Continuation Cancel culture IRL Part 2

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

At least you're upfront trying to censor ideas you don't like.

If that is your glib, one-dimensional view of what I said, then, OK, whatever

Perhaps you would have been comfortable being one of the fine people carrying a tiki-torch in Charlottesville on the weekend of August 11 and 12, 2017, chanting "Blood & Soil" and"The Jews will not replace us". You do advocate for absolute free speech after all!

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

If that is your glib, one-dimensional view of what I said, then, OK, whatever

Perhaps you would have been comfortable being one of the fine people carrying a tiki-torch in Charlottesville on the weekend of August 11 and 12, 2017, chanting "Blood & Soil" and"The Jews will not replace us". You do advocate for absolute free speech after all!

I think this again misunderstands the distinction, and a big one at that, of saying you uphold the right of speech without having to advocate that particular speech.

If I say, "Sure, I think Communist Parties should be legal", it doesn't mean that I must therefore be a Communist.

If I think it should be legal for the Westboro Baptist Church to say, "God Hates Fags" it doesn't mean I therefore believe that God Hates Fags.

The question should be about the right to that speech and the appropriateness of certain types of speech in certain settings (which is where some of the anti-cancel culture people go wrong because they often assume that just because something is legal it should be permitted in all workplaces).

The point is not that if you support a person's right to say something that you must therefore agree with what they say.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Also, someone who unironically used the term “Uncle Tom” would probably get fired.

Originally Posted by d4m10n

It's a slur; it's only directed at black folks.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I know. It’s racist to use Uncle Tom in the context of a black person acting white or supporting white supremacy etc…

I unequivocally withdraw and apologise for using that term. I knew it was offensive and I shouldn't have used it.

Replace with "scumbag"

[Stout]

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides

FIRE

“I hope my story can salvage some measure of integrity in higher education,” said Earnest. “Universities must give more weight to the devastating, long-term effects of their actions on hard-working career academics like myself than they do to the short-term pleasure of being perceived as ‘right’ in the eyes of a small but vocal group of students.”

The linked story is a little too complex to summarize easily. I would like to highlight one aspect of this incident, namely the outrage that the students claimed to feel. I respectfully but strongly question whether the students really were as upset by this as their words and actions suggest. That goes double for the boulder that the University of Wisconsin moved (see upthread). Some have dubbed this performance art. That's a little too kind IMO.

WOW! That's some Satanic Panic level paranoia and pants crapping right there

Quick to judge
Quick to anger
Slow to understand

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Perhaps you would have been comfortable being one of the fine people carrying a tiki-torch in Charlottesville on the weekend of August 11 and 12, 2017, chanting "Blood & Soil" and"The Jews will not replace us".

Bobbymyseh!

Dunno if there's a Yiddish saying for moving the goalposts, but to go from Ayers lecturing in Chicago to Neo-Nazis marching in Charlottesville is quite impressive.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I think this again misunderstands the distinction, and a big one at that, of saying you uphold the right of speech without having to advocate that particular speech.

If I say, "Sure, I think Communist Parties should be legal", it doesn't mean that I must therefore be a Communist.

If I think it should be legal for the Westboro Baptist Church to say, "God Hates Fags" it doesn't mean I therefore believe that God Hates Fags.

The question should be about the right to that speech and the appropriateness of certain types of speech in certain settings (which is where some of the anti-cancel culture people go wrong because they often assume that just because something is legal it should be permitted in all workplaces).

The point is not that if you support a person's right to say something that you must therefore agree with what they say.

Here what you don't undertsand,.

I do not agree with the concept of free speech being absolute, with everyone having the right to say what they like, when they like, regardless of the harm it many cause others, and not suffer consequences for doing so.

I am a firm believer that speech is an action, and that harmful speech against members of protected classes is tantamount to harmful actions against members of protected classes. It is a belief that I will never, ever back away from.

For mine, calling a black man the n-word, calling a Jew a "kike", calling a gay person a "faggot" etc, are functionally the same as discriminating against them in material matters such as employment, housing, education etc.

