Hacker News Reader

Comment by mc32 | Hacker News Reader

Many things are upsetting to many people. I don't think it's viable to always bow to demands of your most strident members. Chapelle is a dissenter, I think he has as much a right to express his opinion as other provocateurs. We've had shows from Netflix which border on child exploitation and skate somewhat close to CP. So, why would this be out of line?

I watched it and it was biting but wasn't hateful. It questioned certain things. Maybe there was some jealousy and usurpation (in general terms taking over the focus of civil rights).

Chapelle is charismatic and steadfast. It would do no one any service to try to disparage him as I think that would backfire given the reach of his audience.

View on HN

You make good points. It is also notable that he made fun of just about everyone in that special — from blacks, to whites, to Jews — just to a lesser extent. And I think he did that on purpose. Nobody and nothing is off limits. We all can find relief and humility in comedy.

It’s often the case that minorities wear parts of an identity so as to show some kind of immutable and unique right against prejudice. But the sooner we realize that our differences are opportunities to unite against intolerance and bigotry, the sooner we can stop drawing lines in the same about whose experience is more painful or inequitable than another’s.

I’ve heard rabbis deliver sermons on slavery drawing parallels between the plight of Jews to the African slave trade. The point isn’t that Jews get to say “oh I was enslaved too so whatever.” Rather, it’s an opportunity to say, “Hell yeah, I recognize oppression, and let’s right those wrongs together.”

Not one community and not LGBTQ+ gets to be the sole victim. Nobody gets to dominate the outrage scene on Twitter. Coalition building and tolerance require humility, and pretending like one’s group has a greater need for equality or accommodation defeats the point.

> I watched it and it was biting but wasn't hateful. It questioned certain things.

This line of thought is rejected by modern radicals. To question is tantamount to outright hating. Watching Chapelle's special was, for me, a marvelous breath of fresh air and I hope people like him can somehow manage to continue making a living despite not observing radical dogma.

I watch the special, it definitely was not hateful. The end was not as funny as I expected.

I don't recall staff walking out over the Cuties movie. That definitely was pushing the line.

Things generally upsetting people in general is one thing, but details matter. The reporting describes something more like a question of priorities and ongoing lack of appropriate attention to community dynamics. Worse, it sounds like a situation that could have been avoided.

> Organizers did not specify their demands ahead of the rally, although Preston said the event would call for content that prioritizes "the safety and dignity of all marginalized communities."

> Transgender Netflix employee Terra Field has called on the streamer to add a content warning to "The Closer," and to promote more "queer and trans comedians and talent."

There is a lot of hurt and painful experience inside these messages to Netflix. The demands don't exactly seem extraordinary in that context either.

Should they take all jokes that hurt Christian feelings offline? Or how about anything that is critical of the CCP? Where does it end?

> add a content warning

Why did you jump to taking things offline?

I don’t really think in the end they would accept a scenario where Chapelle would be free to make any content he wants as long as it has a content warning. That was an “at least you should…” not the actual demand. Though we won’t know until they actually present their demands.

Christians are not an oppressed minority, in any sense of either word. Nor is the CCP.

Both of those parties represent real power, both politically and financially, in this world today.

Thats what you claim. If you talk to many Christians, they 100% believe they are being oppressed and that secularists and Atheists are coming to destroy their faith. Who are you to deny their grievances.

As for the CCP, there are plenty that claim that anti-CCP is anti-Chinese racism and has no place on the stage

> Who are you to deny their grievances.

Someone who looks at them and sees that they are the majority religion in the Western world, and have politicians everywhere pushing their talking points and morals on everybody else.

Once again, that is what you claim, in the same way that right-wingers point to the fact that we have had a black-president so racism isn't a problem anymore.

Why do your claims have more truthiness than theirs?

Because my claims are falsifiable?

Christianity accounts for 2.3 Billion people in the world, the next highest is Islam at 1.9 Billion. Unaffiliated (of which Athiests are only a portion) is only 1.2 Billion worldwide. Thus, Christianity is, by definition, a majority.

In one example to prove my second point, politicians in Texas are pushing Christian morality around abortion into laws. This is the opposite of being oppressed.

> Thus, Christianity is, by definition, a majority.

No, its a plurality, which is a minority that is bigger than any other minority when there is bo majority.

OTOH, the popular use of “minority” that is being referenced doesn't mean mathematical minority, it means “historically systematically oppressed group”; it evolved from the language around race in the US, where whites were the majority and minorities (especially blacks) were oppressed on the basis of race, but the key reference is the oppression not the numerical relationship.

Literally every single institutional aspect of the Western World; entertainment, media, education, big business, even the alphabet agencies ... aggressively push LGBTQ/anti-racist grievance theology all day long every day. They never, _ever_ shut up about it (this is why you can't even clone a repo these days without being made aware that BLM exists). The only ones who don't push this constantly are (some) Republican politicians and religious institutions.

