My guess is no one likes or cares about Tosh.0 generally.
Dave Chappelle getting backlash for jokes about Caitlyn Jenner
- Thread starter uncelestial
- Start date
- Status
LudicrousSpeed
Member
For the same reason you don't hear a lot of controversy about Tosh going forward.
Criticism is usually made to convince people to try to be better. If they've been consistently criticised and have shown no interest in actually improving, at some point all you can do is consider that a lost cause and ignore them to the extent that you can.
That doesn't mean you have to ignore when their work is doing harm, but at some point you have to stop hitting your head against that brick wall.
Snarky as your quote is I'm not sure how true that is. Seems like they play it non stop on Comedy Central with only South Park and Futurama edging the show out. Not even saying that's a good or bad thing, just seems like its on a lot.
Tosh.0 is hilarious. At least the first half of the show anyway.
tbf the OP specifically made this thread because he likes Chappelle and is disappointed that he would say that. Everyone else is just critiquing this one in particular because its what was brought up. And most of the thread ended up being a meta commentary on whether jokes should be critiqued and if trans jokes specifically are on the same level as other jokes.
I like the sentiments that a few people brought up that these types of shows are partially to try out new jokes and tailor them based on the reactions. It sounds like he might have made it a bit better but hopefully he's learning why its not a good statement to make or even think. That's what criticism is after all, you're hoping the person being criticized will be open to learning from it.
I liked it the first time I saw it but when I thought about it, the tone isn't exactly obvious and it seems like it might be even more likely that its mocking trans people. It seems to mostly be about everyone's favorite boogeyman, the guy who abuses gender roles for their personal gain and how someone coming out effects their cisgender friends. overall it at least feels like they're missing the point
So, I'm a bit confused as to what would actually be okay and what isn't here.
For example, there are numerous stand up shows or comedic acts that take the piss out of different races. Being Indian, I know Russell Peters is probably a good example of it. He makes jokes about every race, but I'll focus on the ones about indian people for simplicity sake.
The jokes, whether you find them funny or not, usually attempt to cement some stereotype or create new ones. Now, i could either get offended by some or laugh and go along with it (similar to #firstworldproblems). Once the joke gets around, two things usually happened. 1) people would take the stereotype to some extreme and straight out believe it without question or 2) it would start a conversation (did you really get beat as a kid? [answer: yup]). Getting beat as a kid for example, is something I look back and can laugh at, though I'm absolutely sure that is not the case for some one else. We both have different experiences, but does that mean that the other person has the right to be angry at those jokes and instigate guilt? Or should the comedian, who might actually just be recalling their own memory and thoughts [at the time of the incident, not necessarily how they feel now] take their words back?
So I'm not sure why this is necessarily any different? Maybe Dave is a transphobic, maybe he isn't. Maybe what he said were his exact thoughts and not necessarily pushing some agenda of whether he was right or wrong in what he said. Lately, I feel that it's better to hold my tongue than say anything at the risk of being bashed on instead of spurring discussion.
And to be honest, I don't know what the correct term would be. If I wasn't able to tell what orientation a person was, is it so wrong to just take an innocent guess based on characteristics that you have [for the majority of your life and possibly applicable to the majority of people in your life] associated with a type of person? Wouldn't the next logical step for an observer to then correct them, and if they don't get it, explain why that's wrong or offensive?
For example, there are numerous stand up shows or comedic acts that take the piss out of different races. Being Indian, I know Russell Peters is probably a good example of it. He makes jokes about every race, but I'll focus on the ones about indian people for simplicity sake.
The jokes, whether you find them funny or not, usually attempt to cement some stereotype or create new ones. Now, i could either get offended by some or laugh and go along with it (similar to #firstworldproblems). Once the joke gets around, two things usually happened. 1) people would take the stereotype to some extreme and straight out believe it without question or 2) it would start a conversation (did you really get beat as a kid? [answer: yup]). Getting beat as a kid for example, is something I look back and can laugh at, though I'm absolutely sure that is not the case for some one else. We both have different experiences, but does that mean that the other person has the right to be angry at those jokes and instigate guilt? Or should the comedian, who might actually just be recalling their own memory and thoughts [at the time of the incident, not necessarily how they feel now] take their words back?
So I'm not sure why this is necessarily any different? Maybe Dave is a transphobic, maybe he isn't. Maybe what he said were his exact thoughts and not necessarily pushing some agenda of whether he was right or wrong in what he said. Lately, I feel that it's better to hold my tongue than say anything at the risk of being bashed on instead of spurring discussion.
And to be honest, I don't know what the correct term would be. If I wasn't able to tell what orientation a person was, is it so wrong to just take an innocent guess based on characteristics that you have [for the majority of your life and possibly applicable to the majority of people in your life] associated with a type of person? Wouldn't the next logical step for an observer to then correct them, and if they don't get it, explain why that's wrong or offensive?
Part of being a comedian is giving the audience the permission to really laugh when talking about a subject that usually makes people extremely uncomfortable. Usually, a good comedian that wants to poke fun will have a background in the subject that's being made fun of (most black comedians making fun of their own culture), qualify it in some fashion (like saying "Okay, this joke's kinda messed up"), or at least making himself/herself the butt of the joke by pointing out their own ignorance (this is why Louis CK can get away with racist or ignorant jokes: because the actual joke is him poking fun at his character's ignorance and buffoonery). You see this done wrong all the time with shock comedy. Sure, it's valid and it makes some laugh, but the core of it doesn't really feel like it has a point other than hating just to get laughs at the uncomfortable nature of the "joke."