This is why I 100% support the firing of people whose speech and actions are racist, this is why I 100% support prosecution of people like Scott McCluskey and Simon Silwood. Make them social pariahs for their actions.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Bobbymyseh!

Dunno if there's a Yiddish saying for moving the goalposts, but to go from Ayers lecturing in Chicago to Neo-Nazis marching in Charlottesville is quite impressive.

Its quite simple: Either you think free speech should be absolute, or you don't. There is no nuanced position as long as you hold that view.

You d4m10n , advocate for absolute, unrestricted free speech. Picking and choosing how bad its allowed to be before it does or does not meet your standard for "absolute" is not an option. ALL speech would be free speech, and therefore absolutely allowed. That means I could publish detailed plans for the building of a bomb, call 911 and make a false report of a home invasion, make a public death threat against anyone, and yes, yell fire in a crowded theatre, and you would have to defend my rights to do all these things because you would be defending my free speech rights.

If ANY of these things were unacceptable to you, and you favour the idea of a law that would make any of these things a crime, then that is "speech you don't like" so you aren't really an advocate for absolute free speech, you are just like me, the only difference is that you and I draw the line in different places.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

I unequivocally withdraw and apologise for using that term. I knew it was offensive and I shouldn't have used it.

Replace with "scumbag"

Well, I forgive you. But would smartcooky forgive with you?

[Cain]

The braying buffoons won't stop about Superman. Clark Kent's son is bisexual. Why would a ripped, spandex-wearing dude impervious to AIDs have sex with men?? It makes no sense.

Now there's some foul-mouthed colorist quitting his job at DC for reasons not unlike people are quitting Netflix. Aggressively oblivious and hypocritical conservatives are praising him. "What really pissed me off was saying truth, justice, and a better world," Eltaeb [the quitter colorist] added. "**** that it was Truth, Justice, and the American way," he said. "My Grandpa almost died in World War II; we don’t have a right to destroy **** that people died for to give us. It’s a bunch of ******* nonsense."

His grandpa almost died for dumb comic books?? Superman is an illegal alien. He wasn't even born in the United States. He took an American's job and works in the fake news. He could've been a farmer in Kansas, but nooooooooo. He's moving to the big city -- probably to lead double life involving sex with men in phone booths.

Were corporations true to the character when he was used for Cold War propaganda? If nothing else, being dedicated to a "better tomorrow" makes him truer to his roots: It kind of makes sense that an alien would have a more cosmopolitan outlook (the word "cosmopolitan" is derived from "cosmos". The Superman character is based on (or at least has been inspired by) Christ mythology. Is Jesus also an American?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

You d4m10n, advocate for absolute, unrestricted free speech.

Pretty sure I've never advocated for legalizing defamation or death threats. Are you sure you've got the right d4m10n here?

ETA: https://www.theatlantic.com/national...-quote/264449/

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Pretty sure I've never advocated for legalizing defamation or death threats. Are you sure you've got the right d4m10n here?

ETA: https://www.theatlantic.com/national...-quote/264449/

Yes, I'm sure.

If you advocate for absolute freedom of speech then ipso facto, you are advocating for legalizing defamation or death threats - this is unavoidable. The moment you say "well, I don't support legalizing defamation or death threats", then you are drawing a line, and therefore it follows with elegant inevitability, that you are not advocating for absolute freedom of speech. That makes you the same as me, someone who beleives in limited free speech, you just draw the line in a different place.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

If you advocate for absolute freedom of speech...

Why are you talking about this? No one here advocates for absolute freedom of speech so as to include death threats, fraud, criminal conspiracy, etc.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Here what you don't undertsand,.

I do not agree with the concept of free speech being absolute, with everyone having the right to say what they like, when they like, regardless of the harm it many cause others, and not suffer consequences for doing so.

I am a firm believer that speech is an action, and that harmful speech against members of protected classes is tantamount to harmful actions against members of protected classes. It is a belief that I will never, ever back away from.

For mine, calling a black man the n-word, calling a Jew a "kike", calling a gay person a "faggot" etc, are functionally the same as discriminating against them in material matters such as employment, housing, education etc.

This is why I 100% support the firing of people whose speech and actions are racist, this is why I 100% support prosecution of people like Scott McCluskey and Simon Silwood. Make them social pariahs for their actions.

Huh?

Nobody is a free speech absolutist.

There are, as I said, two points, which should not be confused.

1.) Free speech as a right that should not be infringed, where possible, by the government. This obviously does not include threats of violence etc... but also in some jurisdictions this does not include hate speech. Where to draw the line in terms of harm is a difficult one.

2.) The appropriateness of certain types of speech that while perfectly legal in other contexts, may still be unacceptable in certain employment settings.

People seem to get really confused about these two things.

In addition, there is...

3) ...sometimes claims that protests or criticisms are illegitimate because they are attempts to cancel. However, if you firmly believe in the rights of people under 1, then you cannot really complain too much, or at least consistently, with people doing 3.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Why are you talking about this? No one here advocates for absolute freedom of speech so as to include death threats, fraud, criminal conspiracy,etc.

And there's the qualifier.

You support free speech, but you draw the line at death threats, which you are happy to see criminalised, i.e. you are happy to censor speech you don't like

I support free speech, but I draw the line at racist speech, which I am happy to see criminalised, i.e. I am happy to censor speech I don't like.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

And there's the qualifier.

You support free speech, but you draw the line at death threats, which you are happy to see criminalised, i.e. you are happy to censor speech you don't like

I support free speech, but I draw the line at racist speech, which I am happy to see criminalised, i.e. I am happy to censor speech I don't like.

A good thing you aren’t a lawmaker.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by Cain

"What really pissed me off was saying truth, justice, and a better world," Eltaeb [the quitter colorist] added.

Wait - his name is Eltaeb? Is he a big Beatles fan or something?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by lionking

A good thing you aren’t a lawmaker.

I'd be par for the course in most countries in the European Union!

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Yes, I'm sure.



If you advocate for absolute freedom of speech then ipso facto, you are advocating for legalizing defamation or death threats - this is unavoidable. The moment you say "well, I don't support legalizing defamation or death threats", then you are drawing a line, and therefore it follows with elegant inevitability, that you are not advocating for absolute freedom of speech. That makes you the same as me, someone who beleives in limited free speech, you just draw the line in a different place.

On the other hand, if speech is treated like other potentially harmful acts, then truth is no defense. Some history is genuinely painful to discuss. Some of it is well settled while other bits are more theoretical and require discussion to settle. Without certain freedoms for such discussions, how can we ever learn the truth?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Yeah, I get what you mean. I did say that the principal should have a word with her, but given the second video and the knowledge that she’s been doing this for some time I would think it requires a bit more than a word. I tend to be optimistic about the idea that people can be better so the school admin should look into this, probably issue a warning and some retraining. I still don’t like to support firings as a first response, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it comes to that.

Now it comes out that the school was well-aware, having actually promoted her activity in the yearbook back in 2012.

[Upchurch]

No one has asked me, but my take on Dace Chappelle, like most comedians, is that he’s mostly only funny when he’s punching up. Punching down isn’t really comedy. It’s bullying. The fact that he doesn’t seem to realize that he’s punching down says he’s gotten out of touch with the world around him.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

I support free speech, but I draw the line at racist speech, which I am happy to see criminalised, i.e. I am happy to censor speech I don't like.

Now that we've seen Jon Gruden's emails, how long should he go to prison?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Punching down isn’t really comedy. It’s bullying.

Is there some sort of progressive stack which makes it clear which sort of folk a rich black man can ethically poke fun at these days? Seems like making fun of white-passing/adjacent cisheteropatriachs has to get old after a short while, they're a fairly boring lot.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

People who are not trans.

The current equity fund INCLUDES transgender people, they want ADDITIONAL funding beyond that ONLY FOR transgender people. Do you think that Netflix has a fund JUST FOR black people, or JUST FOR females or JUST FOR gay people? Everyone else shares the same fund, which the transgender people ALSO share. They're asking for extra funds that only they are allowed to use. That's a special privilege.

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Zero is lower that the proportion of people who are trans, so yes

Are you actually arguing that Netflix has absolutely zero transgender content?

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Yes, they do.

Have you never seen these on a TV program

G, Y, Y7, PG, 14, MA

How about these

D, L, S, V, FV

G - General Audience
Y - Appropriate for all children
Y7 - unsuitable for children under 7 years of age.
PG - Parental Guidance recommended
14 - unsuitable for children under 14 years of age
MA - unsuitable for children under 17 years ofage.

D –Suggestive dialogue
L –Coarse or crude language
S –Sexual situations
V – Violence
FV –Fantasy violence
MA - Mature audiences

These warnings are specifically for groups, like parents of young children, those who might be upset by violence, those who don't want to be surprised by sexual content that might find content disturbing or harmful.

Why do you think these content advisories came about in the first place?

Note that there are no ratings for "racist" or "sexist" or "homophobic". Why do you think that "transphobic" should be a specific classification? Do you think that any other "ism" should also be a classification that is determined solely by people that are offended by that particular "ism"?

Originally Posted by smartcooky

See above

Irrelevant. None of those ratings suggest alternatives. When a show is rated for Violence, Netflix doesn't seem to feel compelled to "suggest" a show rated "peace" as an alternative.

Originally Posted by smartcooky

First the damage has to be undone, the anti-trans, anti LGBTQ, racist and bigoted attitudes of people needs to be changed. That takes treating oppressed groups more fairly and in a less discriminatory manner, and sometimes yes, that means giving them special treatment to compensate or offset the actions and attitudes of bigots, until the wrongs are righted. It also requires certain members of Society to face the harsh reality that they are bigoted ********* that need to be smacked down hard for their bigotry!
.
.

I do so enjoy the males that preach that females are bigots for wanting to preserve female only spaces and acknowledge the reality of female biology. Nothing like seeing a male person opine that females should be punished for not letting some males do whatever they want... and somehow feel righteously justified in doing so.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

The problem with this is there are a number of academics who use this "freedom, tolerance, free expression and principle" as a cover for their bigotry. Having some alphabet soup after their names doesn't automatically make them nice people who wouldn't call a black person a ******.

(This from someone who does have some alphabet soup after his name)

All that bigotry exuded by Free Black Thought

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Because

1. The petty bickering that goes on in academia is of little interest to me, and

2. I already know that FIRE defends speech I find unacceptable and indefensible, and

3. Any organisation that advocates allowing scumbags like Milo Yiannopoulos, Ann Coulter, Bill Ayers and Ben "Uncle Tom" Carson a platform to open their vile mouths in front of university students is not an organisation I have any interest in hearing from.

Are you aware that the highlighted is pretty much the entire reason that freedom of speech exists in the first place?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Elaedith

He weighs the same as a duck.

ROFL

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Here what you don't undertsand,.

I do not agree with the concept of free speech being absolute, with everyone having the right to say what they like, when they like, regardless of the harm it many cause others, and not suffer consequences for doing so.

I am a firm believer that speech is an action, and that harmful speech against members of protected classes is tantamount to harmful actions against members of protected classes. It is a belief that I will never, ever back away from.

For mine, calling a black man the n-word, calling a Jew a "kike", calling a gay person a "faggot" etc, are functionally the same as discriminating against them in material matters such as employment, housing, education etc.

This is why I 100% support the firing of people whose speech and actions are racist, this is why I 100% support prosecution of people like Scott McCluskey and Simon Silwood. Make them social pariahs for their actions.

The entirely realistic outcome of your view toward speech is one that disallows dissent from the current orthodox view completely. Your view hands over the determination of 'acceptable' speech to a third party, and you do so while blithely assuming that such party will magically always hold the same views as you.

I think you also are blind to the completely subjective and selective nature of your position. For example, how do you feel about male people threatening female people with rape, calling them misogynistic names, and opinion that females should be killed, bombed? Are those types of speech that you think are acceptable and should be protected?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Well, I forgive you. But would smartcooky forgive with you?

I rather suspect that if the poster were someone other than smarcooky, smartcooky would not accept that apology.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

No one has asked me, but my take on Dace Chappelle, like most comedians, is that he’s mostly only funny when he’s punching up. Punching down isn’t really comedy. It’s bullying. The fact that he doesn’t seem to realize that he’s punching down says he’s gotten out of touch with the world around him.

Topsy-turvy world: A black male is "punching down" at middle and upper class white males... whereas those particular middle and upper class white males are "punching up" at females.

[dirtywick]

You guys are getting dangerously close to committing a cancel against smartcooky. He’s already been anonymously called out for racist terminology, shamed, and forced to apologize

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

You guys are getting dangerously close to committing a cancel against smartcooky. He’s already been anonymously called out for racist terminology, shamed, and forced to apologize

Yeah, just cancel me... like I would give a **** anyway!

Those members of this forum who would cancel me are those who, shall we say, I can take or leave when it comes to debate (see my signature).

They all run away when the going gets tough anyway.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I rather suspect that if the poster were someone other than smartcooky, smartcooky would not accept that apology.

Never met a genuine apology I didn't accept

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

The entirely realistic outcome of your view toward speech is one that disallows dissent from the current orthodox view completely. Your view hands over the determination of 'acceptable' speech to a third party, and you do so while blithely assuming that such party will magically always hold the same views as you.

The entirely realistic (and currently observed) outcome of your view toward speech is one that allows anything. Your view allows racism, bigotry, homophobia and transphobia to go unchecked and unimpeded, and greatly helps to divide society, while blithely assuming that everyone else will magically always hold the same views as you.

It is worth noting that countries such as the UK and other European countries have had the kinds of laws I advocate, against hate speech, for at least two decades, and yet the sky has not fallen in any of those places. So far, NONE of your "entirely realistic outcome" has come to pass. I wonder why that is?

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I think you also are blind to the completely subjective and selective nature of your position. For example, how do you feel about male people threatening female people with rape, calling them misogynistic names, and opinion that females should be killed, bombed? Are those types of speech that you think are acceptable and should be protected?

Cancel them

PS: you think that being against "threatening rape, calling them misogynistic names, and opinion that females should be killed, bombed"?" is a subjective view? Really? .
.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

The current equity fund INCLUDES transgender people,

No, it doesn't

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Are you actually arguing that Netflix has absolutely zero transgender content?

I have a subscription to Netflix. I looked for it, there is none that I can find.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Note that there are no ratings for "racist" or "sexist" or "homophobic". Why do you think that "transphobic" should be a specific classification? Do you think that any other "ism" should also be a classification that is determined solely by people that are offended by that particular "ism"?

Well spotted. You should write to the Censor's Office and suggest it

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I do so enjoy the males that preach that females are bigots for wanting to preserve female only spaces and acknowledge the reality of female biology. Nothing like seeing a male person opine that females should be punished for not letting some males do whatever they want... and somehow feel righteously justified in doing so.

Boy you have posted some strawmen in the past, but this is the biggest, fattest one yet!

What did you do, buy in bulk?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Are you aware that the highlighted is pretty much the entire reason that freedom of speech exists in the first place?

Yup, but as must be abundantly clear to you by now (surely), freedom of speech means something entirely different for me than it does for you.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

All that bigotry exuded by Free Black Thought

Non-sequitur. Your reply bears no relationship to the snip of the post you are replying to.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Is there some sort of progressive stack which makes it clear which sort of folk a rich black man can ethically poke fun at these days? Seems like making fun of white-passing/adjacent cisheteropatriachs has to get old after a short while, they're a fairly boring lot.

This false belief that 'progressives' (a lot of people who are not progressives feel the same way) operate on some kind of 'oppression Olympics hierarchy' is very widespread. It is even the belief of some people who only side with 'the left' because they do think it works that way and they like the power they hope that gives them.

Writings of some around The Closer show they'd be with the authoritarians in a minute if they thought it would give their identity group more power (i.e. TERFs). The confusion over, 'who do I side with, black people or LGBTQ?' means one had framed things so that one is trying to advance a tribe rather than advance justice. Your framing shows the same, wrong, thinking. It isn't who one is 'giving you a pass', but the context of what one is doing.

If a gay man makes fun of or otherwise marginalizes a black man for being black, he's punching down.

