Minorities in Comics and Other Media, etc

[CSTowle]

While I wouldn't say cancelling someone depending on the circumstances is necessarily wrong, I do think this confusion (whether truly naive/ignorant, or put-on to avoid being seen as embracing what is clearly an attempt to silence people you disagree with) about what cancellation is and whether it even exists (which it clearly does, again whether you agree with it or not) is wrong.

The people calling for this want David Chappelle to be silenced. They don't want Netflix, or Hulu, or any other platform to be putting his thoughts and routines out there. They're protesting Netflix because that's where they are, but if it were HBO or Comedy Central or anywhere else (or several places) they'd be protesting there instead. It's not about knocking it off Netflix, it's about silencing someone they disagree with.

We can have a debate on the merits of doing that. But trying to mislead about the intentions behind it, or to try and deny such a thing exists altogether, is straight out dishonest. It undercuts any attempted moral high ground by lying out of the gate about the intentions. You know it's a dishonest argument to say "well you don't have a Netflix special, are you canceled?" You know this and yet still took the time to type out what you know is a dishonest argument.

Netflix doesn't care, and isn't trying to cancel Chappelle. Other groups are very much trying to do so. That doesn't excuse it and doesn't distract from the fact of that. Saying "the First Amendment is only about Government suppression of speech" is technically true, and also completely beside the point. It's a strawman.

If you think people should be subject to losing income and ability to do their jobs based upon what they say, then make that argument. But do so honestly. You undercut those who might agree with you when you knowingly make dishonest arguments to distract or avoid defending your position on its merits.

[ed2962]

Netflix is a business, and if they take any content down it will be a business decision, made with maximizing profit in mind, not "cancelling" anyone. Having one streaming service out of the many out there not have your specials on is not being "cancelled". Netflix not being able to have MCU movies anymore once Disney+ started doesn't mean those movies are cancelled.

I mean, you and I don't have specials on Netflix. Does that mean we have been "cancelled"?

I don't have one either! I have been preemptively cancelled! No good SJWs...

But yeah, even if Netflix took his show off the air, there's any number of other channels and services that would love to have him.

What loss has Dave taken?

[ed2962]

He hasn't been canceled. But there are plenty of people who are demanding that Netflix remove his specials from their platform. If they were to give in to those demands, they would in effect cancel Dave Chappelle.

Now I don't say that transgender individuals shouldn't feel hurt by Chappelle's words. If that's how they feel, then that's how they feel and I get that. I just don't think getting his specials off of Netflix will accomplish anything.

Well, in theory if they took off his show what would be accomplished is that the corporation would be sending the message that they don't support transphobic rhetoric. This would be positive thing in the minds of some people. Dave's first amendment rights wouldn't have been violated. His ability to make money wouldn't be hampered.

I'm not even saying that Netflix should take is show off. But we're in this strange time that if anyone criticizes a stand-up comedian, it's somehow "censorship" and "free speech" is at stake.

[Adam Allen]

While I wouldn't say cancelling someone depending on the circumstances is necessarily wrong, I do think this confusion (whether truly naive/ignorant, or put-on to avoid being seen as embracing what is clearly an attempt to silence people you disagree with) about what cancellation is and whether it even exists (which it clearly does, again whether you agree with it or not) is wrong.

The people calling for this want David Chappelle to be silenced. They don't want Netflix, or Hulu, or any other platform to be putting his thoughts and routines out there. They're protesting Netflix because that's where they are, but if it were HBO or Comedy Central or anywhere else (or several places) they'd be protesting there instead. It's not about knocking it off Netflix, it's about silencing someone they disagree with.

We can have a debate on the merits of doing that. But trying to mislead about the intentions behind it, or to try and deny such a thing exists altogether, is straight out dishonest. It undercuts any attempted moral high ground by lying out of the gate about the intentions. You know it's a dishonest argument to say "well you don't have a Netflix special, are you canceled?" You know this and yet still took the time to type out what you know is a dishonest argument.

Netflix doesn't care, and isn't trying to cancel Chappelle. Other groups are very much trying to do so. That doesn't excuse it and doesn't distract from the fact of that. Saying "the First Amendment is only about Government suppression of speech" is technically true, and also completely beside the point. It's a strawman.

If you think people should be subject to losing income and ability to do their jobs based upon what they say, then make that argument. But do so honestly. You undercut those who might agree with you when you knowingly make dishonest arguments to distract or avoid defending your position on its merits.

I can appreciate that you disagree with me. You feel strongly on the topic, and I can respect that.

There is no conversation to be had if you insist my opinion is "knowingly dishonest" however. I mean, maybe you are right about "cancellation" and maybe I am wrong. I would appreciate the respect of not being called a liar, however. I promise I will grant you this same respect, in return.

[CSTowle]

I'd argue you should grant me and everyone else you'd be engaging in conversation with the respect of arguing your opinions honestly. That to me is more important than being civil.

