Netflix Won’t Take Down Dave Chappelle Special, Ted Sarandos Says(hollywoodreporter.com)
hollywoodreporter.com
Netflix Won’t Take Down Dave Chappelle Special, Ted Sarandos Says
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/netflix-dave-chappelle-ted-sarandos-memo-trans-employee-1235029671/
66 comments
Nobody was lynched, and "the" LGBTQ+ didn't do anything here.
Perhaps "lynching" was putting it too strongly. I am going off of Dave's take from the special that it was her own people that gave her the most backlash on Twitter.
You know who wouldn't have much patience for using that word that way? Dave Chappelle.
I don't know what "her own people" means here, but Dave Chappelle sums Twitter up the way many of his supporters here do as well: "not real".
I don't know what "her own people" means here, but Dave Chappelle sums Twitter up the way many of his supporters here do as well: "not real".
If some cis groups were to have bullied an LGBTQ person on Twitter to the point where they killed themselves, it would be a national story, and the term 'lynching' would be used by some.
We need the old ACLU back.
We need the old ACLU back.
So we should distrust whoever in Netflix's C-suite keeps firing trans people who criticize it. If you want to be consistent.
The Closer has a 97% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes, indicating universal acclaim among real people (not Twitter activists and "critics").
Twitter remains in the status of "not real life".
The screeching of rabid activists on Twitter who can't take a joke without being deeply offended is irrelevant to public discourse. Everyone knows they're ridiculous and dangerous (censoring comedy strips away the most important human rights).
Nobody has a right to not be offended.
Twitter remains in the status of "not real life".
The screeching of rabid activists on Twitter who can't take a joke without being deeply offended is irrelevant to public discourse. Everyone knows they're ridiculous and dangerous (censoring comedy strips away the most important human rights).
Nobody has a right to not be offended.
Trends on Twitter can be faked and knowing how much of early social media growth relied on literally faking engagement, I treat it all as suspect.
There are some comedians who, upon hearing that someone is offended by one of their jokes, would have the courage to ask why, and listen deeply to the answer. They would then take the time to revise that joke, and make it better so that it can be enjoyed by the maximum number of people.
There are some other comedians who would decide to make the joke as cruel as possible and start insulting people who get offended. The joke then becomes about how much they can attack those people and make them part of the outgroup. Those people are probably permanently lost as fans unless the comedian decides to change their methods.
For some reason this conversation frequently happens in terms of "public discourse" and "rights" but it all seems to be centered around a very small group of people, and nobody really wants to talk about the series of individual actions that led to this point.
There are some other comedians who would decide to make the joke as cruel as possible and start insulting people who get offended. The joke then becomes about how much they can attack those people and make them part of the outgroup. Those people are probably permanently lost as fans unless the comedian decides to change their methods.
For some reason this conversation frequently happens in terms of "public discourse" and "rights" but it all seems to be centered around a very small group of people, and nobody really wants to talk about the series of individual actions that led to this point.
> The Closer has a 97% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes, indicating universal acclaim among real people
These are usually gamed by culture warriors - positively and negatively. They are virtue signalling support not commenting on the quality of the work.
I say this as someone who is A) hugely supportive of trans rights, B) thought the special is not worthy of the vitriol it is getting - though it surely does have a lot of blind spots, and C) pretty mediocre as far as standup comedy specials go.
I'm a huge Dave Chapelle fan. I've watched and re-watched all of his specials up to now. But Sticks and Stones and The Closer are both multiple notches below his usual high standards. They will not be remembered positively as far as having anything worthwhile to say about society or being funny.
These are usually gamed by culture warriors - positively and negatively. They are virtue signalling support not commenting on the quality of the work.
I say this as someone who is A) hugely supportive of trans rights, B) thought the special is not worthy of the vitriol it is getting - though it surely does have a lot of blind spots, and C) pretty mediocre as far as standup comedy specials go.
I'm a huge Dave Chapelle fan. I've watched and re-watched all of his specials up to now. But Sticks and Stones and The Closer are both multiple notches below his usual high standards. They will not be remembered positively as far as having anything worthwhile to say about society or being funny.
They shouldn't take it down. But it's bad. It's his worst work; the kind of thing you toss off to fulfill a contract obligation. Every bit in it is predictable, mostly because it's almost all rehashed from previous specials. Kevin Hart's bid to host the Oscars? Why not work a Lorena Bobbitt joke in there while you're at it?
He refers to himself as the GOAT in this special, but Bill Burr does this stuff 1000x better than 2021 Chappelle does.
He refers to himself as the GOAT in this special, but Bill Burr does this stuff 1000x better than 2021 Chappelle does.
That’s to bad…. I haven’t seen this one but I went to the previous show, then watched the tv special.
One thing I noted is that in 2 different performances stuff he seems to “come up with on the fly” was actually carefully writen and performed. The audience Q&A at the end was probably the best part.
It was hard to tell (for me at least) when he was being serious and when he was pushing the limits on things because he could..
One thing I noted is that in 2 different performances stuff he seems to “come up with on the fly” was actually carefully writen and performed. The audience Q&A at the end was probably the best part.
It was hard to tell (for me at least) when he was being serious and when he was pushing the limits on things because he could..
Part of the problem is that these are already limits he's pushed over his last 4 specials. He has literally nothing new to say about them. I re-watched a marathon of those preceding specials after watching Closer; every scrap of material in this show was done better in those specials. I thought his long run on trans people in Sticks and Stones was generally pretty cringey, but at least the LGBT car bit had hooks.
Again, the whole "walking up to the line, losing the audience and then getting them back, subverting expectations" thing is something Bill Burr just demonstrably does better than Chappelle does. It didn't have to be that way; I think Chappelle has more natural talent and probably more to say. But he's gotten incredibly lazy. This special was an embarrassment.
Again, the whole "walking up to the line, losing the audience and then getting them back, subverting expectations" thing is something Bill Burr just demonstrably does better than Chappelle does. It didn't have to be that way; I think Chappelle has more natural talent and probably more to say. But he's gotten incredibly lazy. This special was an embarrassment.
If you're the GOAT, no need to tell people because they already know
Doesnt bill Burr just whine about women?
Sound business decision.
The audience score is high, lots of high balls too.
Eh, not his best work. Nevertheless, the worst Chappelle special is still better than the best of most other comedians.
The audience score is high, lots of high balls too.
Eh, not his best work. Nevertheless, the worst Chappelle special is still better than the best of most other comedians.
"The Closer" is worse than the least of the Bill Burr specials. I don't think Bill Burr is a comic genius or anything, but his approach to high-voltage cultural subjects is the same (both Chappelle and Burr make a point of walking audiences up to and across taboo subjects; it's a flex, winning audiences back after losing them to a line like "Space Jews"). I do like Bill Burr, but before this special I would have said that Chappelle is categorically better at this kind of comedy. Now he isn't. It's sad.
Parker Molloy wrote a piece about how "The Closer" isn't transphobic, just tired and unfunny. In it, they quote another comedian asking, "oh, so we can just steal edgy jokes from Reddit now?" That about sums the whole thing up.
Parker Molloy wrote a piece about how "The Closer" isn't transphobic, just tired and unfunny. In it, they quote another comedian asking, "oh, so we can just steal edgy jokes from Reddit now?" That about sums the whole thing up.
Ahaha, well said. I saw the special and enjoyed it. Still, it wasn't legendary like his other work, but some of it was pretty hilarious.
> "As with our other talent, we work hard to support their creative freedom — even though this means there will always be content on Netflix some people believe is harmful, like Cuties, 365 Days, 13 Reasons Why or My Unorthodox Life," Sarandos wrote.
I really found the idea of Cuties to be abhorent, but I have to respect this attitude - if Netflix are going to support controversial viewpoints from all angles, thats better than most media organisations now days.
