Dave Chappelle
Submitted by gjohnsit on Fri, 09/06/2019 - 12:02am
I'm curious what people think of Sticks and Stones?
Critics hated it. Fans loved it.
There's something here.
Salon: What happened to Dave Chappelle: The cruelty of "Sticks & Stones" is a sign of the times
Vice: You Can Definitely Skip Dave Chappelle's New Netflix Special 'Sticks & Stones'
Comments
I was one of the first to complain
Back in the 80s I noticed that comedy was getting mean spirited, that it was no longer about how "they're funny", it was "they're less than us".
This was not like that. The difference is not easy to explain, but it is easy to see. Chapelle is mocking the situation and the impure thought processes that everyone engages in. He is not glorifying or justifying, he is humanizing.
On to Biden since 1973
The impure thoughts Chapelle is mocking
are examples of why R. Kelly likes 14 year old girls. I'm not sure how that is humanizing us when the narrative about predatory men hunting pubescent girls remains a punchline in public discourse.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Time
It takes time to overcome millions of years of evolution in order to stop "predatory men [from] hunting pubescent girls". There are states such as Alaska and North Carolina where the minimum age for marriage is 14. In 16 other states, the minimum common law marriageable age is 12 for girls and 14 for boys under some circumstances.
Historically, humans bred upon reaching puberty. It's only fairly recently that this began to change. R Kelly's impure thoughts are nothing new. Ridiculing them, as Chappelle does, is a step toward making expression of them socially unacceptable. The thoughts will still exist; it will just become harder for people like R Kelly to act upon them.
The impure thought Chapelle was referring was that
someone exonerates Kelly for beating his wife by asking "what did she do?". The target of his joke was the person asking the question. The joke is that that question is so commonly asked. Personally I think it's funny that you say that Chapelle cannot make a joke about a wife beater because he's also a pedophile. I guess you boycotted The Producers and The Blues Brothers?
On to Biden since 1973
I just saw this
The show is as funny as anything Chappelle ever did. He hasn't changed--his critics have. I mean, what do you think Bill Hicks would do if all of a sudden the world went puritanical? Punching holes in all that is his job. I don't think the liberal establishment has the self-awareness to do this, but they might want to look at that wild divergence between their judgment and the audience's judgment and consider that maybe Chappelle's not the one who's overreaching--it's them.
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." --Noam Chomsky
The first 10 minutes of his special
He jokes about child molestation. At the point where he joked about R.Kelly's sex tape with a 14 year old girl, finishing off the punch line with "there's no such thing as good 36 year old pussy", the title of his special became clear to me.
I have always been a fan of Dave Chappelle, and we could certainly have a discussion about free speech, and that "words are just words". But like the controversy over rape jokes, I believe the narrative that runs through the stories we tell each other does shape our discourse and our attitudes.
So, the question then becomes, why are you highlighting the fact that critics didn't like this? What is it you think is happening?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
That's why I'm asking
A fissure in society is being exposed by Chappelle (based on that wide divergence in ratings).
Whether this is good or bad depends on your point of view.
Good or Bad
Depending on our point of view? Hmmmm...so if popular comedians began making jokes about lynching blacks in the South, or the rising suicide rate among adolescent homosexuals, and Rotten Tomatoes showed a wide divergence between critics and fans, we'd have to have a discussion about whether this "fissure of society" is good or bad?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
So that is what you think is happening?
You think Chappelle has joined the Nazi party and/or the Klan? Or at least has become an enabler?
If that's the case, then you just answered my question of why I posted this essay and asked this question.
You think child molestation
is any less a crime than lynching?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
I denounce Pol Pot
????
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
You demanded a ritual denunciation
So I gave you my standard one.
I demanded nothing of the kind
You had made a false equivalency about my comment, so I responded with another false equivalency.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
That's not the way I saw it
And I think it's pretty obvious where you were headed.
I'm repeating my denunciation of Pol Pot.
And you were headed where
when you interpreted my comment to the KKK?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
At least I have the courage to denounce Pol Pot
Where is your denunciation of Pol Pot, hmmm?
I denounce Pol Pot too
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
@Anja Geitz the definition of
the definition of child is different in different states, nations and societies.
Historically and biologically 14 has not been considered a child until less than a century ago and then only in some areas.
Like Prohibition, which ushered in the rise of the mafia, there is something puritannical about denying that humans become sexually active around age 14.
Makes me want to research what forces were the impetus for creating the culture in which sex before a certain age was not permissable.
It seems completely at odds with the reality of the human condition.
Legal definitions of what constitutes statutory rape
may differ from state to state. But if you honestly believe that the cognitive and psychosocial development of a 14 year old is on the same level as an adult, and thereby qualifies as informed consent, it is pointless continuing this conversation.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
to Anja: child molestation less a crime than lynching ... ?
coming in lately (time zones are killing my reasonable participations in these threads, sorry for that ) and rereading the thread I would like to answer this.
Yes, imho, child molestation is less a 'crime' than lynching. Being molested as a child you can physically survive (meaning you still can breathe and live after the molestation), unfortunately after having been lynched, you denfinitely can't, you are physically as dead as can be. Hence, lynching is more of a crime than child molestation.
Reading through this discussion again I am reminded about a visit I had with one of the strongest and well known healers or marabou or mind manipulator in Benin. Famous politicians sought out his 'protection' from the 'evil spirits' and visited his hut and watched his 'healing rituals being performed'.
While talking to one of his clients (happened to be my then husband) he called his wife to assist his guests (us) to serve something to drink. I would say the wife was around 14-to 15 years old. She was beaming with pride and smiling brightly, all happy to have the function of being in an important role of wife-hood-ness-ness. So, what do you think, was she molested by the old man (at least in his fifties), fondled, mind manipulated or not? Apparently if all of that happened to her, she seemed to have survived it and was able to smile and breathe and even be happy about her role. Now what?
