He was presented with a new viewpoint on gender. He said “no thanks” to considering that viewpoint, which is honestly fine (we’re allowed to have different opinions). But instead of just holding his opinion on that viewpoint personally, he used his considerable platform to make a huge deal out of rejecting that viewpoint. He then faced the predictable backlash for doing so as a public figure.
Instead of apologizing or just avoiding the subject on his platform in future, he reacted to that backlash by doubling down and repeatedly employing his platform to attack the viewpoint. Thus, he began earning the ire of more people that support trans rights and the admiration of those who opposed them.
He then immersed himself in his new right-wing support group, rubbed elbows with those who share his viewpoint on gender, found a new more conservative fanbase, and had those views reinforced and enhanced by the echo chamber around him. As a result, he has slowly become more radicalized and made this issue a huge part of his worldview and public persona.
My prediction is that this influence will continue to radicalize him and steer him further to the right, not only on this issue but on other issues as well. His new peer group will reward him for his views on the trans people. They will use that as a jumping point into other right-wing ideas that will start to make “a lot of sense” to him. And as a public figure, they will encourage him to use his notoriety to voice more and more of these views and use his platform to support their causes. I bet money he will be a semi-regular on Fox News or some other conservative voice box in the next 5 years and will be publically endorsing Republican candidates for office. Bet.
This is a great analysis. People don’t make decisions or do things as isolated individuals with moral or rational decisions. People act based on the rewards or punishments that come in from their social groups.
He also loves in Ohio, which is basically buried in right wing propaganda and lost objectivity. They had a train full of poisonous chemicals spill and the news buried the story when it could because it is bad for right wing information if their decisions on regulation caused the problem.
The state that just voted to legalize recreational weed and to make abortion rights legal? Sure there is propaganda but we need to recognize states for their good choices and not just hate on every state all the time
I’ve seen more than a few times where people post articles about some event immediately after the event from multiple sources and then claim that “nobody is talking about this”. It mystifies me. Sure, some outlets avoid reporting on or minimize some events that don’t jive with their messaging (couchfoxnewscough), but unless your sources are eye witnesses and no one else, no news outlets at all, people are in fact talking about it.
I mean, I can easily quote anti-semitic things that Hitler said, and published.
Nobody has ever made the claim Hitler shot Jews. But people are making the claim that Chapelle says anti-trans things. In fact this entire story is about things he has said.
I’ve seen his specials, and Ive yet to hear him say anything anti-trans. So I don’t believe those things exist, though I’m open to being proved wrong.
This thread is centered around an anti trans picture he’s part of. This question is like staring at the sun, going blind, and then asking us to prove that it was the sun that made you suddenly go blind
You mean, like the sun that you can SEE is shining? Fuck man, if you’re trolling, this is high tier. This is riding the line between believable and over the top
He was presented with a new viewpoint on gender. He said “no thanks” to considering that viewpoint, which is honestly fine (we’re allowed to have different opinions).
I agree that we should be allowed to have different opinions, but I don’t agree that it’s considered fine by mainstream liberalism today. I have seen an awful lot of toe the line or get up against the wall behavior from the left over the last few years. Again and again the reaction has been “agree with literally everything we say, or be outcast as a bigot”. I have seen it even among my close personal circles when debating radically new ideas that people should be given time to consider, opportunities to discuss, and time to research. That is an incredibly disappointing attitude from a group with a stated goal of inclusion and tolerance. Tolerance for popular non-normative ideals, but disdain for any conflicting discourse seems to be the group mantra. I say this as someone who is mostly aligned with progressive movements.
It’s not “mainstream liberalism” that’s acting like that any more than it’s “mainstream conservatism” that’s waving nazi flags over Florida highways and calling every Republican that doesn’t grovel to Trump a RINO.