I really found the idea of Cuties to be abhorent, but I have to respect this attitude - if Netflix are going to support controversial viewpoints from all angles, thats better than most media organisations now days.
Good. I actually watched it, and felt he struck a decent balance. I keep hoping events like this are the turning point where people learn to ignore Twitter mobs.
Why would they? it's highly rated by users and heavily watched.
Principles matter. There are very few moral principles in Sarandos’ statement despite claiming otherwise.
https://twitter.com/zekerchief/status/1447734480051990530?s=...
https://twitter.com/zekerchief/status/1447734480051990530?s=...
Comedians all need special protection from this “cancel culture” crap. They’re far more enjoyable than the bots on Twitter that engage in flame & rant wars.
Where's the line? Louis CK ?
I wrote that parent comment with Louis CK in mind. He’s hilarious and needs comedian protection.
The line in the sand is where you break a law or are sued and taken to court. The penalty is the legal result of breaking the law or the settlement/verdict from court. Trial by mob is never the appropriate response.
The line in the sand is where you break a law or are sued and taken to court. The penalty is the legal result of breaking the law or the settlement/verdict from court. Trial by mob is never the appropriate response.
How about you feel free to determine your line in the sand, and I will determine mine.
This sounds nice, but results in everyone from Hitler on down given free reign, leading directly to everything from Kristallnacht to Jan 6 to shouting fire in a crowded theater.
Can we agree to draw a line in the sand somewhere before legit hate speech?
Can we agree to draw a line in the sand somewhere before legit hate speech?
The title I see on the linked page is "Netflix Suspends Trans Employee Who Spoke Out Against Chappelle Special Over Attending Meeting Without Permission".
It may be different from what I currently see on HN: "Netflix Won’t Take Down Dave Chappelle Special, Ted Sarandos Says"
These different titles may lead to different impressions of the same incident, influencing the comment section here. Just a heads up.
It may be different from what I currently see on HN: "Netflix Won’t Take Down Dave Chappelle Special, Ted Sarandos Says"
These different titles may lead to different impressions of the same incident, influencing the comment section here. Just a heads up.
"Netflix Won’t Take Down Dave Chappelle Special, Ted Sarandos Says" is what's in the <title> element of the linked article.
I am contemplating exactly what is the motivation for me to actively, pick up the proverbial pitch fork, get worked up and go out on a some ideological battle on Twitter? Life is too interesting to waste time on cancel-culture-activism. Cancelling others would guarantee never winning them back again for your cause. Defend your stance not through suppression of others but an irresistable pull to the same appeal that solidified your ideology - whatever that may be. Market your ideas with grace, respect, dignity and honesty. I now feel like religion was a kind of a good idea to keep monsters within all of us in check.
Meh, look at it this way:
You saw/heard/etc. something you consider abhorrent ( e.g. shout racial slurs at a teenage footballer, sexually assaulted someone, etc.). You can't believe such people exist, and can't even remotely relate to them. You're pissed, terrified that those people exist and they seem to suffer no consequences for their actions. So what do you do? Good old boycotts.
I think that the whole thing ( "cancel culture" ) is overblown, on both sides of it. There are absolutely terrible people who should just shut up and be deservedly ostracized for their abhorrent actions, but it sometimes goes too far for too little; and on the other hand people who scream "free speech" when a bigot gets fired for shouting racial slurs aren't helping anyone and make themselves look sympathetic to said bigot.
You saw/heard/etc. something you consider abhorrent ( e.g. shout racial slurs at a teenage footballer, sexually assaulted someone, etc.). You can't believe such people exist, and can't even remotely relate to them. You're pissed, terrified that those people exist and they seem to suffer no consequences for their actions. So what do you do? Good old boycotts.
I think that the whole thing ( "cancel culture" ) is overblown, on both sides of it. There are absolutely terrible people who should just shut up and be deservedly ostracized for their abhorrent actions, but it sometimes goes too far for too little; and on the other hand people who scream "free speech" when a bigot gets fired for shouting racial slurs aren't helping anyone and make themselves look sympathetic to said bigot.
There are a lot of terrible people out there doesn't mean we replace the justice system with sharia-law of Twitter mobs. I am not convinced by your arguments.
Boycotting and demanding bans are not the same thing. Boycotting means simply not engaging with whatever you find offensive. Finding something offensive doesn’t give you the right to demand that it’s banned and removed.
I share your second guessing about religion and have wondered if losing it will simply lead to it being reinvented. However I am not sure cancel culture activists are looking to win anyone over. It’s more that they want to use fear and consequence to deter and suppress others, in particular to keep them from expressing ideas that oppose their own ideology. The idea is to let the opposing side starve itself out while only your ideas dominate and propagandize the next generation of minds. It’s the same tactic advocated by authoritarians of all political persuasions.
I was primarily referring to online-activism, but agree with your broader view. I said this a few days ago[1] that I'll be voting for anyone that opposes strong ideological political motifs. If one can't defend their stance with reason and civilized discourse, then I am automatically turned off from that ideology. It's gotta stand the test of debate, science, truth, generally accepted morals, justice and fairness. Mob thinking, poor reasoning and supression needs to be called out and exposed (not supressed).
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28694359
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28694359
What does "stickiest" mean in the context of that press release?
I think it means people finish it, 'stick' with it.
Why is the title drastically different than what’s on HN?
Because Hollywood Reporter put something different in the title element vs. in the visible title on the page.
The title on HN is what the title is on the metatags on the article (meta-description, and also title tag).
Glad at least someone is standing up to Twitter mobs. The special is a statement against Twitter mobs, and how dangerous they can be for innocent individuals just expressing their opinions. Chappele’s trans friend most likely committed suicide because of intense Twitter bullying for defending Chappelle. We can’t keep letting Twitter mobs destroy people’s lives.
> Chappele’s trans friend most likely committed suicide because of intense Twitter bullying for defending Chappelle.
*Citation needed
*Citation needed
speeddemon(3)
People are complaining about cancel culture, pretty sure are very biased. What Chapelle said was mostly anti-liberal crud, and I mean that in a classical sense, Chapelle whether intended or not, basically boosted reactionary rhetoric, it also extends to his racial undertone as well.
Good, but Netflix needs to extend the same “creative freedom” more broadly than just stand up comedy. Neither JK Rowling nor Dave Chapelle nor anyone else should be cancelled for expressing an opinion on a controversial topic that is ultimately based on social consensus and has lots of room for interpretation and differences of opinion. But other content should also be similarly unmoderated and reflect a diversity of perspectives, even if vocal Twitter mobs revolt. The fact that “incitement of hate” is applied differently based on the genre of entertainment shows how unprincipled and arbitrary the concept is.
People really acting like he's a philosopher or canary in th coal mine.
I mean, comedians have done both of those things throughout history. Obviously not every joke or every act but there is much commentary, philosophy, etc. to be found in comedy
It is very sad to me that Daphne (the trans woman who committed suicide) got lynched by the LGBTQ+ community for defending Dave Chappelle because she actually knew him personally and that those jokes were just that, jokes. Having watched the special, I felt really saddened to find out that she had committed suicide. Dave described her with a lot of empathy, love, and tenderness. I cannot begin to imagine being attacked by your own people. Marginalised by an already marginal demographic. Who do you turn to?
In the special, Dave mentions that when he says he doesn't understand the trans experience Daphne replies: "I don't need you to understand me. I need you to believe I'm having a human experience." To me that's not the cry of a trans woman, its the cry of a deeply individual being. An individual not being respected and believed as one. Dave finishes the special by saying that Daphne's people weren't the LGTBQ+ because they had forsaken her, but that she was one of his: a comedian. I think it goes beyond that. Dave and Daphne belong to a group that has no group, the individual. One that in today's era of identity politics will never really be understood or believed.