Dave Chappelle triggers the Woke Left..

drunkmonkey

It's a far cry from Buttercup.

Chris_Heilong

The WOKE SJW left very much do exist and they tend to fall into areas where they can have influence, like media and journalism. These people are activists and in the case of American film critics will score some thing on weather it agrees with them politically/ideologically and not on the merits of if it(film, game, book) was actually well made or had a good story. I have started to ignore the critics score completely on Rotten tomatoes now and judge things on the audience score instead. My point is illustrated below where a documentary about the Democratic congress women can get a score of 100% from critics and the Dave Chappelle stand up can score so low.

Penn

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

I have started to ignore the critics score completely on Rotten tomatoes now and judge things on the audience score instead. My point is illustrated below where a documentary about the Democratic congress women can get a score of 100% from critics and the Dave Chappelle stand up can score so low.

You don't think the audience score is just as susceptible to manipulation as the critics? I mean as stated above, I like Chappelle and most of his stuff is fantastic, but 99% for this new special is ridiculous. It was fairly bland and boring for the most part imo.

Not to mention organised review-bombing by groups (likely both right and left) means the audience score is just as open to targeted manipulation to the point where it can't really be trusted either, only perhaps for things which are so generally apolitical that neither the right nor the left would see any need to try and skew the results.

CrankyHaus

Penn wrote: »

You don't think the audience score is just as susceptible to manipulation as the critics? I mean as stated above, I like Chappelle and most of his stuff is fantastic, but 99% for this new special is ridiculous. It was fairly bland and boring for the most part imo.

Not to mention organised review-bombing by groups (likely both right and left) means the audience score is just as open to targeted manipulation to the point where it can't really be trusted either, only perhaps for things which are so generally apolitical that neither the right nor the left would see any need to try and skew the results.

I agree with this. However critics have a greater responsibility for balanced and unbiased review of artistic work than some random person on the internet (or a bot). If they cannot provide any higher a standard that what members of the public will give for free online then they have no value.

James Brown

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

The WOKE SJW left very much do exist and they tend to fall into areas where they can have influence, like media and journalism. These people are activists and in the case of American film critics will score some thing on weather it agrees with them politically/ideologically and not on the merits of if it(film, game, book) was actually well made or had a good story. I have started to ignore the critics score completely on Rotten tomatoes now and judge things on the audience score instead. My point is illustrated below where a documentary about the Democratic congress women can get a score of 100% from critics and the Dave Chappelle stand up can score so low.

I think you'll strain yourself trying to make something out of this. Chappelle isn't as know or popular as Jerry Seinfeld or Eddie Murphy etc. It's not a conspiracy. And Sticks and Stones has it's moments but it falls flat in places and just comes across as him ranting a little, and I'm a fan.
That site is just a website. They published the findings didn't they?

CrankyHaus wrote: »

I agree with this. However critics have a greater responsibility for balanced and unbiased review of artistic work than some random person on the internet (or a bot). If they cannot provide any higher a standard that what members of the public will give for free online then they have no value.

No they don't. How it works is they give something a good review and if you like it, you'll take future reviews into consideration. You are actually talking about them pretending they like something because they should. That's not honest.

Roger Hassenforder

Some laugh out loud bits, some flat bits that could be better, and some very lame bits.
Some bits youre "Jesus, i dont think I should be laughing here'.

Not brilliant tho.

Turquoise Hexagon Sun

I enjoyed this special but I think it was bit loose. A lot of the bits were going for shock value over good craftmanship. Which is fine. I think this special came off raw and bit unrefined. I would like to hear what that special would have sounded like if more time was spent on it. I think Chappelle may feel that he singed the deal for multiple specials. That means he gets paid either way. And this one was like a throwaway one. Like he's just going for shock, because he can.

And, going for shock is grand. I think it's much needed. I just think Ricky Gervais does the same schtick a little bit smarter.

Gregor Samsa

Watched it last night. Didn't find any of it laugh out loud funny, but it was entertaining enough to be able to watch all the way though. I think he tried to hard to push the whole "What i'm saying is so edgy, I could get cancelled at any moment, but I don't care" thing far too much. It's a Netflix exclusive special with top billing, not some underground gig that everyone is scared to touch. It couldn't be any more mainstream if it tried. He knows full well he's in no danger - it's exaggerated to sell to a particular audience, and that seems to be working.

The wooping, thigh slapping, convulsions, fist pumping and cheering of the audience was over the top. If it wasn't for the fact that we all know Americans are just like that (I went to a very mediocre comedy club night with work colleagues in Minneapolis one night, and the whole audience were pissing themselves laughing at the safest, most mundane jokes), you'd think they were a rent-a-crowd on nitrous oxide. But I suppose that's to be expected with US productions.

Didn't agree with most of his positions on the subject matters, but then I don't watch comedy for a reasoned analysis of the intricacies of social or political issues. OP would probably consider my political positions (as a reasonable centre-left secular European liberal) as a Woke SWJ snowflake libtard. But, no, I wasn't triggered, offended or outraged in the slightest. Pushing the boundaries of free speech it certainly was not.

No question that he'll live to make another massive paycheck on his next special.

hetuzozaho

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

. It's a Netflix exclusive special with top billing, not some underground gig that everyone is scared to touch. It couldn't be any more mainstream if it tried. He knows full well he's in no danger - it's exaggerated to sell to a particular audience, and that seems to be working.

Yeah and people in this thread seem to be of this opinion, like they can't believe what he said. Are they just throwing it on after the soaps or what.

Something like most important comedy of our time was said in this thread. People need to get out more I think!

MOR316

Ifevera wiztherewas wrote: »

They're not guaranteed fake stories though. You choose to disbelieve them but somehow find Kelly's accusers believable ( I'd like to know your gauge for this, as in what constitutes a credible accusation ) whereas I believe Jackson's accusers.

Just because someone is cleared in a court of law doesn't mean they didn't commit the crime. I wonder if Kelly was found innocent would you then disbelieve his accusers?

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.

Gregor Samsa

MOR316 wrote: »

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

[...]

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

Eh, R Kelly was already found not guilty in a court of law, despite the video evidence. He used the Shaggy defence, and claim it wasn't him in the video. The jury decided that they couldn't determine that it was him, and found him not guilty on all 14 counts.

https://www.eonline.com/uk/news/1956/r-kelly-found-not-guilty

MOR316

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

Eh, R Kelly was already found not guilty in a court of law, despite the video evidence. He used the Shaggy defence, and claim it wasn't him in the video. The jury decided that they couldn't determine that it was him, and found him not guilty on all 14 counts.

https://www.eonline.com/uk/news/1956/r-kelly-found-not-guilty

Jesus...

Well, not this time around. I'd imagine

Either way, there's stacks upon stacks of actual evidence against him

Ha, that "rotten tomatoes score" point is absolutely ridiculous.

Which is more likely:

1) 70% of a sample of size of 10 critics (so 7) didn't like the message so rated the show negatively, irrespective of whether or not they found it funny

Or

2) 99% of 21,500 people (so 21,285) gave it a thumbs up to try to get one over on the woke, liberal, SJW film critics?

Chris_Heilong

Deleted User wrote: »

Ha, that "rotten tomatoes score" point is absolutely ridiculous.

Which is more likely:

1) 70% of a sample of size of 10 critics (so 7) didn't like the message so rated the show negatively, irrespective of whether or not they found it funny

Or

2) 99% of 21,500 people (so 21,285) gave it a thumbs up to try to get one over on the woke, liberal, SJW film critics?

Media bias is real, I do not think that is a controversial opinion at this stage it is fact. Also just look at how few reviews there are, This is because the people that enjoyed the special are connected to the outrage/SJW infected industry that is modern journalism and fear for there livelihoods if they print what they really feel and so choose not to write anything at all on the subject.

CrankyHaus

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No they don't. How it works is they give something a good review and if you like it, you'll take future reviews into consideration. You are actually talking about them pretending they like something because they should. That's not honest.

You misunderstand me. A critic has a responsibility to judge something on its own merits rather than whose side they think the artist is on. Otherwise you just end up with sterile art of dubious value from hacks that play to their respective galleries. The dishonesty is in substituting ideological purity for artistic value.

JohnnyFlash

The show wasn't that funny. That's the problem with most comedy these days. Too preachy, and not enough jokes.

Venom

Overheal wrote: »

Someone did that at a graduation coronation by attributing a quote to Donald Trump - the crowd roared then the girl corrected herself that the quote was from Barack Obama.

Meh, that's pretty old hat tbh as it was done to Taylor Swift fans back in 2013 when someone on Pinterest mixed pictures of Swift with various parts of Hilter speeches.

Textra_vision

Laughed a lot more at this than Bill Burr's newest Netflix

Textra_vision

Textra_vision wrote: »

Laughed a lot more at this than Bill Burr's newest Netflix

Yeah its vastly superior and he spends half the special slagging off the metoo movement yet he does it with taste.

Sorry I got that backwards. Bill Burr's latest special is far, far better than Chappelle's.

Penn

Textra_vision wrote: »

Laughed a lot more at this than Bill Burr's newest Netflix

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.

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.