Also tolerance for people and tolerance for what they are recognizing as intolerance are not the same thing. If person A says I’m “X”, and person B says “being X is an abomination” or “you’re not X. I’m telling you you’re Y” or something along those lines, then person B is intolerant of person A. It’s a perfectly reasonable position to say “we should be accepting of X, and Y, and Z and all the other letters, and fuck anyone like person B who says otherwise”. Person B can argue that what they said or meant was misunderstood and wasn’t intolerance. But if they meant what they said, they don’t get to demand that just because someone else is tolerant of people of different physicalities, cultures, religions, races, ethnicities, nationalities, orientations, identities, etc. that they must tolerate their intolerance too.
And if you are intolerant of people who are “X” and don’t want to be called out on it, then you shouldn’t express that intolerance or act on it. If you do, you should do so under the understanding that you earned the consequences for your actions.
You’re talking about the paradigm of tolerance, which isn’t what I’m referring to at all. I probably didn’t make it clear that I’m not talking about the Chappelle situation. What I meant is that the left is becoming a lot more tribalistic, just like the examples you gave of right wing tribalism at the beginning of your response. I agree that liberalism isn’t engaging in it any more than the right, but we shouldn’t be engaging in it at all. We’re supposed to be the thinking group. How can we be a thinking group if we cast out anyone who presents opposing ideas for things? I’m talking about things like accusing anyone who doesn’t agree with the ideas presented by Beverly DiAngelo of being racist. Or someone not liking a movie starring a gay character being called homophobic, when they just didn’t like the movie. There’s far too much accusation occurring which stifles open discussion, and open discussion is where growth happens.
I think it’s many things, but the big one is a reaction to the polarization of politics by the media and the radicalization of the right/rise of fascism. Fascists will spout any nonsensical belief that they can come up with, because they know they sound ridiculous and they don’t care. Because that’s not the point. The point is to make you have to waste energy debunking it while they do something else. Add in the often used Republican strategy of rendering useful words into meaningless garbage, like “woke” and “politically correct” before it, and the thinking man is left two steps behind and always trying to play catch-up with those trying to torch everything they can get their hands on.
So with a group spouting nonsense with the sole purpose of having their opponents be too busy disproving it to prevent them from destroying the rights of minorities, and a group that claims that both sides are equally as bad because they agree with the fascists but don’t want to take responsibility or face the consequences for having those opinions, is it any wonder that actual disagreement is being mistaken for that disingenuous “enlightened centrism”?
Plus, there’s a time for discourse, and a time for action. And I think people are starting to feel that we’ve spent too many years doing the first and we need to start doing the second. In short, I think people are starting to feel that there’s some kind of deadline fast approaching and the stress is starting to get to them.
Yes, that’s a good point. The nonsensical arguments meant to consume energy were a master stroke against actual discourse online and in person. Unfortunately it has had the desired effect, and many of us aren’t engaging in discourse with like-minded people about things we mostly agree on. The right has done such a good job of making every point contentious that any statement against the commonly accepted group think is treated as an outsider trying to sow discord. I see it all the time online, and I’m sure you’ve seen it too, where someone who is very liberal gets jumped all over and accused of being a trumper, or a racist, or a homophobe, or whatever, just because they have their own unique perspective of an argument that they’ve obviously put time and thought into. I’ve even encountered it with close personal friends when discussing new radical evaluations of old conceptions. We’re in a rough spot as a society right now. We just might be on a deadline if we can’t figure out how to talk to each other again.
Well yeah, I can agree with that. Tribalism is human nature at the base though. It’s something that is easy to fall into and has to be overcome through thoughtful reflection and discourse. Most people aren’t that conscientious though
A) Straight is sexual orientation. It has nothing to do with being cisgender. B) Cisgendered is the etymologically correct term to use for someone who isn’t transgendered. C) If someone has a good faith non-disparaging preferred term for themselves other than cisgendered, then by all means use that
Well, certainly not everyone agrees that people should be entitled to an opinion here, because we have science on that shit. And science tells us that nature is messy.
Whether we’re talking about psychological gender or biological sex, proclaiming that there’s only two categories is provably false. It’s like proclaiming that all colors are either orange or blue.
I guess, you’re allowed to be wrong. Hell, you’re even allowed to be wrong publicly. But if you are, you’re not entitled to not being corrected.
I’m not sure, what you’re trying to tell me. If someone’s broadly built and muscular, but happens to have a vagina in their pants, they still need a higher dosage than someone who isn’t broadly built and muscular. Well, that’s assuming the medication doesn’t cause trouble with e.g. an uterus (and assuming they’ve got an uterus to go with their vagina).
That’s what I mean with “nature is messy”. Whatever assumption you make about whatever categorization, you’ll find lots of examples that don’t fit. It’s easy to think in categories, but you have to always be aware and accepting that it’s going to be mildly wrong.
And especially a doctor should know what they’re doing, treating people according to their actual needs, not according to some category that may or may not fit.
Most things are done in averages when you’re talking about a large population so the average doses between sexes are different that was the first part the second part is the averages of physical differences between sexes, so my bad I it seem like I was putting the two together. And my overall point is that it’s not I was born a male and feel/mentally that I’m female or vice versa, it’s morphed into I am what I claim to be regardless of these averages and differences between the two sexes, don’t question me, which can lead to adverse effects when it comes to your dosage in medication’s, and the differences in weight classes and bone and muscle density.
We do not dose based on gender. We dose based on height, weight, and individual response/tolerance of a medication. Nobody cares what’s in your pants when we’re giving you drugs. Definitely no one is taking your bone density into account. I literally just sent out the tiniest little old lady from our critical care unit yesterday on the highest dose of metoprolol I’ve ever seen in my life.
Stop lying. Trans rights are human rights. Gender affirming care is medical care. The medical community is clear on that point.
So, you’re saying they don’t have different trial runs for medication for the two sexes based on its type and what it’s for? Also, that medication doesn’t and cannot have different effects on the two sexes based on the type of medication? Bring up points about something doesn’t make you against or for a group of people. Also, other countries that bet American to gender affirming care stopped it and made laws against it because of the possible side effects, such as the Finland, Sweden, France, Norway, and the U.K.
No, they do not have different drug trials based on sex or gender. No, medication absolutely does not have different effects based on sex or gender. Hearts, lungs , kidneys, all work the same no matter what kind of reproductive organs you happen to possess.
We do not distinguish based on sex or gender when administering medications. We only account for body size and individual response/tolerance to a medication.
I’m surprised it took this long for the “T” word to show up. People tolerating your ideas doesn’t mean they have to agree with them, or listen to them, or respect them.
You are confused because you said something that people reacted negatively to. Respect is earned and is not just handed out. If your ideas are insulting, don’t expect a warm welcome.
No, that’s not what I’m confused about. I’m not confused about anything. I wasn’t talking about Chapelle, and I’m familiar with the paradigm of tolerance. You’re talking liberalism 101, I’m talking about the ever-encroaching tribalism that is shutting down productive discourse. I shared a more detailed explanation already on another response. I’ll grab it and come back here with a link.
You clearly understood the message of his special where he told a heart wrenching story about his trans friend killing herself due to the bullying she received from the tolerant left. That’s what I like about people like you, you’re SOOOO compassionate, and smart.
Not gonna pretend that I’ve watched all his specials. I believe I watched the first two after his return, and that’s about it. I just read about the rest, which I acknowledge comes with a layer of bias by being filtered through someone else’s lense. However, A) the flaw in the “I can’t be transphobic because I have a trans friend” argument should be apparent, especially coming from a black man in America who would have heard the “i have a black friend” argument for decades. It certainly doesn’t give you carte blanche to to say whatever you want about trans people without criticism and consequences. People are perfectly capable of befriending people that they have deep seated issues with. And cognitive dissonance is a thing. He can correctly pronoun his transwoman friend and still disparage transwomen as not being women at the same time, because that’s what he did. B) Again, while I haven’t watched that special, the fact that that is a part of his comedy show, just highlights the fact that he uses his platform to express heavy handed messages on what he sees as imperative for us to hear. That story is clearly not a joke. It’s definitely not funny. It’s a lecture, a scolding and finger pointing.
That being said, what happened to Daphne is a tragedy. Whether or not she took her life directly or indirectly due to the public backlash she got for publically supporting Chappelle, it’s still terrible that it came to that point. There’s nothing wrong with voicing your anger at speech you find bigoted, or in support of bigotry. But there is a line that gets crossed oftimes into harassment and bullying. No part of the political spectrum is innocent of that, and it’s not okay regardless of political affiliation.
You Young Republican types are so incredibly worthless. “Tolerant left! Tolerant left! Rawk! Polly want a cracker!” My cockatiel gives me more scintillating conversation.
Some of us aren’t that left-wing (although you suit, tie, and white hood types couldn’t possibly comprehend that), and we’re certainly not tolerant of your dumb asses. The only shred of “tolerance” I’m showing you right now is mandated by the rules of this magazine. If the rules weren’t there, I’d tell you to change your name to Mike Pence and do what comes naturally to a seditionist. (Hypothetically, of course.)
What happened? Classic radicalization happened.
He was presented with a new viewpoint on gender. He said “no thanks” to considering that viewpoint, which is honestly fine (we’re allowed to have different opinions). But instead of just holding his opinion on that viewpoint personally, he used his considerable platform to make a huge deal out of rejecting that viewpoint. He then faced the predictable backlash for doing so as a public figure.
Instead of apologizing or just avoiding the subject on his platform in future, he reacted to that backlash by doubling down and repeatedly employing his platform to attack the viewpoint. Thus, he began earning the ire of more people that support trans rights and the admiration of those who opposed them.
He then immersed himself in his new right-wing support group, rubbed elbows with those who share his viewpoint on gender, found a new more conservative fanbase, and had those views reinforced and enhanced by the echo chamber around him. As a result, he has slowly become more radicalized and made this issue a huge part of his worldview and public persona.
My prediction is that this influence will continue to radicalize him and steer him further to the right, not only on this issue but on other issues as well. His new peer group will reward him for his views on the trans people. They will use that as a jumping point into other right-wing ideas that will start to make “a lot of sense” to him. And as a public figure, they will encourage him to use his notoriety to voice more and more of these views and use his platform to support their causes. I bet money he will be a semi-regular on Fox News or some other conservative voice box in the next 5 years and will be publically endorsing Republican candidates for office. Bet.
This is a great analysis. People don’t make decisions or do things as isolated individuals with moral or rational decisions. People act based on the rewards or punishments that come in from their social groups.
totally unlike lemmy
No social group, community, or, in fact, neurotypical individual is immune to it. We’re tribal social animals and we certainly act like it.
He also loves in Ohio, which is basically buried in right wing propaganda and lost objectivity. They had a train full of poisonous chemicals spill and the news buried the story when it could because it is bad for right wing information if their decisions on regulation caused the problem.
The state that just voted to legalize recreational weed and to make abortion rights legal? Sure there is propaganda but we need to recognize states for their good choices and not just hate on every state all the time
…the story wasn’t buried. It was essentially the only thing US media talked about for an entire month.
My concern is that the left is following the right into mirror world.
I’ve seen more than a few times where people post articles about some event immediately after the event from multiple sources and then claim that “nobody is talking about this”. It mystifies me. Sure, some outlets avoid reporting on or minimize some events that don’t jive with their messaging (couchfoxnewscough), but unless your sources are eye witnesses and no one else, no news outlets at all, people are in fact talking about it.
The mainstream news didn’t want to talk about it because mostly white people were affected. Discrimination is discrimination no matter the race.
I agree with your comment, and I’ll still take that bet. $20 sound good?
Can you quote something anti-trans he’s said?
every fucking time. “can you name a Jew that Hitler personally shot? guess not.”
I mean, I can easily quote anti-semitic things that Hitler said, and published.
Nobody has ever made the claim Hitler shot Jews. But people are making the claim that Chapelle says anti-trans things. In fact this entire story is about things he has said.
I’ve seen his specials, and Ive yet to hear him say anything anti-trans. So I don’t believe those things exist, though I’m open to being proved wrong.
This thread is centered around an anti trans picture he’s part of. This question is like staring at the sun, going blind, and then asking us to prove that it was the sun that made you suddenly go blind
No, it’s more like someone claiming that the sun is shining and me asking for a picture of the sun shining.
You mean, like the sun that you can SEE is shining? Fuck man, if you’re trolling, this is high tier. This is riding the line between believable and over the top
I agree that we should be allowed to have different opinions, but I don’t agree that it’s considered fine by mainstream liberalism today. I have seen an awful lot of toe the line or get up against the wall behavior from the left over the last few years. Again and again the reaction has been “agree with literally everything we say, or be outcast as a bigot”. I have seen it even among my close personal circles when debating radically new ideas that people should be given time to consider, opportunities to discuss, and time to research. That is an incredibly disappointing attitude from a group with a stated goal of inclusion and tolerance. Tolerance for popular non-normative ideals, but disdain for any conflicting discourse seems to be the group mantra. I say this as someone who is mostly aligned with progressive movements.
It’s not “mainstream liberalism” that’s acting like that any more than it’s “mainstream conservatism” that’s waving nazi flags over Florida highways and calling every Republican that doesn’t grovel to Trump a RINO.
Also tolerance for people and tolerance for what they are recognizing as intolerance are not the same thing. If person A says I’m “X”, and person B says “being X is an abomination” or “you’re not X. I’m telling you you’re Y” or something along those lines, then person B is intolerant of person A. It’s a perfectly reasonable position to say “we should be accepting of X, and Y, and Z and all the other letters, and fuck anyone like person B who says otherwise”. Person B can argue that what they said or meant was misunderstood and wasn’t intolerance. But if they meant what they said, they don’t get to demand that just because someone else is tolerant of people of different physicalities, cultures, religions, races, ethnicities, nationalities, orientations, identities, etc. that they must tolerate their intolerance too.
And if you are intolerant of people who are “X” and don’t want to be called out on it, then you shouldn’t express that intolerance or act on it. If you do, you should do so under the understanding that you earned the consequences for your actions.
You’re talking about the paradigm of tolerance, which isn’t what I’m referring to at all. I probably didn’t make it clear that I’m not talking about the Chappelle situation. What I meant is that the left is becoming a lot more tribalistic, just like the examples you gave of right wing tribalism at the beginning of your response. I agree that liberalism isn’t engaging in it any more than the right, but we shouldn’t be engaging in it at all. We’re supposed to be the thinking group. How can we be a thinking group if we cast out anyone who presents opposing ideas for things? I’m talking about things like accusing anyone who doesn’t agree with the ideas presented by Beverly DiAngelo of being racist. Or someone not liking a movie starring a gay character being called homophobic, when they just didn’t like the movie. There’s far too much accusation occurring which stifles open discussion, and open discussion is where growth happens.
I think it’s many things, but the big one is a reaction to the polarization of politics by the media and the radicalization of the right/rise of fascism. Fascists will spout any nonsensical belief that they can come up with, because they know they sound ridiculous and they don’t care. Because that’s not the point. The point is to make you have to waste energy debunking it while they do something else. Add in the often used Republican strategy of rendering useful words into meaningless garbage, like “woke” and “politically correct” before it, and the thinking man is left two steps behind and always trying to play catch-up with those trying to torch everything they can get their hands on.
So with a group spouting nonsense with the sole purpose of having their opponents be too busy disproving it to prevent them from destroying the rights of minorities, and a group that claims that both sides are equally as bad because they agree with the fascists but don’t want to take responsibility or face the consequences for having those opinions, is it any wonder that actual disagreement is being mistaken for that disingenuous “enlightened centrism”?
Plus, there’s a time for discourse, and a time for action. And I think people are starting to feel that we’ve spent too many years doing the first and we need to start doing the second. In short, I think people are starting to feel that there’s some kind of deadline fast approaching and the stress is starting to get to them.
Yes, that’s a good point. The nonsensical arguments meant to consume energy were a master stroke against actual discourse online and in person. Unfortunately it has had the desired effect, and many of us aren’t engaging in discourse with like-minded people about things we mostly agree on. The right has done such a good job of making every point contentious that any statement against the commonly accepted group think is treated as an outsider trying to sow discord. I see it all the time online, and I’m sure you’ve seen it too, where someone who is very liberal gets jumped all over and accused of being a trumper, or a racist, or a homophobe, or whatever, just because they have their own unique perspective of an argument that they’ve obviously put time and thought into. I’ve even encountered it with close personal friends when discussing new radical evaluations of old conceptions. We’re in a rough spot as a society right now. We just might be on a deadline if we can’t figure out how to talk to each other again.
Well yeah, I can agree with that. Tribalism is human nature at the base though. It’s something that is easy to fall into and has to be overcome through thoughtful reflection and discourse. Most people aren’t that conscientious though
Okay, what do you say to people who insist on calling straight people cis gendered, when they’re told/asked not to?
A) Straight is sexual orientation. It has nothing to do with being cisgender. B) Cisgendered is the etymologically correct term to use for someone who isn’t transgendered. C) If someone has a good faith non-disparaging preferred term for themselves other than cisgendered, then by all means use that
Nice.
Well, certainly not everyone agrees that people should be entitled to an opinion here, because we have science on that shit. And science tells us that nature is messy.
Whether we’re talking about psychological gender or biological sex, proclaiming that there’s only two categories is provably false. It’s like proclaiming that all colors are either orange or blue.
I guess, you’re allowed to be wrong. Hell, you’re even allowed to be wrong publicly. But if you are, you’re not entitled to not being corrected.
The issue is when it comes to medicine doses between males and females and biological advantages, and disadvantages between those two sexes.
I’m not sure, what you’re trying to tell me. If someone’s broadly built and muscular, but happens to have a vagina in their pants, they still need a higher dosage than someone who isn’t broadly built and muscular. Well, that’s assuming the medication doesn’t cause trouble with e.g. an uterus (and assuming they’ve got an uterus to go with their vagina).
That’s what I mean with “nature is messy”. Whatever assumption you make about whatever categorization, you’ll find lots of examples that don’t fit. It’s easy to think in categories, but you have to always be aware and accepting that it’s going to be mildly wrong.
And especially a doctor should know what they’re doing, treating people according to their actual needs, not according to some category that may or may not fit.
Most things are done in averages when you’re talking about a large population so the average doses between sexes are different that was the first part the second part is the averages of physical differences between sexes, so my bad I it seem like I was putting the two together. And my overall point is that it’s not I was born a male and feel/mentally that I’m female or vice versa, it’s morphed into I am what I claim to be regardless of these averages and differences between the two sexes, don’t question me, which can lead to adverse effects when it comes to your dosage in medication’s, and the differences in weight classes and bone and muscle density.
I’m a critical care nurse.
We do not dose based on gender. We dose based on height, weight, and individual response/tolerance of a medication. Nobody cares what’s in your pants when we’re giving you drugs. Definitely no one is taking your bone density into account. I literally just sent out the tiniest little old lady from our critical care unit yesterday on the highest dose of metoprolol I’ve ever seen in my life.