So spare me. You are not punching up, or "fighting the power". Your religion is the power.

Truth.

Paranoia != reality. Just because Christians in the West "100% believe" atheists and secularists are coming to destroy their faith doesn't make it true. Meanwhile this "oppressed group" is slowly but surely making theocracy a reality in the United States.

Christians are most certainly oppressed. It’s totally socially acceptable to mock them, assume all priests are pedophiles, assume they don’t understand science, etc.

> Christians are not an oppressed minority

In some parts of the world they are. We need to stop taking such a Western-view of the world.

What an incredible statement to assert, so confidently and so very wrong.

I am not a Christian, but you are incorrect - Christians are an oppressed minority in plenty places in the world. Persecuted, oppressed, killed. And it’s not a “one off” or an exception, in happens in many countries. A cursory Google will give you many examples.

Downvoted, I presume because I didn't give explicit examples; wasn't able to at the time but here's a list of countries where Christians face persecution from a US report: Burma, China, Eritrea, India, Iran, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Vietnam.

Eritrea: where Christians are tortured, arrested, and imprisoned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism_in_Eritrea

A country I was surprised not to see on that list is Indonesia, which came to mind immediately. Take the conflict in Maluku, where Christians were forced to convert, or the eviction of the Christian minority from Banda. Example article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-55140847

Yemen: where Houthis have targeted Christians. Book burning religious texts, burning down churches, etc. https://www.uscirf.gov/news-room/releases-statements/uscirf-...

You could make a very long list. Just because Christians aren't oppressed in your country does not mean they're not an oppressed minority elsewhere.

Not many Christians are killed in the west, but in Africa and the middle east large numbers are being murdered. Especially in places like Nigeria by militant muslim groups such as Boko Haram or Fulani. You can find references on google from news reports of mass murders if you like, or read the state department reports. E.g.

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/248547/report-17-chr...

https://www.state.gov/reports/2019-report-on-international-r...

> Not many Christians are killed in the west, but in Africa and the middle east large numbers are being murdered.

Sure, there are places in the world Christians are an oppressed group; all such descriptions are specific to a bounded context.

I find it funny that there's been virtually no discussion about his trans comedian friend (forget their name) and how the bullying they received because she stuck up for Chappelle drove her to suicide. You'd think the trans community should stop and reflect on why this happened. But nope, apparently their death is justified because Chappelle bad!

I have friends involved in the LGBT community since forever, and even them openly admit that the trans community is a cesspool. One thing that has become abundantly clear through history is that even marginalized groups, once empowered, have the potential (and often a vengeful inclination) to make others suffer.

Yes. Empowerment is mistaken to mean power and authority over others instead of power and control over one's own destiny. When so distorted, such a "community" becomes a dominance hierarchy where the most aggrieved wins. History shows it is never healthy, it merely perfects bullying and viciousness.

> I have friends involved in the LGBT community since forever, and even them openly admit that the trans community is a cesspool.

Is there even a "trans community"? As far as I can tell, they try to stick together with the LGB crowd, rather successfully. The groups that are skeptical of T founded their own organizations, but I'd say they're very much a minority. Trans-progressivism is very much main stream, also as far as laws in different countries are concerned.

> and how the bullying they received because she stuck up for Chappelle drove her to suicide

Thats exactly what Chappelle did not say. He said that the bulling might not caused the suicide, but it sure did not help.

I find it baffling that he developed a quite deep relationship with her - a transgender person - gave her a golden ticket (frontrunning for of the biggest comedians) as a token of appreciation and he gets called out as anti trans person.

He deep cuts all of those fake virtue signalling people who do nothing and sacrifice noting for 'the cause', he walked away from the money of questionable hollywood people he took a stand. Maybe thats what irks those people?

Mad world, mad world.

> I find it baffling that he developed a quite deep relationship with her - a transgender person - gave her a golden ticket (frontrunning for of the biggest comedians) as a token of appreciation and he gets called out as anti trans person.

As a Black person, the most common and tired defense of White racists has always been “Look at this one Black person I treated well, that proves I’m not a racist.”

I guess its some kind of progress that that's now a defense against charges of bigotry by Black people as well as against them.

This is making it about Chappelle again, but clearly the issue as related in the news reports is more about a past-due dialog between Netflix and those constituent parts it theoretically values. Chappelle is an example but it doesn't seem to be the whole story, intense in various details though it may be.

While I completely agree with the general sentiment of your comment, I believe that it has not been asserted that the bullying was the main factor for her death. At least as far as what Chappelle said during the show.

Transcribed some of what Dave said in the special in another comment (didn't see this comment at the time as it took a while!).