If a black man makes fun of a gay man for being gay, he's punching down.

If a rich, white, famous, *******, trans person is mocked by a poor, otherwise upstanding, black cis woman for being trans, that's punching down too.

And if a rich, famous, black comic makes flat jokes mocking not just individual people, but entire marginalized groups, that's still punching down. Chappelle's dumb comments around trans people are really overshadowing how the exact same material was homophobic and racist towards black people. Simply the framing of 'black people vs lgbtq people' denies that black people can also be in the lgbtq community, but he goes further and declares that black people can't really be queer because that's white person ****. A simple (or dishonest) framing could pretend he's punching towards 'rich white men' there, but the actual marginalized people would be lgbtq people of color.

This is problematic because the 'ownership' of black culture he and some other black people (mostly men) try to use to force lgbtq people out of 'being really black' feeds the violence that makes most murders of trans people be against poc.

The idea that you can't be critical of black people when they're being harmful towards people in the lgbtq community because black people 'have it worse' misses the point entirely. Oppression isn't a tradable commodity where you can leverage oppression savings on the oppression future's market then use those oppression points to attack other oppressed groups. It isn't one group against others at all but people working against oppression itself. Simplifying it to 'white people aren't allowed to say things' has been causing too many problems.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

This false belief that 'progressives' (a lot of people who are not progressives feel the same way) operate on some kind of 'oppression Olympics hierarchy' is very widespread.

I used the phrase progressive stack^WP to indicate that I had a specific hierarchical implementation in mind, one used by actual people doing progressive activism. You might ought to have looked it up prior to declaring it unreal.

Originally Posted by tyr_13

And if a rich, famous, black comic makes flat jokes mocking not just individual people, but entire marginalized groups, that's still punching down.

Okay, I get it. Anything making fun of anyone who is oppressed in any way is punching down. All comedy will henceforth make fun of well-off white neurotypical able-bodied cisgender heterosexual males who don't suffer from addiction or any other pitiable conditions.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I used the phrase progressive stack^WP to indicate that I had a specific hierarchical implementation in mind, one used by actual people doing progressive activism. You might ought to have looked it up prior to declaring it unreal.

Said the belief was false as applied to 'progressives' (anti-oppression coalition really) as a whole and in fact pointed out that many 'progressives' do in fact have the same wrong belief. I didn't say the belief didn't exist.

Quote:

Okay, I get it. Anything making fun of anyone who is oppressed in any way is punching down. All comedy will henceforth make fun of well-off white neurotypical able-bodied cisgender heterosexual males who don't suffer from addiction or any other pitiable conditions.

You don't get it, and you're trying not to. I'm fine with that and have no delusions I'm going to convince you or that you care. That won't stop me from using your writings to point out the flaws in your reasoning though.

I literally said the opposite and said that it isn't who you are 'making fun of' but what you're mocking. Mocking Jenner for her idiotic arguments is fine even though she is a trans woman, mocking her for being a trans woman is punching down. I even gave a bunch of examples.

As someone who worked part time in comedy for almost a decade, there are few things more stupid than the tacit assumption that comedy has to be mocking someone or some group.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Mocking Jenner for her idiotic arguments is fine even though she is a trans woman, mocking her for being a trans woman is punching down.

Did Chappelle actually do this?

Quote:

I even gave a bunch of examples.

No, you did not. You provided vague hypotheticals instead of quoting, say, Chappelle.

When he came up with the recurring crackhead bit (for example) was that punching down?

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Did Chappelle actually do this?

I never claimed he did.

Quote:

No, you did not. You provided vague hypotheticals instead of quoting, say, Chappelle.

Chappelle's material was literally another example I used.

Quote:

When he came up with the recurring crackhead bit (for example) was that punching down?

Yeah, in many cases it was. Which he realized.

Any talk about 'cancelling Chappelle', which my previous posts weren't even directly about, needs to acknowledge that he literally canceled himself for what, a decade? He realized how racists white people were using his comedy in exactly the way that many of us said they were, he stopped his show, and ran out of the country to find himself. 'They didn't cancel him when he was mocking black people', but he did.