Stop lying. Trans rights are human rights. Gender affirming care is medical care. The medical community is clear on that point.
So, you’re saying they don’t have different trial runs for medication for the two sexes based on its type and what it’s for? Also, that medication doesn’t and cannot have different effects on the two sexes based on the type of medication? Bring up points about something doesn’t make you against or for a group of people. Also, other countries that bet American to gender affirming care stopped it and made laws against it because of the possible side effects, such as the Finland, Sweden, France, Norway, and the U.K.
No, they do not have different drug trials based on sex or gender. No, medication absolutely does not have different effects based on sex or gender. Hearts, lungs , kidneys, all work the same no matter what kind of reproductive organs you happen to possess.
We do not distinguish based on sex or gender when administering medications. We only account for body size and individual response/tolerance to a medication.
“Tolerance”
I’m surprised it took this long for the “T” word to show up. People tolerating your ideas doesn’t mean they have to agree with them, or listen to them, or respect them.
You are confused because you said something that people reacted negatively to. Respect is earned and is not just handed out. If your ideas are insulting, don’t expect a warm welcome.
No, that’s not what I’m confused about. I’m not confused about anything. I wasn’t talking about Chapelle, and I’m familiar with the paradigm of tolerance. You’re talking liberalism 101, I’m talking about the ever-encroaching tribalism that is shutting down productive discourse. I shared a more detailed explanation already on another response. I’ll grab it and come back here with a link.
Edit: here
A regular Karl Popper over here.
You clearly understood the message of his special where he told a heart wrenching story about his trans friend killing herself due to the bullying she received from the tolerant left. That’s what I like about people like you, you’re SOOOO compassionate, and smart.
He allegedly misrepresented what actually happened: https://michaelhobbes.substack.com/p/dave-chappelles-some-of-my-best-friends
Generally the things comedians talk about on stage shouldn’t be interpreted as factual statements, that’s mostly not how standup works.
Not gonna pretend that I’ve watched all his specials. I believe I watched the first two after his return, and that’s about it. I just read about the rest, which I acknowledge comes with a layer of bias by being filtered through someone else’s lense. However, A) the flaw in the “I can’t be transphobic because I have a trans friend” argument should be apparent, especially coming from a black man in America who would have heard the “i have a black friend” argument for decades. It certainly doesn’t give you carte blanche to to say whatever you want about trans people without criticism and consequences. People are perfectly capable of befriending people that they have deep seated issues with. And cognitive dissonance is a thing. He can correctly pronoun his transwoman friend and still disparage transwomen as not being women at the same time, because that’s what he did. B) Again, while I haven’t watched that special, the fact that that is a part of his comedy show, just highlights the fact that he uses his platform to express heavy handed messages on what he sees as imperative for us to hear. That story is clearly not a joke. It’s definitely not funny. It’s a lecture, a scolding and finger pointing.
That being said, what happened to Daphne is a tragedy. Whether or not she took her life directly or indirectly due to the public backlash she got for publically supporting Chappelle, it’s still terrible that it came to that point. There’s nothing wrong with voicing your anger at speech you find bigoted, or in support of bigotry. But there is a line that gets crossed oftimes into harassment and bullying. No part of the political spectrum is innocent of that, and it’s not okay regardless of political affiliation.
Sorry, but “I had a trans friend” isn’t the airtight defense you seem to think it is.
You Young Republican types are so incredibly worthless. “Tolerant left! Tolerant left! Rawk! Polly want a cracker!” My cockatiel gives me more scintillating conversation.
Some of us aren’t that left-wing (although you suit, tie, and white hood types couldn’t possibly comprehend that), and we’re certainly not tolerant of your dumb asses. The only shred of “tolerance” I’m showing you right now is mandated by the rules of this magazine. If the rules weren’t there, I’d tell you to change your name to Mike Pence and do what comes naturally to a seditionist. (Hypothetically, of course.)
lol, you just proved his point.