Chappelle doesn't really have a background in this subject or a way to make people feel alright laughing at his joke from what this article sounds like. So, the only way he's really giving the audience permission to laugh is if they feel the same, which, in my opinion, seems to indicate where America is in terms of their acceptance of trans culture. I mean, Chappelle stopped production of his show because of the largely white fanbase misinterpreting his jokes. I'm pretty disappointed after reading about this.
Also, he was in Portland, OR just the other week. Gotta wonder how these jokes went down in a city that had protests when Lisa Lampanelli came to town.
Chappelle doesn't really have a background in this subject or a way to make people feel alright laughing at his joke from what this article sounds like. So, the only way he's really giving the audience permission to laugh is if they feel the same, which, in my opinion, seems to indicate where America is in terms of their acceptance of trans culture. I mean, Chappelle stopped production of his show because of the largely white fanbase misinterpreting his jokes. I'm pretty disappointed after reading about this.
Also, he was in Portland, OR just the other week. Gotta wonder how these jokes went down in a city that had protests when Lisa Lampanelli came to town.
It probably ties into what was said above actually. Those who would be offended never pay attention to him because what's the god damn point? Ergo, an entirely different group from those who respect Chappelle.
To me it's a matter of what you're aiming at with the joke. For example, I wouldn't think it's okay for the aim of the joke to be "You're Indian, ha." but, rather like you said, at the stereotypes. "Here's funny things that Indians may do, ha." Because you can probably see some of those stereotypes play out in your own life.
In Chapelle's set, I actually get a chuckle out of the art show bit as it's been presented in this thread. Because the punchline is about a trans stereotype, in the priority of correcting the pronoun usage over a medical emergency. My personal issue is the Jenner bit, and the original language of "Fantasy" - which subsequent posters have said he seems to have toned down - or even sort of the base idea of that, which is "Why am I expected to engage in your identity politics?" That's not poking at a stereotype. It's aiming directly at the identity of the people in question.
At least that's how it feels to me.
Mike Works
Member
I love Russell Peters, but I think that last sentence is where you might be off. The heart of Russell Peters' act is discussing and laughing about stereotypes. He does not attempt to cement stereotypes or create new ones in earnest. Peters makes jokes about or involving stereotypes (which are often somewhat offensive in of themselves), partially to make fun of that stereotype, and partially to uncover where the truth lies in that stereotype. He's a great act because you're going in knowing, "Okay he's probably going to make jokes about my ethnicity and the stereotypes about it, but I know that going in, and he's going to be making jokes about almost every ethnicity and their stereotypes too."
It's about context and purpose of delivery. When you watch Russell Peters, do you get the impression that he doesn't like Chinese people? That he thinks black people are beneath him? Of course not. Now, when you watch that Chappelle clip, do you get the impression that he feels transgendered people and their cause is fully legitimate?
It's totally fine if you don't know the correct way to address a trans-gendered person (hell, I don't know half the time either). And if you do get it wrong, and they get mad, I think it's okay to get a little upset if you were apologetic and were trying to accommodate their identity in earnest.
None of that is the problem with Chappelle here. The problem is when he starts off the joke joking about calling them trannies, then finishes off his anecdote that he believes trans-gendered people are living in a fantasy world, and being trans-gendered is the same as a black person pretending to be white. THAT is the issue here.
All of that stuff about Dave feeling upset that he got accosted for messing up his pronouns is fine, even somewhat funny. The problem is - at least via his delivery of the joke/anecdote - that he was upset not just because of the overly-political correctness of our current society, but because how dare this tranny get upset with me when I'm the one who has to indulge in their fantasy about their identity, which isn't real.
THAT is the issue with the "joke".
SOME-MIST
Member
I'm sure most trump jokes would go right out the window since I couldn't see him ever attending a comedy show.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
He was in the crowd at the 2011 White House Correspondents Dinner when Seth Meyers called him and his then-campaign a joke.
I think about that moment whenever Trump's dominating news cycles and winning states now.
uncelestial
Member
It's the audience and the expectations. I've been a fan of Dave's since Half Baked. We're talking nearly 20 years. During that time he has delivered what is in my estimation some of the best American comedy ever produced. And, he illuminated many issues around race for America. And when he felt the conversation and the audience was getting away from him and making him uncomfortable -- out of pure principle and a desire to reclaim his life and his artistic integrity -- he walked away from tens of millions of dollars and a hit show. So, in short, I have great respect and admiration for this man. And so do many millenials who grew up in the 2000s where Comedy Central with Chappelle and Stewart were a bastion of sanity in the era of the Bush re-election.
Who else but us would even be offended in the first place by anti-trans jokes? Tosh's audience would never. They eat up his garbage without ever feeling a thing. This is unfortunately how a lot of liberals end up eating their own; our talk amongst ourselves is always to a liberal crowd and thus always the first to receive liberal criticism.
But it's not unfair to Dave to offer this criticism. Sure, Tosh has it coming, but I don't know what he says because he lost people like me a long time ago. But Dave stood onstage in San Francisco, talking to a crowd of a diverse people, and started calling people trannies and telling trans people that he doesn't owe them any deference or acknowledgement of their identity. How can that be anything but disappointing? How long could that go on and escape notice? Yondr pouches or no.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked