Dave Chappelle triggers the Woke Left..

debok

Penn wrote: »

Really? Damn, I was really looking forward to that. I'll still watch when I get a chance, but I guess I should lower my expectations for it.

I thought burrs was very good. Rough in parts but that's his style

buried

This was funny as f**k, fair play to him.

Venom

debok wrote: »

I thought burrs was very good. Rough in parts but that's his style

Having watched both, Burr's was easily the better of the two as the various bits just felt way more polished.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Penn wrote: »

Really? Damn, I was really looking forward to that. I'll still watch when I get a chance, but I guess I should lower my expectations for it.

Burr’s special was way more enjoyed in Chez OBD than Chappelle’s. Different strokes, I guess.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

MOR316 wrote: »

Well, there's a video of R Kelly. Actual evidence.

You believe Jackson's accusers but, did you believe them the last 20 odd years when they came out numerous times and said he never done anything wrong to them? They were laughed out of court two years ago, with the judge saying, "no trier of fact could ever take your stories seriously"
Up to you, I'm not going to tell you what to believe or what to watch or read but, there's more evidence out there to suggest he actually didn't do it as opposed to saying he did. LN is an insult to child abuse victims. Especially when compared to Untouchable. I did not see any of the victims in that laughing

But, it's what people and their emotions choose to believe these days. That's how a person is judged and trialed now.

R Kelly will certainly not be found innocent in a court of law. Not that it matters.

Jebus, are people still trotting this out? Defenders of Jackson are always telling everyone to do their research whilst apparently not bothering themselves. :eek:

dodderangler

It’s brilliant. He hit so many points.
Bill burr done the same. It’s brilliant. Make you realize how ridiculous the left really is.

MOR316

Always Tired wrote: »

Anyone who doesn't believe that MJ abused boys is a moron. They were able to describe exactly what his genital area looked like to investigators, how his pubic hair was trimmed etc. He only ever had boys in his bed not girls.

The accuser's father injected MJ with drugs in the buttocks and groin area. The Father saw his genitals, the kid didn't.
That's according to what it says in the book of the Uncle of said accuser.

I think labelling people morons on such an emotive and heavy subject, while not knowing the ins and outs, is a bit extreme in all honesty.

Everyone can speculate and come to their own conclusions with the information that's widely available. No need to be insulting in my opinion

I thought it was uncomfortable when Chappelle said he didn't believe those two guys that they were sexually abused as children, and then went to make jokes about it. Does that make me a leftist cuck. It might have helped if the jokes were decent.

Similarly, I thought it was uncomfortable when the accusers thought the best course of action was to make a one sided documentary. Trial by public opinion is a scary thing.

MOR316

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I thought it was uncomfortable when Chappelle said he didn't believe those two guys that they were sexually abused as children, and then went to make jokes about it. Does that make me a leftist cuck. It might have helped if the jokes were decent.

Similarly, I thought it was uncomfortable when the accusers thought the best course of action was to make a one sided documentary. Trial by public opinion is a scary thing.

From what I read, the judge laughed them out of court saying, "No trier of fact, in their correct mind, could believe your story"
One of their wives is an employee of HBO so I guess that is where the wheels go into motion.

Director making homophobic and racist remarks about Jackson, getting bitter over not getting a nomination for an Oscar, the two accusers constantly defending him for over 20 years and suddenly, two of them go broke, one gets rejected to direct a Jackson tribute show in Las Vegas so a documentary based with no facts or evidence is made with two men describing abuse, while covering their mouths and trying not to smirk and they bring the estate to court for a reported billion quid...

Gonna go out on a limb here and say that smells like a cash grab to me.

James Brown

dodderangler wrote: »

It’s brilliant. He hit so many points.
Bill burr done the same. It’s brilliant. Make you realize how ridiculous the left really is.

It's not 'the left' it's people.
I'm pretty left. Thought the poor, jackson reference was pretty funny. As was the whole, (no pun intended) #justiceforjuicy.