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28930777

Chappelle's characterisation of that incident is heavily disputed. There has been a lot of discussion about it.

https://twitter.com/LilySimpson1312/status/14484175314300149...

Most things like this are organized by bad-faith actors that know that his skit wasn't hateful. The powers-that-be have learned how to create viral movements. They know how to get would-be-activists spun up until their brains turn off. These are the left-wing equivalent of Trump-supporters.

People got up in arms about his last stand up. It was not offensive at all. But you couldn't say that, because the people had already made up their minds.

Corporations know how to get people spun up, and they're doing it with Chapelle again. They want to cancel him, because he is dangerous to the right wing, because he is charismatic and articulate. He can get points across clearly. If he became the new Jon Stewart, he could siphon a lot of control away from the right. They need to neutralize him before he decides to go political.

As is often stated, the freedom of speech is not the freedom of consequences.

The disparagement is a direct consequence of his speech. He is no more free from that consequence than your or I would be in similar circumstances.

> As is often stated, the freedom of speech is not the freedom of consequences.

The problem with such a trite comment is that is is just as true in North Korea.

You are complete Free™ to say what you like about Supreme Leader Grand Marshal Kim Jong-un, but you know - there might be consequences.

There's quite a bit of difference between government-imposed consequences and social consequences. Otherwise in a sense we're all "free" to murder and steal, everywhere, in every country.

Struggle Sessions were a social consequence of being part of the "bad guys", a way to use society to stamp out "bad thoughts"

Scarlet letters, ostracism, outcasting, etc., those are the civilian analogues and are just as palatable as the governmental version.

Not true. Freedom of speech in the US prevents the US government for levying consequences against you for what you said. This is not the case in North Koreas

That's only because they couldn't care less what you or I say most almost all of the time.

Instead, democratic governments (especially violence-shy Western ones) use the Official Secrets Act [or local equivalent] to prevent the people that are privy to information the governments do care about from ever talking about it.

So, are you saying that people shouldn't be held to the consequences of their actions, because the North Korean government does the same?

Pretty sure that's a logical fallacy: Reductio ad absurdum to be specific. And that's on top of the difference between the State and its power lawfully backed by lethal force and society which lacks the same.

>So, are you saying that people shouldn't be held to the consequences of their actions, because the North Korean government does the same?

No. No one is saying that. No one has ever said that, because it doesn't make any sense. Of course all actions have consequences. Of course saying something hurtful will cause others to react negatively. No one is contesting this. What people are contesting is that a very small but highly vocal group of people who seemingly get offended by everything can demand that the rest of us force consequences on people that hurt their feelings.

Right now, there's a small group of netflix employees planning some kind of protest. That is their right to do, that is a consequence for netflix producing this comedy special. The problem with the "freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences" line is that it always seems to be a very small group demanding that some larger group bow to their demands and force consequences on someone that wouldn't receive them otherwise. In this case, this very small group is demanding that dave chappelle or netflix suffer consequences for producing his special. But according to rotten tomatoes, and most of the comments I read on the internet, is that the overwhelming majority of people thought it was funny.

"Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences" means that if I call your mother a prostitute, I might get punched in the face. It does not mean that if a digital content producer airs a comedy special you don't like, that anyone who doesn't like it can demand that it be taken down and then say "well those are just the consequences!"

The consequence of netflix airing this special is that some people will get offended and may cancel their subscriptions and some of their employees might protest and/or quit. That's it. Caving to the demands of those offended is not "suffering the consequences."

Netflix has agency, no? If Netflix were to take down the Dave Chappelle episode as a result of "caving to the demands of those offended" that is their right, no? I still retain my agency to cancel my Netflix subscription - I could cancel because I was offended by the episode, I could cancel because I was upset that Netflix pulled the episode. I'm really not seeing how anybody's freedoms are being diminished in this case, regardless of the outcome.

If I held a gun to your head and said "give me your phone or face the consequences," would you claim that me shooting you for not giving me your phone is you "being held accountable"? Because that seems analogous to what is happening to netflix here.

The consequences of them producing this special is that some people are mad. But netflix chose to produce it, and I'm sure they knew full well that some people would get mad. A group of offended people demanding that it be taken down is not a "consequence that must be faced", it's a demand, and netflix not doing so isn't "not being held accountable for their actions."

False comparison. Holding a gun to my head and threatening my life is not a social consequence, it’s assault with the use of deadly force. The fact you gloss over that fact and so glibly make this comparison is rather disturbing.

It's probably for the best you used a throwaway account to say something so profoundly ignorant. The consequences of which the OP spoke are social consequences, they're not legal consequences. In the United States you can say whatever you want without fear of legal reprisal, however the social consequences can be dire. That is to say, I retain the freedom to think you're an asshole and not associate with you in response to something you said. That's my right.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com