If you think someone deserves to lose the ability to have their views and perspectives on platforms where they're accessible to a large number of people because you feel they are harmful and contribute to an atmosphere/culture that allows for the harm or suppression of others, I think that's a worthwhile discussion to have.

Trying to pretend that those attempts to silence aren't happening, aren't important anyway, that it's not a government-run suppression so it's not a freedom of speech issue, or the like is dishonest. It's attempting to do something and then deny you're trying to do it.

If you think it's OK to silence or suppress or deplatform somebody then say that openly and make the argument. If you can't do that it opens the question of whether you also believe that it is wrong to do so and want to avoid being seen as doing so.

[CSTowle]

For the record I believe Dave is wrong. I think he's old, "set in his ways", and is trying to wrap his head around it. He may get there, he may not. But I also believe that this is a newly prominent topic and not everybody should be expected to be 100% on-board and understanding of issues that until now they may not have even been aware of, let alone had to attempt to empathize with.

Comedians usually examine things that are at the forefront of society, look at them from different angles, and point out blind spots and odd but widely accepted things. Trans rights are high profile in the last decade or so, and many would not touch the topic in anything like an examining way because they'd want to avoid misstepping and ending up in the situation Chappelle is in now.

I think in general attempting to silence bad or potentially harmful ideas does more damage than exposing those ideas and arguing against them effectively. But it's especially harmful when you reflexively attack those who might be open to listening to you and reexamining their beliefs. I think Dave is in that camp.

It might give one a good feeling to righteously slam someone who disagrees with them on a particular issue, but at the end of the day the only thing gained there is that personal emotional "holier-than-though" moment. If you want to actually change things you need to find a way to make the argument to those who might be receptive to it in a way that makes them listen to you and take your way of thinking into account. Reflexively s##tting on them is only going to alienate them.

You can say, "Good. If they're not on board from the get-go they're not a real ally and they're part of the problem." And again, that might make you feel superior. But it only makes things worse and gains society nothing. Especially those marginalized people who could use more understanding that you're willing to sacrifice for a momentary feeling of superiority.

[Adam Allen]

I'd argue you should grant me and everyone else you'd be engaging in conversation with the respect of arguing your opinions honestly. That to me is more important than being civil.

If you think someone deserves to lose the ability to have their views and perspectives on platforms where they're accessible to a large number of people because you feel they are harmful and contribute to an atmosphere/culture that allows for the harm or suppression of others, I think that's a worthwhile discussion to have.

Trying to pretend that those attempts to silence aren't happening, aren't important anyway, that it's not a government-run suppression so it's not a freedom of speech issue, or the like is dishonest. It's attempting to do something and then deny you're trying to do it.

If you think it's OK to silence or suppress or deplatform somebody then say that openly and make the argument. If you can't do that it opens the question of whether you also believe that it is wrong to do so and want to avoid being seen as doing so.

Once again, you clearly have very strong opinions about this. However, I am not dishonest, based on my not feeling as strongly on the issue as you. You are applying a great many arguments to me that I have not made, and I am not "dishonest" because I will not claim ownership to views that I do not actually have.

I will give you a couple of examples, to hopefully clarify what I mean.

I thought both Louis CK and Al Franken had much more condemnation for their scandals than seemed necessarily warranted to me. I admit I did not extensively research either case, but the allegations against Franken seemed vague and open to misinterpretation, or could possibly look very different depending on one's perspective. And while CK's stuff was weird and definitely not professional, it did not seem a clear-cut case of violating consent; again, just from my vague awareness of what he accused of. However, regardless of my opinion about their scandals, I also don't think either one was "cancelled".

I can only imagine you will again claim this somehow equates dishonesty. To which I can only say, I guess we will have to respectfully disagree. I do not have any personal animosity towards either of the guys I give as example. Yet, I also don't think all the people who did (or do) have a problem with them were not entitled to making their own voices heard. I think that's just the way being a part of society works.

But, I suppose I will just have to live with your feeling like I am dishonest, because I see this all differently from you. I suppose I will manage to sleep at night anyway, so it's all good.

[CosmiComic]

I haven't watched Chappelle's special yet but in a general sense, I think some people should be de-platformed, especially if they're arguing against others having rights. I don't think Chappelle is going that far, but the 'cancel culture is ruining society' attitude isn't really a fair one IMO

[Malvolio]

While I wouldn't say cancelling someone depending on the circumstances is necessarily wrong, I do think this confusion (whether truly naive/ignorant, or put-on to avoid being seen as embracing what is clearly an attempt to silence people you disagree with) about what cancellation is and whether it even exists (which it clearly does, again whether you agree with it or not) is wrong.

The people calling for this want David Chappelle to be silenced. They don't want Netflix, or Hulu, or any other platform to be putting his thoughts and routines out there. They're protesting Netflix because that's where they are, but if it were HBO or Comedy Central or anywhere else (or several places) they'd be protesting there instead. It's not about knocking it off Netflix, it's about silencing someone they disagree with.

We can have a debate on the merits of doing that. But trying to mislead about the intentions behind it, or to try and deny such a thing exists altogether, is straight out dishonest. It undercuts any attempted moral high ground by lying out of the gate about the intentions. You know it's a dishonest argument to say "well you don't have a Netflix special, are you canceled?" You know this and yet still took the time to type out what you know is a dishonest argument.

Netflix doesn't care, and isn't trying to cancel Chappelle. Other groups are very much trying to do so. That doesn't excuse it and doesn't distract from the fact of that. Saying "the First Amendment is only about Government suppression of speech" is technically true, and also completely beside the point. It's a strawman.

If you think people should be subject to losing income and ability to do their jobs based upon what they say, then make that argument. But do so honestly. You undercut those who might agree with you when you knowingly make dishonest arguments to distract or avoid defending your position on its merits.

I agree. If Netflix were to remove Chapelle's specials, but then Hulu picked them up, the specials would still have been canceled by Netflix. I mean, when ABC canceled Tim Allen's sitcom, FOX picked it up and ran it for two more seasons, but ABC still canceled it, right? And if Netflix pulled Chappelle's specials and Hulu picked them up, you can bet the groups that protested Netflix would then move to protest Hulu.

So what the groups are saying is "We are not for government censorship. We are for de facto censorship by making it impossible for certain people to have a media platform." And if that's what they are saying, then they should be honest enough to admit that they are scared that if anyone hears the words of those people, it might give them an excuse to commit violence, so those people should be silenced.

[Malvolio]

For the record I believe Dave is wrong. I think he's old, "set in his ways", and is trying to wrap his head around it. He may get there, he may not. But I also believe that this is a newly prominent topic and not everybody should be expected to be 100% on-board and understanding of issues that until now they may not have even been aware of, let alone had to attempt to empathize with.

Comedians usually examine things that are at the forefront of society, look at them from different angles, and point out blind spots and odd but widely accepted things. Trans rights are high profile in the last decade or so, and many would not touch the topic in anything like an examining way because they'd want to avoid misstepping and ending up in the situation Chappelle is in now.

I think in general attempting to silence bad or potentially harmful ideas does more damage than exposing those ideas and arguing against them effectively. But it's especially harmful when you reflexively attack those who might be open to listening to you and reexamining their beliefs. I think Dave is in that camp.

It might give one a good feeling to righteously slam someone who disagrees with them on a particular issue, but at the end of the day the only thing gained there is that personal emotional "holier-than-though" moment. If you want to actually change things you need to find a way to make the argument to those who might be receptive to it in a way that makes them listen to you and take your way of thinking into account. Reflexively s##tting on them is only going to alienate them.

You can say, "Good. If they're not on board from the get-go they're not a real ally and they're part of the problem." And again, that might make you feel superior. But it only makes things worse and gains society nothing. Especially those marginalized people who could use more understanding that you're willing to sacrifice for a momentary feeling of superiority.

This. If Netflix does drop Chappelle, and no other streaming service picks him up, what has really been accomplished? The groups that protested will celebrate for a day or two, and then what? Will violence against transgender individuals stop, or even become less frequent? I don't think so. I think some groups know how difficult it will be to accomplish that worthy goal, so they set up a surrogate goal of silencing someone like Dave Chappelle so they can at least have a small victory.

[Username taken]

Well, in theory if they took off his show what would be accomplished is that the corporation would be sending the message that they don't support transphobic rhetoric. This would be positive thing in the minds of some people. Dave's first amendment rights wouldn't have been violated. His ability to make money wouldn't be hampered.

I'm not even saying that Netflix should take is show off. But we're in this strange time that if anyone criticizes a stand-up comedian, it's somehow "censorship" and "free speech" is at stake.

No one here has said that though.

[CosmiComic]

No one here has said that though.

Eh, that's kinda what it comes off as. Free speech for the controversial people but not for those criticizing them.

[MindofShadow]

Only way to cancel people who cry about cancel culture is to ignore them and let them scream into the void.

Which is why I said the protests had the wrong affect of giving the thing they are protesting a megaphone.

I don't even remember one statement or joke from the Dave netflix special before this one....

[Username taken]

Eh, that's kinda what it comes off as. Free speech for the controversial people but not for those criticizing them.

That's not true here.

Everyone here is pretty much agreed that people can be angry and protest whatever they want.

Netflix employees have a right to confront the company about the special. No one is contesting that.

[ed2962]

No one here has said that though.

Not in those exact words, but that's the implication when some folks go on about "silencing" and what not. And to Tendrin's point, there's been a few people who actually have been banned from a couple of social media sites for racial things and no one is clutching their pearls about these guys, yet a more famous dude mocking trans folks...