recommend it.
An unsuccessful attempt at creating art doesn't make something not art. Your swastika example doesn't really work. Give me an example of someone putting a swastika on a shop and saying it was art. If you can we can discuss that artist and that piece. If said Artist exists I would have to examine their stated goals for such a fairly boring display. That is my opinion though. I agree with a lot of your premises as presented tonight and you made me consider a lot. I'm a victim of childhood abuse myself and I think about this topic a lot. I've been on many different sides throughout the years.
I disagree. Just because someone is a comedian doesn't mean that whenever they're on-stage with a mic it's art regardless of the content of the piece. It doesn't mean they can state whatever they feel like within that environment and it unequivocally gets granted some layer of protection under it being 'art'.
This seems contradictory. If it's inherently art then it could never be unsuccessful. Unless we're discussing someone's interpretation of their own work against the reception of the audience. I get your wider point; art is subjective and thus any attempt is defined as it. However that definition doesn't afford it any protected status or elevation when it comes to being criticised and rebuked. Despite being at odds in places I do agree with shards of your sentiment and likewise enjoy the discussion.
Last edited:
I wish some comedians wouldn't be transphobic and victim blame
Thought he might have turned a corner after his last specials as he seemed a bit more contemplative in those. Probably doesn't care though since Netflix already backed up the Brinks truck. He knows what buttons he's pushing as he would laugh at his his own jokes/crowds reaction when the joke was dumb or in poor taste.
there are of course funny jokes to be made about the whole michael jackson debacle, but jokes at the expense of people who were raped as children and whose lives have been upended by that are not okay. chris rock knows how to make a good michael jackson joke.
What part did you like better, the bit where he thinks trans people are weirdos equivalent to him getting around doing a "ching chong Chinaman" bit or the part where he doesn't understand why he's not allowed to say faggot?
Sure, nothing should be restricted, but when straight cis men are making jokes about transgender people, victims of rape, or somesuch, they need to tread EXTREMELY carefully not to be hateful, homophobic/transphobic/misogynistic shitgibbons & morons. Chapelle unfortunately is always so, so he should definitely stay away from these topics because the only thing he can seemingly do is be an ass about it.
Art isn't beyond criticism and something isn't some kind of protected class from demands to treat people (especially the opressed) better just because it's art.
Is it really that hard to understand that this transphobic, bigoted, victim blaming material directly attacks many here on a personal level? Give your head a damn shake and try having some empathy for once in your life. So very tired of those that deem it necessary to dance in here and gloat about how funny they find this shit, just say what you really want to say.
I don't think wearing a scarlet letter is appropriate considering it's my choice. Anyway, sorry to derail.
The video of the court depostition, where they contradict what they claim in the documentary.
Which makes one of the statements a literal lie and I rather believe they lied in an HBO documentary, than in court under an oath of truth.
Edit: I believe MJ was a pedo btw, whether he acted it or not. It is embarrassing though that people are getting banned for questioning the objectivity of an hollywood documentary.
Last edited:
Maybe if gay and/or trans people bother you, you deserve one.
He's not playing a role, he's just transphobic. It's okay to get mad at someone for being transphobic, since it means they're a piece of shit.
User Banned (1 week): dismissing transphobia
Of course it's a role. Unless he's sharing these beliefs when not on a stage. I've never took stand up as anything but a show.
You're not questioning the objectivity of a hollywood documentary. You're questioning the claims of two young men who claim they were raped. That's beyond fucked up, especially given the moronic "Well duh they lied about it years before!" defense.
Explain the differences between Dave's transphobic "chinaman" jokes and blackface.
"It's just a role bro"
Why did you ask to be banned in this thread of all threads?
Don't call me a moron.
And I didn't say they lied years before you are in your "moronic defense".
He was interviewed by The Washington Blade, in which he called being trans a "lifestyle".
It's not a fucking lifestyle. It's not a choice. That view is transphobic.
He's not pretending, he's just a transphobic asshole.
- Status