MOR316

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Jebus, are people still trotting this out? Defenders of Jackson are always telling everyone to do their research whilst apparently not bothering themselves. :eek:

But, that did happen. It's a fact. It's in the court documents in black and white that are available for all to see. I didn't make it up. In fact, one of the accusers was caught telling a different story to the documentary, in his deposition to the cops, just two months before it. It's on YouTube. It's not 4 hours long

Maybe you just ignore it because you want someone to be guilty of child molesting? I don't know. You seem pretty keen to dismiss anything that goes against the story of what he is accused of.

I don't like that label "defenders of Jackson"
I don't own and never will own any of his albums. I never saw him live in my lifetime, I had no interest. From memory, I don't recall much interaction with any fans of his in my life. I just don't particularly like it when someone gets lynched with, what I see as, a vendetta filled with lies.

I get this impression that I could say I was sexually and physically assaulted by Jackson, in 2010, in The World Trade Centre and people would believe it.

As a poster above me said, "trial by public opinion is very scary"

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

MOR316 wrote: »

But, that did happen. It's a fact. It's in the court documents in black and white that are available for all to see. I didn't make it up. In fact, one of the accusers was caught telling a different story to the documentary, in his deposition to the cops, just two months before it. It's on YouTube. It's not 4 hours long

Maybe you just ignore it because you want someone to be guilty of child molesting? I don't know. You seem pretty keen to dismiss anything that goes against the story of what he is accused of.

I don't like that label "defenders of Jackson"
I don't own and never will own any of his albums. I never saw him live in my lifetime, I had no interest. From memory, I don't recall much interaction with any fans of his in my life. I just don't particularly like it when someone gets lynched with, what I see as, a vendetta filled with lies.

I get this impression that I could say I was sexually and physically assaulted by Jackson, in 2010, in The World Trade Centre and people would believe it.

As a poster above me said, "trial by public opinion is very scary"

It takes about five minutes for even a layperson to realise that the comment was referring to about something in relation to the company as opposed Jackson the individual. That was what the judge was talking about. But, hoping nobody will look into it, defenders of MJ claim that the judge’s comment are in relation to the complainant’s entire account. If confident in your position, why would you need to do that? Very disingenuous stuff.

As to whether you like the label “defenders of MJ” - shrug. That’s what you are. Own it. I don’t see how outlining your level of fandom or lack thereof is relevant (but everyone who defends him gives the same spiel curiously). You are defending him. Therefore, you are a... defender of Jackson. That’s a standalone thing. Fandom or otherwise doesn’t change it. I’m not sure why anyone needs to know how much of a fan you were but so many defenders of MJ launch into a spiel about it. It’s like a script. It really is truly fascinating stuff. If injustice angers y’all so much, why not find a living cause who can benefit from it? There are many injustices happening every day on this planet. Seems a waste of energy to dedicate time to defending a deceased celebrity you weren’t even a fan of, doesn’t it?

The second bolded bit is just daft, as I hope you realise. People are basing their opinions on much more solid stuff.

Personally, I take heart that whilst the two participants received plenty of criticism, they also got a lot more support than they expected. They thought they’d get nothing but hate but they got both criticism and support. I’m glad they know that many people believe them, maybe as many as those who don’t.

MOR316

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

It takes about five minutes for even a layperson to realise that the comment was referring to about something in relation to the company as opposed Jackson the individual. That was what the judge was talking about. But, hoping nobody will look into it, defenders of MJ claim that the judge’s comment are in relation to the complainant’s entire account. If confident in your position, why would you need to do that? Very disingenuous stuff.

As to whether you like the label “defenders of MJ” - shrug. That’s what you are. Own it. I don’t see how outlining your level of fandom or lack thereof is relevant (but everyone who defends him gives the same spiel curiously). You are defending him. Therefore, you are a... defender of Jackson. That’s a standalone thing. Fandom or otherwise doesn’t change it. I’m not sure why anyone needs to know how much of a fan you were but so many defenders of MJ launch into a spiel about it. It’s like a script. It really is truly fascinating stuff. If injustice angers y’all so much, why not find a living cause who can benefit from it? There are many injustices happening every day on this planet. Seems a waste of energy to dedicate time to defending a deceased celebrity you weren’t even a fan of, doesn’t it?

The second bolded bit is just daft, as I hope you realise. People are basing their opinions on much more solid stuff.

Personally, I take heart that whilst the two participants received plenty of criticism, they also got a lot more support than they expected. They thought they’d get nothing but hate but they got both criticism and support. I’m glad they know that many people believe them, maybe as many as those who don’t.

Well personally, you dont know me so you dont actually know what I dedicate my time to outside of boards.ie so I could dedicate my time to such causes. Me pointing that about my lack of fandom is me saying I'm posting from a human level, not someone who is in love with the artist type thing. You say his fans launch into a spiel about it, to try and undermine me and thats cool if it helps your arguement but, as I said, I'm not a fan per say. Like a few tracks here and there. That comment was about the individual and you can dress it up as much as you want but, I find that quite curious to say the least.

By the same token of you saying its fascinating stuff of people defending him, personally I find it fascinating that people love to find anything to bring him down. I dont know why that is. I find it bizarre that other people who are accused of the same things never get as much attention as he does. Particularly when there is no actual evidence, people will hop on it. Case in point, the two people defended him all their lives, you ignore that but, the moment one of them doesnt get a job they want, they cry wolf and you instantly believe them and back them.
I find that fascinating in itself. Maybe it's a "bigger the star, the more I want to see them fall" type thing, I dont know. Personally I find it very strange people want him to be guilty of it. Why would anyone in their right mind want anyone to be guilty of that?

The second bolded part, is not really daft at all. That's what it has gotten to. If I came out and said that in the morning, there would be a thread about it on here, guaranteed. "Oh look what he done this time"

The fact is people are labelling a guy a monster, without actual evidence or proof. It was the same with Cliff Richard and it was disgusting! Plenty of others that have passed on have evidence against them. This guy doesn't. Do you really think Chappelle is getting hammered because his show is not good? Or is it because he defended Jackson? Think about it.
That's what turns my stomach. I am not comfortable with that at all, living or dead.

I'm fully aware we are not going to agree on various things and I hope you dont take anything I have posted as personal, my friend.
I dont particularly want to be running around in circles because thats what we will end up doing.
Hope you have a great weekend

Outlaw Pete

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1188956245878824962

RocketRaccoon

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1188956245878824962

Absolutely beautiful

Freedom of speech..... Except if you offend the fairies.

Turquoise Hexagon Sun

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1188956245878824962

Love his sarcastic apology. Because that's all it is. When people apologise for making jokes, a lot of it its just saying things they think the outrage mob wants to hear. But we know from Louis CK and other cases, apologies aren't enough.

The whole thing about apologising is just a pantomime. Never understood people that demand apologies either. What's that about? Like saying "I'm sorry" is going to change the fact that laughing about certain things, offensive to some or not, is hilarious.

s7ryf3925pivug

Turquoise Hexagon Sun wrote: »

Love his sarcastic apology. Because that's all it is. When people apologise for making jokes, a lot of it its just saying things they think the outrage mob wants to hear. But we know from Louis CK and other cases, apologies aren't enough.

Louis CK did weird stuff wuth women, including blocking at least one from leaving a room before he finished ****. That's not the same as saying things that offend people in a standup show.

Personally I find them both funny but also extremely lame. Chapelle used to be edgy. I thought his comparison of the perception of the age of black teenage offenders and white pissmop of R Kelly was insightful. (This was before the real depravity of R Kelly was known.) The former were perceived as adult offenders, the latter as a child victim, when they were of course all the same age. Nowadays he's just shocking for the sake of it and most of it falls flat. Still funny but now lame instead of clever.

Louis CK is funnier since he became an outcast imo. I prefer the more aggressive humour. But he is also obviously very lame because of the weird **** episodes.

s7ryf3925pivug

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Absolutely beautiful

Freedom of speech..... Except if you offend the fairies.

'Fairies?' Really?

I can imagine Chappelle's fan mail now. "Well Dave, I felt so emboldened by your disdain for causing offence to liberals that I went out and called lots of black people the n word."

Garrett Victorious Jellyfish

Garrett Victorious Jellyfish wrote: »

'Fairies?' Really?

I can imagine Chappelle's fan mail now. "Well Dave, I felt so emboldened by your disdain for causing offence to liberals that I went out and called lots of black people the n word."

Well, it is a bit ridiculous that Black people can call each other the N word without offense, but anyone else who does it is a racist. It should be the manner in which the word is used rather than the word itself.

And honestly, Liberals have been pushing their sensitivity down the throats of everyone for ages, they deserve some offence directed their way. The US has become incredibly PC, it's not comparable to Ireland or Europe (yet)

s7ryf3925pivug

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, it is a bit ridiculous that Black people can call each other the N word without offense, but anyone else who does it is a racist. It should be the manner in which the word is used rather than the word itself.

Irish people are welcome to call me Mick, Paddy or whatever other words are used to slag off Irish people. But if a non-Irish person does it then I'm going to take offence.

Widye

Woke? They're the most brainwashed of the internet driven political culture war. Woke, aye right!

RWCNT

dodderangler wrote: »

It’s brilliant. He hit so many points.
Bill burr done the same. It’s brilliant. Make you realize how ridiculous the left really is.

If your takeaway from the special is "the left is ridiculous, PC has gone mad" then you either didnt watch it or the nuance flew right over your head.

James Brown

Seems to me....this whole affair is more about right wingers, or the new right, (some decent right wingers out there) looking to get outraged at, well, nothing. There's more outrage at the outrage, than actual outrage, if you get me.

Tchaikovsky

Anyone else have the feeling that Eddie Murphy's return to action will awaken delayed outrage at his 'homophobic' material from Delirious?

James Brown

Tchaikovsky wrote: »

Anyone else have the feeling that Eddie Murphy's return to action will awaken delayed outrage at his 'homophobic' material from Delirious?

Doubt it. It was too popular. There's troves of trolls licking their lips waiting on woke outrage to complain about and in cases such as the Chappelle special they often jump the gun.

"My name is Dolemite" is excellent. Touching and funny.

Outlaw Pete

Tchaikovsky wrote: »

Anyone else have the feeling that Eddie Murphy's return to action will awaken delayed outrage at his 'homophobic' material from Delirious?

Well, if Kevin Hart is an example, then no doubt they will, especially if the Netflix specials come to pass.

Overheal

SNL after election was called

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un_VvR_WqNs

Outlaw Pete

That was awful stuff compared with his specials. Couple of laughs here and there but generally lazy stuff.

The whole white people thing is getting old now.

What made Chappelle worthy of being called a genius for a very long time was that there was always a nugget of truth in his observations when the laughter died down. Never did 'Funny cause it's true' apply more to a comedian than it did with him.

These days though? Not so much.

James Brown

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

That was awful stuff compared with his specials. Couple of laughs here and there but generally lazy stuff.

The whole white people thing is getting old now.

What made Chappelle worthy of being called a genius for a very long time was that there was always a nugget of truth in his observations when the laughter died down. Never did 'Funny cause it's true' apply more to a comedian than it did with him.

These days though? Not so much.

You didn't see him on SNL I take it. Very poignant and very funny. Spoke about his great, great grandfather. He made light of women and white people, not edgy enough for you?

Must be embarrassing looking at Trump in denial behaving like a brat. Considering all the snow flake nonsense from the right these past years. Would he like a participation ribbon maybe?

Outlaw Pete

Bowie wrote: »

You didn't see him on SNL I take it.

That is not how you took my post at all, otherwise you wouldn't have then said:

Very poignant and very funny. Spoke about his great, great grandfather. He made light of women and white people, not edgy enough for you?

And like I said:

Couple of laughs here and there but generally lazy stuff.

So clearly I found some of it amusing.

Must be embarrassing looking at Trump in denial behaving like a brat. Considering all the snow flake nonsense from the right these past years. Would he like a participation ribbon maybe?

No idea what you're on about. Thought we were discussing Chappelle's poor showing on SNL?

I appreciate that leftists think that laughing at jokes about white people makes them appear woke, and that may indeed have been true for a time, but like I said, that's all a bit old now, and imo contributes to the very thing it was originally attempting to dismantle.

Punch up, not down. Well, been quite awhile since the black community could be considered to be generally below the white community. Jokes suggesting as much no longer ring true. Especially when made by a black multi millionaire comedian who lives in Yellow Springs.