I think I can understand the fact of being traumatized by being molested as a child. They will never forget it, it lives within their conscience for their life, but not to forget, they live. Being lynched though you are really, really dead, you know.
So, let's not forget about this 'tiny', but undeniably important difference.
Still, Nothing for Ungood from my side.
And for gjohnsit, who was proud to denounce Pol Pot. Well, I denounce Idi Amin and Mugabe, but I remember a time when I did not. They had their time periods in life, where they both were seen by parts of the African population as liberators from ... anybody who was less black than they were.
Do you know that all this is shit?
https://www.euronews.com/live
As you stated earlier
That you were glad you did not undersand this thread, I suggest, respectfully, that you also did not understand the point or context of my question. Furthermore, to debate the metaphorical equivalent of whether it is "better" to be beaten by a six foot bat, or a twenty foot bat, is a futile masturbatory exercise in meaningless rhetoric.
Edited for grammar
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
ok, if you say so, it must be so
adding this thoughts?
Who are you, Anja Geitz and what is your purpose here?
I am quite willing of breaking the rules of JtC's site and call you what you want to be called.
adding another thought:
The addiction and fascination to be a jerk is just too much for many to withstand, isn't it?
https://www.euronews.com/live
I've had some time to think about this
First of all, it's been done, it is happening, and it will continue.
Secondly, I also found Chappelle's jokes about MJ's child abuse in poor taste.
But at the same time I don't feel that I should be free from people saying offensive things.
For instance, I see mentally ill homeless people every single day.
On the scale of offensiveness, jokes of any kind barely even registers in comparison.
I find that society tolerating and ignoring our homeless crisis to be offensive and infinitely more important.
Also I don't mind being insulted in the name of humor. I have friends that we have contests slurring each other's heritages and ethnicities.
Context is important. I think people forget that sometimes.
Finally, I don't think you can have real art without offending someone.
Humor is sometimes an art. Is Chappelle's? It depends.
That's true
Which speaks to my original comment about discussions of free speech. But that's not what your essay was highlighting. Your essay was asking why there was such a divergence of opinion between critics and fans on Rotten Tomatoes. Going as far to state that Rotten Tomatoes had exposed a "fissure of society" and that something was "happening".
Now if Rotten Tomatoes had reviewed a comedian who had made jokes about lynching blacks and fans loved it and critics hated it, I would agree with the critics. But that's an entirely different topic than the one you are bringing up now. And while I question your supposition of RT as a litmus of societal norm and/or aberrations, I agree with you on the issue of free speech. Everyone has the right to free speech whether you like what they are saying or not. But as I also said in my original comment to you, people with large megaphones have the power to drive the narrative about the stories we tell each other, and it doesn't seem to me that Chappelle cares much about the stories we are telling ourselves if he is reducing them to punchlines about child molesters.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Michael Jackson
Another joke from Chappelle Show: "Any kid who's dick was sucked by Michael Jackson should've walked into school bragging about it."
Yeah, there's a fissure in society, alright.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
man, I am happy I don't understand this whole thread and
the issues involved. The tragedy is that I don't understand what's the comedy supposedly about. Do I have to laugh or to cry or can I just ignore all of this?
Strange things are happening around here.
If I think of chap
pelleI hear church choirs. And like in this one I don't know if I should cry or laugh but I decided not to ignore it. I am not at all religious. Just saying.[video:https://youtu.be/m-Udb0pX2jU]
https://www.euronews.com/live
Let’s put it this way:
You’ve gone too far, Dave Chappell. His comments could be used to rationalize abusing children.
Suppose a white comedian joked about cops shooting black citizens. Would that be OK? I don’t think Chappell would think so. I certainly would not.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
Sorry Lilly
but it's not Jack Benny's fault if To Be Or Not To Be is twisted to justify the holocaust.
On to Biden since 1973
you
say “there’s something here.” No. There isn’t. Your “something” relies on audience ratings on Rotten Tomatoes. Which no one has ever taken seriously. They’re meaningless. The place is a troll playground, like reddit, or a chan. Might as well rely on those Drudge instapolls to determine who won a debate.
So far on
my scoresheet I have it as Critics 1, Dave Chappelle 0, Great Unwashed 0.
First time for me watching a full DC set, and apart from 2-3 brief moments of mild chuckles, that was one long hour of not laughing at a comedian. I skipped a fair chunk of the final 20 minutes.
I heard a lot of stuff that just seemed first-draft ideas to be developed later but not yet ready for prime time. The "alphabet people" long segment just wasn't funny. And I'm neither L nor G nor B nor T. Not even Q. There's some material there potentially, that's quite clear. Dave just didn't have it.
The MJ pedophilia stuff -- confusing and not terribly funny.
A rare laugh moment with the Jussie Smollet story, I'll give him that.
Dave also apparently likes to laugh at his own jokes, repeatedly retreating to the back of the stage to compose himself, which I found annoying. To me that's a sign the comedian is trying to encourage the audience knowing he has weak material. Or is trying to take the edge off his jokes knowing they are controversial, signaling the audience not to take him too seriously as he's just a comedian. So he intends to be edgy, but not too edgy?
For me, Larry David is about as cutting edge and controversial as I care to go with comedians. Bill Hicks back in the day too. Both edgy and funny and without the long periods in between genuinely funny material that I had with Dave C. And they both don't do that irritating Dave C. thing of laughing at their own jokes.
Yikes! Coinkydinx.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqgkzbNcxpE]