DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Jester on November 13, 2016, 11:26:37 AM
-
Anybody see Dave Chappelle on SNL last night? I haven't watched a full episode of SNL in years, but when I heard he was hosting :corn
He's like the Kevin Moore of comedy. Left the scene when he was still on the rise, but comes back now and then and blows you away. I've met so many famous people in my life that I don't even turn my head when they are near, but I'd probably be in awe if I ever met Chappelle.
Obviously his show had some great stuff, but for some reason I always remember this comedy routine
Baby on the Corner (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTobHOyLvRU)
-
I'll watch it (I watch it every week, on tape) but he's one of those comedians that, well, I guess his message isn't meant for me, because I think he's mildly amusing most times but that's as far as it ever really goes.
I did hear he weighed in on his opinions on Trump, which I know the entire world was waiting on with baited breath. Glad to hear he delivered. (Is that supposed to be in "GREEN"?)
-
I saw his opening bit, which I thought was actually really great.
Also, for SNL this past week, the cold open was great as was the election night skit. Didn't get to see the rest.
-
Dave Chappelle is one of my favorite comedians, I haven't gotten to see the stand up yet but I"m going to check it out now.
-
What I like about Chappelle is he isn't one of those "my side" comedians. He's not Larry the Cable guy talking about how all the non-rednecks are dumb. Well, I'll have to assume that's his act because I haven't been able to watch more than 5 minute of it. He's not just a Bill Maher that decides religion is his target, but finds nothing funny about atheists. He's not a dude making fun of chicks.
He might make fun of women, like he did with the 55% women joke last night, but then he'll make fun of the dudes. To me, he's just on comedy's side. From the blind, black KKK grand wizard to the can't stop itching crackhead. It's all *very offensive*, but unlike many comedians, he's in on his own joke. He exaggerates, the best friend of comedy, but then doesn't begin to take his own exaggeration seriously.
-
It's telling that I could watch the Chapelle Show over and over, and even years later, the skits will make me laugh as hard now as they did then. Those Rick James and Prince skits are one of the only few things in this world that over-meme-saturation didn't suck the humor out of.
-
Dave Chapelle is a legend of comedy. I absolutely love his stuff
-
Funny guy. :biggrin:
-
Just realized that I can't find a Dave Chappelle concert album. Everything is video. That's fine, but over the weekend I realized I had no CD of his to listen to when I was doing some office work. Am I missing something?
-
Chapelle was fantastic on SNL.
-
Chapelle was fantastic on SNL.
My friend that was obsessed with the Chappelle show with me in college sent me the video of his Walking Dead skit from SNL. Man that brought back so many good memories from his show. Those two seasons were some of the best TV ever IMO. Such comedic gold.
Also shoutout to Chappelle's first movie, Robin Hood Men in Tights. One of my favorite childhood comedies.
-
I am not at all familiar with Chappelle's work, other than knowing he's a comedian.
I just watched his monologue and thought it was outstanding.
-
I am not at all familiar with Chappelle's work, other than knowing he's a comedian.
I just watched his monologue and thought it was outstanding.
Tim, his stand up is phenomenal. I know you'd love the 2 seasons of the Chappelle Show.
-
I am not at all familiar with Chappelle's work, other than knowing he's a comedian.
I just watched his monologue and thought it was outstanding.
Tim, his stand up is phenomenal. I know you'd love the 2 seasons of the Chappelle Show.
And add on to that half baked. His work is hilarious
-
The episode was awesome. And the. Chris Rock came in...
I remember a few years ago Chris Rock was talking about a standup tour with Dave Chappelle. I hope that's still a possibility....
Remember when he was in Nutty Professor with Eddie Murphy
-
Very funny dude. My mother-in-law and Mrs. Vox have met him twice and my son and his ex girlfriend met him last summer. They all say he's incredibly nice and very welcoming. We all go occasionally for lunch or to peruse the shops in Yellow Springs, Ohio (tiny, very cool, laid back, hippy college town North of Cincinnati where he lives). I've gone with them about a dozen times and nadda. They've run into him twice. The last time he invited them to sit outside a cafe and chat with him for about twenty minutes. He was really cool to my mother-in-law. She's a professor in New Mexico and his dad was/ is a professor at Antioch College in Yellow Springs, so they talked about that.
My son and his girlfriend met him and his family on the sidewalk in town. My son told him in passing, "Mr Chappele, I loved your show." And Dave stopped and thanked him. And asked him what we're his favorite sketches and chatted with him for a few minutes. As they started to move on he told them, "I'd take a picture with you two but I'm with my family. But next time for sure." My son says he wasn't even going to ask because a small crowd of passersby had gathered and were taking pictures. Plus I know and am friends with a number of people in the entertainment industry and my son has gotten to meet, know, and befriend many of them as well. So he knows about boundaries. But he said that he was genuinely very nice and engaging; which is despite what you might think, very rare for some legitimate and some not so legitimate reasons among celebrities. Whether you know them or not.
-
from Netflix:
News: 3 new Dave Chappelle comedy specials, coming soon.
I'm really wondering if they truly mean NEW or just new to them. This weekend's SNL only confirms Chappelle is just on another comedic plane. SNL literally had an R. Kelly video joke. I hear next week they are going to have a President Ray Gun skit. Gawd SNL blows.
-
from Netflix:
News: 3 new Dave Chappelle comedy specials, coming soon.
I'm really wondering if they truly mean NEW or just new to them. This weekend's SNL only confirms Chappelle is just on another comedic plane. SNL literally had an R. Kelly video joke. I hear next week they are going to have a President Ray Gun skit. Gawd SNL blows.
From what I read, one will be a brand new comedy special, while the other two are ones that had previously been recorded in the past few years, but never released anywhere.
So, one brand new, and two almost-brand new.
Win win win
-
Can't wait to see those. His comedy specials are hilarious.
-
:lol
Decided to put the old Dave Chappelle show on in the background as I worked on the computer and the closing credit reminded me of a Chappelle related work event.
If you are a show fan, you know it always ends with "I'm Rich Bitch!!!"
Well, at one of my old jobs, the main application used the FoxPro Database. It had quite a few ways to create reports, but it wasn't as flexible as simply creating a direct ODBC connection and bringing stuff together using other programs. I got so familiar with their core program that I was able to change the main menu item "Accounts Receivable" to "I'm Rich Bitch".
-
What does everything think of the current "controversy" regarding Chappelle?
-
I don't know much about it, I haven't watched the new special yet. *googles*
He made fun of trans people again and people are upset? I'm not so sure why this would be a scandal for someone like Dave Chappelle. He always makes inflammatory comments about groups of people. I think it's another instance of "He's funny until he makes fun of me and my demographic".
Bill Burr had a great clip a while ago about a stand-up he did where a woman came and confronted him about a joke he made about shelter dogs, meanwhile the same person laughed the whole night threw when he was roasting everything else under the sun.
-
What does everything think of the current "controversy" regarding Chappelle?
Do we just do politics anywhere now, since the mods don't seem to have looked at the PR Access Request thread in over a month?
I'll just say that Dave Chappelle tells jokes that are often incendiary and off-color. I can acknowledge it while also admitting that the man is hilarious.
Like a number of comedians, I'm sure he's already made several millions off of being "cancelled". The employees of Netflix who have a problem with his views are right to try and discourage their company from doing something that they feel is outside of what they think Netflix should and should not promote. After all, companies want points for things like "diversity" and employee engagement... you can't invite this from your employees and then stiff arm them when the conversation goes somewhere you don't like.
Regardless of what Netflix do, Dave Chappelle will land on his feet. Even if it's not Netflix, there will be some platform that will be willing to take him. Because he makes money, a lot of it.
-
I haven't heard the joke/bit, but I'm fine with whatever he said.
-
What does everything think of the current "controversy" regarding Chappelle?
Honestly, I haven't seen the new special. I would rather see the jokes in context before making judgement.
But I will say that he is a standup comedian, and pushing the envelope is part of that, so just the idea that he's done this (in any direction) is not inherently problematic. Context matters. It's possible to push the envelope too far, and he may in fact have done so, but I just need to see it first.
-
These discussions are getting tired. Not here at DTF, I mean in the real world. It just seems as if they always settle to the same two poles, and nothing gets resolved. There's no insight, there's no growth, there's no revelation. I read this (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/13/opinion/dave-chappelle-netflix-trans.html) and the woman tries to give him the benefit of the doubt, then settles into the established pattern. Now, I think Chappelle is funny, but not the GOAT; he's not even top three if you ask me (that's Carlin, Rock, Burr for me).
I think we forget, in this age of dire seriousness, that it's still art. And art is, foremost, about expression. This notion that there can never be criticism of anything other than white, straight men (and sometimes women) is destined for failure; it's only going to bring about the same resentments and elitism that we're fighting against, just pointed in a different direction. (And if you think about it, we're already there; globally, white straight males are a minority, yet the tolerance paradigms have not shifted accordingly).
-
These discussions are getting tired. Not here at DTF, I mean in the real world. It just seems as if they always settle to the same two poles, and nothing gets resolved. There's no insight, there's no growth, there's no revelation. I read this (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/13/opinion/dave-chappelle-netflix-trans.html) and the woman tries to give him the benefit of the doubt, then settles into the established pattern. Now, I think Chappelle is funny, but not the GOAT; he's not even top three if you ask me (that's Carlin, Rock, Burr for me).
What's your favorite Rock set? I've been on an old comics binge lately and haven't gotten to him yet.
-
Actually watched this last night with my gf. I didn't really care for his other netflix specials but with all the controversy I figured I should check this out. (wow look at how the publicy sold this because I may not have otherwise watched!)
It wasn't anything special. Some solid laughs for sure, but it actually got pretty serious about the trans thing. I didn't even know he had a long history of being hated by the trans community. Some of the jokes, sure were a bit rough, but that's stand up comedy! I'm really not sure he did anything wrong here. In fact, I think he made a great point about "punching down". He kind of actually exposed the trans community a bit for not being open to other groups of people (in his instance, comedians). I think that's likely why they are more upset about this than the actual jokes. The truth behind those jokes hits a bit hard if he's talking about you in this case and the story about his trans friend is really sad. The whole thing started as being funny and then went sad real quick.
For a stand up comedy special, it was a bit too serious for me to really enjoy it if I'm being honest though. At the end, slight spoiler:
He said he is done making trans jokes so having said that, I'm not really sure I understand the outrage. In many ways, I feel like he buried the hatchet.
-
These discussions are getting tired. Not here at DTF, I mean in the real world. It just seems as if they always settle to the same two poles, and nothing gets resolved. There's no insight, there's no growth, there's no revelation. I read this (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/13/opinion/dave-chappelle-netflix-trans.html) and the woman tries to give him the benefit of the doubt, then settles into the established pattern. Now, I think Chappelle is funny, but not the GOAT; he's not even top three if you ask me (that's Carlin, Rock, Burr for me).
What's your favorite Rock set? I've been on an old comics binge lately and haven't gotten to him yet.
It's the obvious choice, but Bring The Pain is solid.
-
These discussions are getting tired. Not here at DTF, I mean in the real world. It just seems as if they always settle to the same two poles, and nothing gets resolved. There's no insight, there's no growth, there's no revelation. I read this (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/13/opinion/dave-chappelle-netflix-trans.html) and the woman tries to give him the benefit of the doubt, then settles into the established pattern. Now, I think Chappelle is funny, but not the GOAT; he's not even top three if you ask me (that's Carlin, Rock, Burr for me).
What's your favorite Rock set? I've been on an old comics binge lately and haven't gotten to him yet.
It's the obvious choice, but Bring The Pain is solid.
That's my favorite.
Did you ever have his CD Roll With The New? It combined bits from Bring The Pain with recorded sketches. It's fantastic.
-
Do we just do politics anywhere now, since the mods don't seem to have looked at the PR Access Request thread in over a month?
Not sure I consider this a political discussion per se. Even though I do not post in P/R anymore (my rights to post there were removed at my own request), this is not me trying to skirt it and get chatter about politics in GD.
These discussions are getting tired. Not here at DTF, I mean in the real world. It just seems as if they always settle to the same two poles, and nothing gets resolved. There's no insight, there's no growth, there's no revelation. I read this (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/13/opinion/dave-chappelle-netflix-trans.html) and the woman tries to give him the benefit of the doubt, then settles into the established pattern. Now, I think Chappelle is funny, but not the GOAT; he's not even top three if you ask me (that's Carlin, Rock, Burr for me).
I think we forget, in this age of dire seriousness, that it's still art. And art is, foremost, about expression. This notion that there can never be criticism of anything other than white, straight men (and sometimes women) is destined for failure; it's only going to bring about the same resentments and elitism that we're fighting against, just pointed in a different direction. (And if you think about it, we're already there; globally, white straight males are a minority, yet the tolerance paradigms have not shifted accordingly).
By and large, I agree. I do think some comedians use the comedy cover as an excuse to say whatever they want (Kathy Griffin for one, although calling her someone as unfunny as her a comedian seems odd), but for the most part the job of a comedian is to get people to laugh, and that usually entails making fun or anything or anyone that will get people to laugh.
-
What does everything think of the current "controversy" regarding Chappelle?
Honestly, I haven't seen the new special. I would rather see the jokes in context before making judgement.
But I will say that he is a standup comedian, and pushing the envelope is part of that, so just the idea that he's done this (in any direction) is not inherently problematic. Context matters. It's possible to push the envelope too far, and he may in fact have done so, but I just need to see it first.
I bolded the part that I agree with the most.
I am not the biggest fan of Dave Chappelle. I've only started getting into him after his SNL performance last year, which was really cool. And even though he isn't one of my very favorites, I've seen a couple of specials, including the new one. Not only was it funny, but it was also approaching the line dangerously close and yet managed not to cross it, in my opinion. If you watch the special until the very end, it should be apparent that any accussation that Dave is insensitive towards a certain group of people if off base. I agree with cramx3's take on it.
That being said, given the nature of stand up comedy, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish jokes and performance from the person's actual opinion. If he is in fact misinformed about gender / sex / the concept of being trans, there is room for improvement in his perception. However, implementing the tools of cancel culture might not be the way to go with it.
If Dave bounces back from this and does not get cancelled, we might be the witnesses of the first instance of someone not succumbing to cancel culture. That might also mark a change in the tide towards something open to more dialogue and understanding. As Neil Peart perfectly put it, "the spaces in between leave room for you and I to grow."
-
Do we just do politics anywhere now, since the mods don't seem to have looked at the PR Access Request thread in over a month?
Not sure I consider this a political discussion per se. Even though I do not post in P/R anymore (my rights to post there were removed at my own request), this is not me trying to skirt it and get chatter about politics in GD.
These discussions are getting tired. Not here at DTF, I mean in the real world. It just seems as if they always settle to the same two poles, and nothing gets resolved. There's no insight, there's no growth, there's no revelation. I read this (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/13/opinion/dave-chappelle-netflix-trans.html) and the woman tries to give him the benefit of the doubt, then settles into the established pattern. Now, I think Chappelle is funny, but not the GOAT; he's not even top three if you ask me (that's Carlin, Rock, Burr for me).
I think we forget, in this age of dire seriousness, that it's still art. And art is, foremost, about expression. This notion that there can never be criticism of anything other than white, straight men (and sometimes women) is destined for failure; it's only going to bring about the same resentments and elitism that we're fighting against, just pointed in a different direction. (And if you think about it, we're already there; globally, white straight males are a minority, yet the tolerance paradigms have not shifted accordingly).
By and large, I agree. I do think some comedians use the comedy cover as an excuse to say whatever they want (Kathy Griffin for one, although calling her someone as unfunny as her a comedian seems odd), but for the most part the job of a comedian is to get people to laugh, and that usually entails making fun or anything or anyone that will get people to laugh.
Kathy Griffin is a professional celebrity; I don't consider her a comedian, any more than I consider, say, Paris Hilton a musician.
I think we've defaulted too quickly to "anger" as a reaction, and "hate" as a motivator. I think there's wisdom to be gleaned from looking at WHY certain jokes are funny, why they land, and having an intellectual mind to a) not react to those jokes with the default of "anger" and b) not assuming that the jokes are rooted in "hate". There's a disconnect; me being "offended" by something you say doesn't have anything to do with your motivations in saying it.
We also need to decide - not the right word - what the science says about messaging. We know, now, that lyrics don't cause suicide, we know, now, that video games don't cause violence, but we're still sort of stuck on this notion that other things that "offend" somehow have a causal effect - a negative causal effect - on our society. It's anecdotal, and a little facetious, but it never ceases to fascinate me how one trans joke is supposed to be a trigger for violence against trans people, but thousands of jokes, songs, movies, memes, tweets, etc. about love and peace and tolerance don't seem to carry any weight. We are at the height of identity politics awareness, and yet we live in some of the most divisive times in decades at least. Someone is going to have to answer to that at some point.
-
Comedy bridges the fine line from seriousness to fun.
What I find hilarious is how Native American form of comedy is about roasting, not just for laughs, but also as a means to correct the wrong by presenting it and showcasing it for all the people to see, by re-enacting the act in front of all the community to witness, there's a story of this couple who did the nasty when they weren't supposed to and the "comedians" made them do it in front of everyone. The lessen is, if you don't want to be made fun of, then don't do these things that will get you made fun of.
This "hate speech" rhetoric is detrimental to the fun/serious dynamic that comedy deals with. For one, this depends on the person who is being dealt the "hate speech". I know people who do not care at all what someone thinks about them, so the "hate speech" does not affect them.
I read in history class about the virginian eye-gouging and hair pulling and how these men would boast and call each other names that is essentially "hate speech".
Theres also a fine line of "hate speech" and criticism. And comedians walk this tight rope, and the best ones can walk the fine line, such as Carlin.
There's also, Shock Comedians who use shock humor, such as Daniel Tosh, which also walk the fine line of "hate speech" and criticism.
-
I like your post a lot. But I'm confused by this part in particular:
That being said, given the nature of stand up comedy, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish jokes and performance from the person's actual opinion. If he is in fact misinformed about gender / sex / the concept of being trans, there is room for improvement in his perception. However, implementing the tools of cancel culture might not be the way to go with it.
Is there a connector between your first sentence and your second, or are they simply unrelated thoughts? I don't know that it matters whether a joke is or is not from the person's actual opinion, does it? Songs don't. Art is about expression, and artists can sometimes use that platform as a soapbox, and sometimes they can role play. I think "stand up" lends itself to "this is my opinion", since it's literally a person talking into a microphone at an audience. But I don't think it's a gimme that the jokes are rooted in personal opinion.
And whether one can make that joke or not isn't really tied to "misinformation"; too often in today's society, "informed" is confused with "is in agreement with". Sure, we want to make sure that people are armed with as many documentable facts as can be, but we're allowed to assemble those facts in new, or contrary ways, up until we start to contradict those facts.
-
Do we just do politics anywhere now, since the mods don't seem to have looked at the PR Access Request thread in over a month?
Not sure I consider this a political discussion per se. Even though I do not post in P/R anymore (my rights to post there were removed at my own request), this is not me trying to skirt it and get chatter about politics in GD.
These discussions are getting tired. Not here at DTF, I mean in the real world. It just seems as if they always settle to the same two poles, and nothing gets resolved. There's no insight, there's no growth, there's no revelation. I read this (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/13/opinion/dave-chappelle-netflix-trans.html) and the woman tries to give him the benefit of the doubt, then settles into the established pattern. Now, I think Chappelle is funny, but not the GOAT; he's not even top three if you ask me (that's Carlin, Rock, Burr for me).
I think we forget, in this age of dire seriousness, that it's still art. And art is, foremost, about expression. This notion that there can never be criticism of anything other than white, straight men (and sometimes women) is destined for failure; it's only going to bring about the same resentments and elitism that we're fighting against, just pointed in a different direction. (And if you think about it, we're already there; globally, white straight males are a minority, yet the tolerance paradigms have not shifted accordingly).
By and large, I agree. I do think some comedians use the comedy cover as an excuse to say whatever they want (Kathy Griffin for one, although calling her someone as unfunny as her a comedian seems odd), but for the most part the job of a comedian is to get people to laugh, and that usually entails making fun or anything or anyone that will get people to laugh.
Kathy Griffin is a professional celebrity; I don't consider her a comedian, any more than I consider, say, Paris Hilton a musician.
I think we've defaulted too quickly to "anger" as a reaction, and "hate" as a motivator. I think there's wisdom to be gleaned from looking at WHY certain jokes are funny, why they land, and having an intellectual mind to a) not react to those jokes with the default of "anger" and b) not assuming that the jokes are rooted in "hate". There's a disconnect; me being "offended" by something you say doesn't have anything to do with your motivations in saying it.
We also need to decide - not the right word - what the science says about messaging. We know, now, that lyrics don't cause suicide, we know, now, that video games don't cause violence, but we're still sort of stuck on this notion that other things that "offend" somehow have a causal effect - a negative causal effect - on our society. It's anecdotal, and a little facetious, but it never ceases to fascinate me how one trans joke is supposed to be a trigger for violence against trans people, but thousands of jokes, songs, movies, memes, tweets, etc. about love and peace and tolerance don't seem to carry any weight. We are at the height of identity politics awareness, and yet we live in some of the most divisive times in decades at least. Someone is going to have to answer to that at some point.
Then you get the media involved and they give the soap box to the loudest angry influencer and run that story non-stop and you have people now angry at chappelle, many who have not even watched the special and also who will not watch it at all. Because the media chose to present this story and use the loudest angry soap box to project this narrative of "hate speech".
-
It's almost an absolute that what the mob THINKS was said is not in fact what was ACTUALLY said, either in context or in fact.
-
It's almost an absolute that what the mob THINKS was said is not in fact what was ACTUALLY said, either in context or in fact.
This was a big point he was making in the special. Whenever he would ask why the trans person was hating on him, they always respond with what they read about him not with what he actually said. I feel like that's also exactly what's happening with the current special. He's making a very clear point in this special and it's not to make fun of trans people (even though he cracks jokes about them as well with every other race/ethnicity/sexuality along the way).
-
Dave Chappelle is impossible to cancel at this point, it’s ridiculous to even consider. He just has backlash, that’s all. I am the biggest fan, I travelled from Quebec to Boston to see him in 2018 but I’m done for now, I hope he reconsiders his approach to this topic.
-
It's almost an absolute that what the mob THINKS was said is not in fact what was ACTUALLY said, either in context or in fact.
Exactly why I want to see the special myself before even constructing an opinion.
-
I though he was thought provoking in a comedic way. I laughed then I paused to think about it.
It's good conversations that we all need.
-
he’s still one of the best storytellers in the business
-
I like your post a lot. But I'm confused by this part in particular:
That being said, given the nature of stand up comedy, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish jokes and performance from the person's actual opinion. If he is in fact misinformed about gender / sex / the concept of being trans, there is room for improvement in his perception. However, implementing the tools of cancel culture might not be the way to go with it.
Is there a connector between your first sentence and your second, or are they simply unrelated thoughts? I don't know that it matters whether a joke is or is not from the person's actual opinion, does it?
I think that particular musing was influenced by statements that occur between the jokes in stand up comedy. At one point, Dave says: "I agree. Gender is a fact." It does in fact serve as a set up to a punchline that follows, but on its own, it bring up the question whether or not that is his personal opinion. If there is more to that statement than just a set up to a punchline, trans people might take it as a discussion topic. From what I can gather, trans people tend to distinquish between gender and sex, or sometimes between gender and gender assigned at birth. But then again, I'm not particularly up to date when it comes to the topic. I'm just discussing stand up comedy, which I'm passionate about. :)
-
It's almost an absolute that what the mob THINKS was said is not in fact what was ACTUALLY said, either in context or in fact.
That's pretty much what I've been seeing. One my friends was responding to Facebook posts with his opinion on all of this and then admitted "well I didn't actually watch it but from what I've read...".
-
I remember enjoying the Sticks and Stones special but this most recent one was pretty bad by his standards IMO. I don't care about the controversies and I'm also not a person who gets offended by jokes but my main disappointment with it was that I don't remember laughing more than once or twice in 70 minutes.
-
I remember enjoying the Sticks and Stones special but this most recent one was pretty bad by his standards IMO. I don't care about the controversies and I'm also not a person who gets offended by jokes but my main disappointment with it was that I don't remember laughing more than once or twice in 70 minutes.
I had like 8 - 10 laughs I think. But I'm not sure I'd recommend this, it overall wasn't that funny and ended up being too serious for a stand up comedy act IMO.
-
I did actually watch the Segment on The Closer.
It was... alright. Chappelle has been telling trans jokes for awhile. He's told some funny ones that were offensive, and some that weren't, really.
The segment in The Closer is not very funny. As Stadler said here a page back, "no insight, no growth, no revelation", and that's what I would say about that joke. It's the kind of low brow thing that you might have rolled your eyes at 5 years ago. But what makes comedy next level is when it not only entertains, but delivers on some higher truth, or allows us to look at something from an angle we hadn't truly considered before.
Chappelle has been far more entertaining to me than not, including many of the times when he's skirted the line or outright crossed it on political correctness? But that segment was just weak, seems like he's gotten a few too many paydays from Netflix and is just phoning it in.
-
I haven't heard the bit, but the story has been running hard on local talk radio. As others have pointed out, comedians have been pushing the edge for ages, it's their job. One thing one host has been hammering on is that comedians should punch up, not down, which I kind of agree with, but in the end Chappelle is responsible for his brand, and can manage it as he sees fit. If public opinion is strong enough, he'll feel it, but I doubt he will. He's in that rarefied area, akin to South Park, where there really isn't any taboo subjects, at least not too taboo for him.
-
.
-
I'm not replying to any one person, which is why there is no quote, but there are a couple concepts I'd like to respond to.
The notion of punching up/punching down. I'm not sure why that's important? Isn't any artist - any well-known artist - that is taking shots at someone or some group that cannot respond directly almost by definition punching down? Why should that matter? And I alluded to this in a previous post, who's to say what constitutes "up" and "down" in this context?
The concept of "who gets to be offended"; this, it should be obvious, is where many of my concerns lie; we're specifically talking about the trans community here; that is roughly 1.5M people (adults) out of a population of 330M. That's not insignificant, but in this age where everyone has a bully pulpit (social media) you get voices that have an inordinate amount of power. With great power comes great responsibility, and in the realm of identity politics, that seems to be distorted. That ONE PERSON (or even a minority subset of the subgroup) is offended, does that necessarily rise to a violation of that responsibility? Or does that "offense" create it's own responsibility? I don't think it does. There's no duty; Dave Chappelle has no obligation - nor should he - to any one person, who may have a legitimate beef, but may also be simply burdened by late rent, or physical issues, or dischord with their parents/family, etc. that make them cranky at any one time.
Especially in an artform like comedy, where there are so many different approaches and nuances - sarcasm, satire, parody - this idea that no one (well, except straight white males) should be offended is an inhibitor. It's going to chill meaningful conversations, conversations that NEED to be had if there is going to be greater understanding moving forward. Not that Chappelle is a martyr or anything, but we've had more conversations (such that they are) about the trans experience as a result of Dave Chappelle than we had before (which is to say, zero). Maybe we ought to stop ostracizing "good" in pursuit of "great" (a subjective measure in and of itself).
-
The notion of punching up/punching down. I'm not sure why that's important? Isn't any artist - any well-known artist - that is taking shots at someone or some group that cannot respond directly almost by definition punching down? Why should that matter? And I alluded to this in a previous post, who's to say what constitutes "up" and "down" in this context?
It comes up in the special, hence why it was brought up in this thread. Dave talks a bit about punching down and then claims the trans community has been punching down on him. I've honestly never heard this term before the special.
-
As I understand the term and how it's normally used, I'm not sure that any punching from the trans community toward Dave Chapelle would be punching DOWN. That would be punching UP.
-
Yea. It’s about power structure. A boss mocking his employees is punching down. An employee mocking their boss is punching up. A famous celebrity making fun of a marginalized community with very little power is punching down. A marginalized community with little power making fun of a famous celebrity is punching up.
I’m already awaiting Stadler totally disagreeing with this concept. ;D
-
I'm not sold I agree with Dave that he is getting punched down if that's the interpretation of the phrase, but it is more nuanced than that it seems based on his view of it. What about getting ganged up on? What about when the ganging up causes someone to commit suicide? These are points he brings up.
-
Yea. It’s about power structure. A boss mocking his employees is punching down. An employee mocking their boss is punching up. A famous celebrity making fun of a marginalized community with very little power is punching down. A marginalized community with little power making fun of a famous celebrity is punching up.
I’m already awaiting Stadler totally disagreeing with this concept. ;D
I agree with the concept, for sure. I disagree with the analysis. At least in the identity politics arena, the notion that the "marginalized" communities are punching up is debatable.
-
Yea. It’s about power structure. A boss mocking his employees is punching down. An employee mocking their boss is punching up. A famous celebrity making fun of a marginalized community with very little power is punching down. A marginalized community with little power making fun of a famous celebrity is punching up.
I’m already awaiting Stadler totally disagreeing with this concept. ;D
But when said comedian comes from a marginalized group of his own, IMO, things get murkier.
I mean, didn’t Mel Brooks make an entire career out of that? It’s my understanding that one of the many reasons he got away with Blazing Saddles (and other ethnic jokes in his movies) was because he himself was Jewish.
Is there any such thing as “punching across”?
-
I watched the special. I've enjoyed Dave Chappelle's work since before Chappelle's Show.
There was no "punching down".
In fact, it seems the real issue that everyone is ignoring is it was social media, not music, not comedy, not movies, not video games, that helped lead to the suicide of Dave's trans friend, and the people on social media that blasted the trans friend for defending Dave and his work, were/are members of the LGBTQA community themselves. Seems to me that outrage culture, cancel culture, as well as tribalism and 'wrong think' are some of the most dangerous aspects of modern society today.
You wouldn't realize that if you didn't watch the special.
As for the special lacking "jokes" there were plenty of laugh out loud moments for me, and stand up isn't always about telling one joke after another. In fact, George Carlin's HBO special "Life is Worth Losing" was considered un-funny, I thought so at the time (2005) and even the audience there only let out a few nervous laughs on tape. Watching it in 2021, I found it funnier than ever, and one of the most profound stand up specials ever created. It wasn't preachy. It was exposing how fucked up humans are and how we in America don't bat an eye over the atrocities the US government commits, unless the media blasts it in our face for 4 straight years like they did with President Trump, who was arguably the least terrible President for the planet in the last 40 years when you compare the policies of every other US President since JFK, and if the media spread as much propaganda about other politicians like they did with Trump, we MIGHT actually elect better people to run the country, because the average moron would know how bad these people really are, and how they could not care less about you or your well being, when they give those 'righteous' speeches.
-
Yea. It’s about power structure. A boss mocking his employees is punching down. An employee mocking their boss is punching up. A famous celebrity making fun of a marginalized community with very little power is punching down. A marginalized community with little power making fun of a famous celebrity is punching up.
I’m already awaiting Stadler totally disagreeing with this concept. ;D
But when said comedian comes from a marginalized group of his own, IMO, things get murkier.
I mean, didn’t Mel Brooks make an entire career out of that? It’s my understanding that one of the many reasons he got away with Blazing Saddles (and other ethnic jokes in his movies) was because he himself was Jewish.
Is there any such thing as “punching across”?
The psychology of "punching across" is fascinating to me. I'm not sure I agree with the rationale of "I can do it and you can't." We don't like when Trump is racially cavalier, because it supposedly "empowers" the racists; do we really think that African Americans saying the n-word doesn't do the same? Do we really think that Randall Redneck is saying "wow, Dave Chappelle really owns that word; I can't say it now!" Because Randy IS still saying it, and it IS still having a devastating impact. Isn't it just as likely that Randy is instead thinking "yep, just another way they're getting one over on us!" or whatever it is that racists use to justify their actions? Bigotry is diminished by reducing the in-groups and out-groups. Taking ownership of a word or a joke or a point of view is only REINFORCING the in-groups and out-groups. What's more "in-group" than "I can do it and you can't!"
-
often times in these situations I've seen comments (and I've said it myself sometimes) along the lines of why don't these institutions just stick to their guns? Well it seems Netflix is really doing that so far, for good or ill I don't know https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/15/22728337/netflix-fires-organizer-trans-employee-walkout-dave-chappelle
-
often times in these situations I've seen comments (and I've said it myself sometimes) along the lines of why don't these institutions just stick to their guns? Well it seems Netflix is really doing that so far, for good or ill I don't know https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/15/22728337/netflix-fires-organizer-trans-employee-walkout-dave-chappelle
Well, to be fair, Netflix is big business, and they are sticking to their guns because Chappelle is wildly popular and makes them a lot of money. If this was some no-name comedian still looking to make a name for him or herself, I think it's safe bet that Netflix would have shown them the door.
As for the organizer who was fired, well, yeah, if you leak confidential info about the company for whom you work to the public, you are basically asking for your walking papers.
-
Kev, that's a big....."Duh."
-
Some need the obvious pointed out. ;) :P
-
:lol
I also love reading the DTF critics. This guy is on his game. He may not be as funny but it's for a reason. He's at the point that he wants to influence and not just get the chuckle.
To have the balls to do that is rarified air.
-
Just watched the show under discussion. Unfunny but interesting (exactly like the last show of his I watched, the one where he talked about the Jussie Smollet incident). I guessed going into it that most of the media-manufactured reaction would turn out to be overblown, and that's been confirmed. This is what's "challenging" now apparently. We've come a long way from George Carlin's 10 Commandments bit, or Bill Hicks' War on Drugs skit, or Richard Pryor on cops killing black folk, or Chris Rock's bit on the difference between black people and niggas.
I love Chappelle's early work but this new stuff is just the Ricky Gervais pablum all over again. Honestly I'm offended that I wasn't more offended by it. Despite what certain quarters of the internet are saying, Chappelle doesn't "hate" trans people, he (like Gervais) finds them inherently ridiculous, and the trans community aren't "outraged" about the show, they're just annoyed that people who have no idea what they're talking about are talking about it from the lofty headline-generating platform that wealth gives you. It's the modern thing now in stand-up comedy. "That's my job, I'm a stand-up comedian, I'm meant to challenge people, if you don't like being challenged, don't watch my show!". Yeah because you know who's been long overdue a challenge? The trans community. They've had their guard down for way too long, they'll all be checking their privilege on the way home now thanks to you, Dave.
For fuck's sake it's just so bland and pointless a target. Go joke about Israel, show me how brave and "challenging" you are, let's see how long Netflix "embraces your challenging points of view". This trans stuff is childish. Of all the cunts in the world right now who need a light shone upon them it's the trans community you feel need "challenging" in special after special? Hicks would never have done this, and neither would Carlin or Pryor. Chappelle wanted to be taken seriously during his show about the death of George Floyd a year or so ago. I was patient with him watching that, because despite being unfunny it was incredibly heart-felt and showcased his profound intelligence and occasionally startling gift with language. But you can't pick and choose when you want to be taken at your word and when it's all 'just jokes'. His final statement in this new special amounted to "I'm not telling these jokes any more until I can be sure everyone's laughing with me", and that's something Pryor and Hicks and Carlin would never have needed to say. There's nothing noble in passive-aggressively saying you're quitting the theme until people agree with you. Maybe Chappelle is a victim of the times, I don't know. But what I do know is that there was more intelligence and insight and social commentary and HUMOUR (remember that?) in his "grape drink" bit from God knows how long ago than there is in this weird fixation on trans issues.
Damn you pancreatic cancer, why did you have to take Bill Hicks so young? He's the guy our times desperately needed. Joking about the trans community in 2021 would have been so far beneath him.
-
I honestly think that's hyperbole Dave.
I think most take what they want and turn it into what they perceive. He's making a statement and if you don't like his statement, you are bored. It you dig it, you like it.
Me, I'm glad he's pushing boundaries for comedians? Not many.
He has a platform, and he actually tries to get most to
compromise. These days, most don't want to.
We need more compromise these days
-
^^ To me, Dave Chappelle pushed boundaries for comedians with his early work on racial and social inequality. His bits on the "Chinese terrorists" calling the White House about the black hostages they'd taken? Brilliant. His white buddy 'Chip', who acted as a white mirror to the black experience with cops? Genius. Grape drink? Already mentioned it. The TV stuff he did with Clayton Bixby (the blind black white supremacist) or the 'Niggar Family'? Absolutely ground-breaking (and also very brave, given when he was doing it).
That he is now reduced to being praised for his takes on trans issues by non-trans people is, to me, a comment on where America is at right now. The greatest comedians are ahead of the times, not bogged down in them. I haven't seen a single person saying "His latest special was very funny!". Anyone praising it is saying "Yeah it wasn't very funny but it needed saying!" (which to me is like saying "Dream Theater's new album doesn't sound very good but it uses an 8-string in a crazy time signature and so therefore it's great!") You needed this saying to you? This opened anybody's eyes in some way? You've come away from this with anything other than a sense that someone other than you is guilty of being stupid and absurd?
This special will not be remembered, because it's not something a great comedian wastes his time on. Just my opinion.
-
So it's OK to take on race issues but not Trans issues?
In the end, he comes to defend a Trans he becomes friends with only to have the community destroy his friend to the point of suicide.
We are supposed to shun that as he's not funny or he punches down? He shows that we all can change and need to reach out but it's his worst work.
I find hypocrisy in that if you don't agree with him socially, he's,
A. Not funny
B. Off base.
We need more realization in our world these days.
-
Never mind.
-
I disagree. This special is all most talk about in social media. I can't say it will be remembered but I can say it's touched a nerve right now.
-
What's being talked about on social media right now is not a litmus test of how intelligent or insightful something is. If tomorrow Tom Brady tweets out "Fuck niggers" it will crash Twitter within the hour, that doesn't mean he's struck intellectual gold. And as for "touching a nerve right now", it is not difficult to touch nerves, especially in our Year of Tribalism 2021. It is far more difficult and clever to speak to people without first needing to provoke their disdain and mockery for some other group. This is what I wish Dave Chappelle would turn his formidable intelligence and life experience towards. He used to do it.
-
Is this the part everyone's talking about?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLK16VFEMaM
Seemed fine to me.
I don't know anything about Dave Chappelle. Don't know any of his shows or specials by name. But I have watched a ton of youtube clips and I think he's really funny. He can be serious at times, and while I haven't always laughed at everything (not that I found it offensive, but more so that I didn't understand his POV), I've always found him incredible clever.
I have never found George Carlin funny. As in ever. Clever as hell, but he always came off to me as an asshole. Like he was the smartest guy in the room.
-
You use an example with someone who would never do that. Yet, Chappelle has done this for decades. Why is it a shock now?
I call shenanigans on those questioning this now.
It's the time we live in. Most will not watch this stand up but will give their 2 cents. None will no the story of Dave bonding with a Trans only to see that community destroy their own.
-
this seems an in depth overview of the situation https://www.vox.com/22722357/dave-chappelle-the-closer-netflix-backlash-controversy-transphobic
-
Okay, seriously, can we knock off using the n-word? Even if it is quoting someone or whatever, it's seems out of bounds.
-
To say this,
"He even compares being trans to wearing blackface, an alarming reframing of the insidious idea that trans people make a mockery of gender."
Is to use your own media credentials to put what you think into what Dave thought.
If you don't know what black face has meant to thr black community, then you shouldn't use that as an example.
-
Interesting takeaway for me from that article, a topic about comedy, and entertainment in general, that others have alluded to in this thread:
How much you enjoy The Closer will depend on whether you’re able or willing to believe the comic and the human are separate entities...
-
Time for bed.
I want to leave this. A man admitted that he saw another point of view and realized he was wrong. To see those ridicule the one person that opened his eyes has to take a toll on a person.
To admit this as a comedian is huge.
Yet people feed off the negative they perceive.
Night.
-
Okay, seriously, can we knock off using the n-word? Even if it is quoting someone or whatever, it's seems out of bounds.
"It seems out of bounds", Jesus fucking Christ, read the thread you've been letting happen. The praising of the mocking of the trans community isn't "out of bounds" but a racial slur reminds you that you're supposed to be pretending to be morally outraged? If only there were a single historically-offensive word for trans people I guess. What a joke when people who don't give a fuck pretend to give a fuck.
-
^^ To me, Dave Chappelle pushed boundaries for comedians with his early work on racial and social inequality. His bits on the "Chinese terrorists" calling the White House about the black hostages they'd taken? Brilliant. His white buddy 'Chip', who acted as a white mirror to the black experience with cops? Genius. Grape drink? Already mentioned it. The TV stuff he did with Clayton Bixby (the blind black white supremacist) or the 'Niggar Family'? Absolutely ground-breaking (and also very brave, given when he was doing it).
Those bits were all funny and this one wasn't. Is that the difference?
Okay, seriously, can we knock off using the n-word? Even if it is quoting someone or whatever, it's seems out of bounds.
"It seems out of bounds", Jesus fucking Christ, read the thread you've been letting happen. The praising of the mocking of the trans community isn't "out of bounds" but a racial slur reminds you that you're supposed to be pretending to be morally outraged? If only there were a single historically-offensive word for trans people I guess. What a joke when people who don't give a fuck pretend to give a fuck.
I don't think quoting the word in context should be an issue personally. I'm not sure it's different than singing a song that includes the word.
-
(which to me is like saying "Dream Theater's new album doesn't sound very good but it uses an 8-string in a crazy time signature and so therefore it's great!")
To be fair, some people ARE saying that. :) :) :)
-
Okay, seriously, can we knock off using the n-word? Even if it is quoting someone or whatever, it's seems out of bounds.
"It seems out of bounds", Jesus fucking Christ, read the thread you've been letting happen. The praising of the mocking of the trans community isn't "out of bounds" but a racial slur reminds you that you're supposed to be pretending to be morally outraged? If only there were a single historically-offensive word for trans people I guess. What a joke when people who don't give a fuck pretend to give a fuck.
The only ones who should actually give a fuck are the ones whom that word is offending.
Think of it like the Native American Mascot issue. Some Natives do not have a problem with it, while others do. And at that, it's very interesting on what type of Natives are the ones screaming that it's "racist".
I personally see no problem with the "Redskins" logo. Only the name, as that is a term used for the scalping and like a hunt for the greatest game of Native People. It's like saying, "$10 per jewskin, $60 caucasaianskin (Causkin), and $100 for catholicskin".
You know what is another interesting fact is the use of this word (the "N" word) by Native People, as Native American youth have been heavily influenced by that HIP-HOP culture.
For me, you can either be offended and let it get to you psychologically. Or rise above it, don't let it bother you, and claim that word and make it become a different meaning. A great example of words changing meaning is the word Faggot. I am Bi-sexual, and lean to men, yet when someone would call me a Faggot, I say "I'm not a cigarette".
Words are words and if you can handle words and be witty with a comeback of those words, you'll be fine in life as the other will become confused as you joke and make fun of the insult by being witty.
-
So Ben, what do you do when SOME of the community is offended, and some not? Is there a threshold? Majority rules?
And what happens when that "offense" isn't REALLY offense, but is simply a weapon to be used to assert power? Isn't "I'm offended!" a way to assert control for some?
-
Just watched the link Tim posted. It seems through most of it he's working through stuff of his own, he blatantly admits his own transphobia a few times, and is processing it publicly. As to his final line, I can't comment. I am not a member of either community and have no grounds from which to speak.
-
So Ben, what do you do when SOME of the community is offended, and some not? Is there a threshold? Majority rules?
And what happens when that "offense" isn't REALLY offense, but is simply a weapon to be used to assert power? Isn't "I'm offended!" a way to assert control for some?
Well, the ones being listened to are the ones screaming the loudest. Personally, I don't care as it's not a concern as much as the detriment of our Natural Environment.
Psychologically it is a concern for some who do get offended, but these people get offended or take things to heart about a lot of things. Even criticism they'll take unkindly to, even if that criticism is the truth.
Also, that image is only one representation of the various Native Tribes. And those screaming are mainly Urban Natives connecting with their lost identity that was taken from them as they were forced into these geographic locations away from their original homelands.
There are two demographics of Native Americans, The Traditional ones who have that Native Mindset and the ones who are fine with assimilating into "civilization" into that American mindset.
And these two demographics butt heads on social and political issues. It's an issue deeper than most think and an issue we as Native People can only solve ourselves.
-
Just watched the link Tim posted. It seems through most of it he's working through stuff of his own, he blatantly admits his own transphobia a few times, and is processing it publicly. As to his final line, I can't comment. I am not a member of either community and have no grounds from which to speak.
Is he really transphobic? I got the sense that him repeating this multiple times was part of the routine. It would be nice for him to clarify because he certainly doesn't act homophobic and he was perfectly willing to become a mentor to a trans person and he deeply cared about her.
We watched the special last night and I think the whole thing is blown out of proportion.
-
RJ is talking about before he became friends with the trabs comic. We all have a bit of not understanding others who are not like that.
How we work on those phobias is what Chappelle is talking about.
-
RJ is talking about before he became friends with the trabs comic. We all have a bit of not understanding others who are not like that.
How we work on those phobias is what Chappelle is talking about.
That's not a phobia though. It's a misunderstanding of the unknown. The same way a lot of people misunderstand Natives, and others they have no idea about. Do people really fear Trans people? I don't think so. Some peoples perceptions on Trans is based solely on religion and cultures of those people, for reasons that I do not and will not know for it's their religion and cultures and I have respect for them to be able to continue to practice it.
I don't go and expect you to understand me off the bat. One way to know and understand is to view their dress style, then talk to them, maybe they'll tell you more about themselves and how they're a trans person.
My issue is with them assuming I automatically know they're a trans person. I have no idea who a stranger is, and I don't want to assume. Just the same way people assumed I was a girl because I had long hair when I was young. But, the difference is some guys told me to just say, "I'm a boy, want to see." I know it's sort of dumb, but it was just a phrase to be witty.
It's the same issue I have with some Gay Men as well. There are plenty of Gay people that do not follow or support the LGTBQ movement. For one thing, being Bi, I prefer masculine men, not feminine men, if I want feminine I would just find a women.
Not every person who is LGTBQ is following or agrees with the movement.
And that very community does what every culture does. It will reject their own people if they don't abide by their rules and regulations of their ideals and beliefs. Which is what happened with Dave Chappelle friend.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/dave-chappelle-daphne-dorman-comedy-special-the-closer-transphobic-172503363.html
Dorman’s sisters shared their support for Chappelle to The Daily Beast. Over text, Dorman’s sister Becky wrote to the outlet, “Daphne was in awe of Dave’s graciousness. She did not find his jokes rude, crude, off-coloring, off-putting, anything. She thought his jokes were funny. Daphne understood humor and comedy—she was not offended. Why would her family be offended?”
Yet, the LGTBQ assumed crap about Dave and caused all this unnecessary backlash, as their perspective was paraded on the news, while no one mentioned this important piece of information...A trans women found his jokes funny, while some did not.
-
Fear or uncomfortable with is not your core beliefs. It's semantics. We all do it. How we act to each other is what matters.
Dave showed he cared and can change.
-
Fear or uncomfortable with is not your core beliefs. It's semantics. We all do it. How we act to each other is what matters.
Dave showed he cared and can change.
It is in the Muslim world, it's a big part of their beliefs and I do not know why it is, as that is theirs to decide whether to hold true to it or do something that brings about change. For them, this is due to the influence of the outside world making their people assimilate into civilization and losing their customs of their people.
But, yeah. Dave himself went out to understand more and he did that by getting to know his fellow comedian who happens to be Trans. Education about how there are many different types of people in the world and respect is what should be taught.
-
If you can change and accept others for who they are, that's what this world needs more of.
-
If you can change and accept others for who they are, that's what this world needs more of.
Much easier said than done. It takes generations to change peoples perceptions.
There are still Christians and Catholics out there who view my Native Customs still as Pagan. The thing is, I know they do as that's their belief, but they tolerate it now because of this mindset of accepting people for who they are and not indoctrinating them into your ideals or beliefs.
Tolerance is what's needed as well. The tolerance to accept that there are people out there in the world who will not think or act the same as you. So don't be expecting others to be thinking or acting exactly like you.
A great example is Japan and their music fans compared to the South American music fans.
I like watching Comedians because their jokes are very geographic. One joke will get many laughs in one town, but in another it may get heckled. Especially in the bible belt and in the mormon territory. Comedians have to abide by rules in certain places like swearing and all that stuff.
But Comedians are able to say their say because that's what comedy is. Comedy is humiliation, entertainment, and a reflection of the world.
I highly believe that the creator is a comedian and the best form of happiness is laughter. Because there some hilarious coincidences that happen, especially when it is Ironic Humor.
-
You are looking too much into it. Some comedians progress like Chappelle. But 95% of comedy is just that. Comedy. People look too far into it.
Also, comedians talk about what they know, not the unknown. Life experiences.
-
RJ is talking about before he became friends with the trabs comic. We all have a bit of not understanding others who are not like that.
How we work on those phobias is what Chappelle is talking about.
But “not understanding” and “-phobic” are not the same thing. I’m NEVER going to fully understand being trans simply because my gender and sex are aligned. I may or may not be trans-phobic (I don’t suspect I am but that’s not my call). I would never claim to REALLY understand homosexuality and that experience but you’d be hard pressed to say I’m homophobic.
-
You are looking too much into it. Some comedians progress like Chappelle. But 95% of comedy is just that. Comedy. People look too far into it.
Also, comedians talk about what they know, not the unknown. Life experiences.
Like the Trans employees of Netflix who are now fired because they looked too much into a comedy routine. :lol
-
If you can change and accept others for who they are, that's what this world needs more of.
In ALL directions. Agreed.
-
You are looking too much into it. Some comedians progress like Chappelle. But 95% of comedy is just that. Comedy. People look too far into it.
Also, comedians talk about what they know, not the unknown. Life experiences.
Like the Trans employees of Netflix who are now fired because they looked too much into a comedy routine. :lol
That's on them. They took a stance against an employer. Who brings the money in?
Who do you think they will back?
-
You are looking too much into it. Some comedians progress like Chappelle. But 95% of comedy is just that. Comedy. People look too far into it.
Also, comedians talk about what they know, not the unknown. Life experiences.
Like the Trans employees of Netflix who are now fired because they looked too much into a comedy routine. :lol
That's on them. They took a stance against an employer. Who brings the money in?
Who do you think they will back?
No. They tried to get their employee to abide by their beliefs, and Netflix told them, we don't care. You put out private information into the public because of your moral anger, against company policy so There the door. I doubt they expected them to fire them and expected them to stand by their cause.
It's why I laugh because it's instant Karma for why you should not let anger and hate take over you.
-
No. Netflix did not. Netflix has a diverse amount of shows for all to see. It doesn't force anyone to watch it.
What someone should do is decide I'm not watching that comedian. It didn't force the employee to take a stand. They employee did that on their own accord.
-
I've loved Chappelle since his show first hit Comedy Central years ago. I don't have much else to say that hasn't been said other than that if Netflix removes the special I'm cancelling my account.
-
Another interesting thing about semantics and language.
"trans" fats are considered bad... because it causes health problems, because they're unnatural.
"cis" fats are considered good... because they're healthy, because they're natural.
So wouldn't that mean using the term "transgender" is a microaggression because being one is... "unnatural"?
Then one has to ask, isn't being 'transgender" unnatural and they should seek psychiatric help?
Would we accept people who identify as a glass of orange juice? or identify as a wombat?
Probably not, you and I would call them crazy, or at least say something like "they're not playing with a full deck"
Doesn't mean I'm afraid of them, or that I can't be friends with them.
and using the term "cis" for "cisgender" is often used these days as a derogatory term, especially if the person the term is being used against is perceived as a conservative, Republican, white, male, and/or a Trump supporter, and since 2021, regardless of vaccine status. Hell, even if you're none of those things but disagree with ANYTHING the LGBTQA community espouses, you get called cisgender if you are straight.
Yet, "cis" is the term for "good" and "natural"... Funny how those terms get switched around..
That would mean "transphobic" means 'afraid of bad, unnatural things.'
No one uses the term "cisphobic" strangely enough.
So when you think about it, these prefixes shouldn't be used to describe anyone's gender or sexual preferences.
-
No. Netflix did not. Netflix has a diverse amount of shows for all to see.
Yea, like a show where people get shot and killed on a survival game show because they're in desperate life situations and want to win the prize money.
You know, wholesome entertainment. but omgz Dave Chappelle told some raunchy jokes!!! The humanity!
-
Let's not go to extremes. That's how we got into this debate originally because of extremism.
Extremism from both sides are toxic honestly.
-
Another interesting thing about semantics and language.
"trans" fats are considered bad... because it causes health problems, because they're unnatural.
"cis" fats are considered good... because they're healthy, because they're natural.
So wouldn't that mean using the term "transgender" is a microaggression because being one is... "unnatural"?
Then one has to ask, isn't being 'transgender" unnatural and they should seek psychiatric help?
Would we accept people who identify as a glass of orange juice? or identify as a wombat?
Probably not, you and I would call them crazy, or at least say something like "they're not playing with a full deck"
Doesn't mean I'm afraid of them, or that I can't be friends with them.
and using the term "cis" for "cisgender" is often used these days as a derogatory term, especially if the person the term is being used against is perceived as a conservative, Republican, white, male, and/or a Trump supporter, and since 2021, regardless of vaccine status. Hell, even if you're none of those things but disagree with ANYTHING the LGBTQA community espouses, you get called cisgender if you are straight.
Yet, "cis" is the term for "good" and "natural"... Funny how those terms get switched around..
That would mean "transphobic" means 'afraid of bad, unnatural things.'
No one uses the term "cisphobic" strangely enough.
So when you think about it, these prefixes shouldn't be used to describe anyone's gender or sexual preferences.
Your entire argument on why it's ok for you to call transgender people crazy and unnatural is based on a dumb and incorrect inference on what the prefixes cis and trans mean.
-
Another interesting thing about semantics and language.
"trans" fats are considered bad... because it causes health problems, because they're unnatural.
"cis" fats are considered good... because they're healthy, because they're natural.
So wouldn't that mean using the term "transgender" is a microaggression because being one is... "unnatural"?
Then one has to ask, isn't being 'transgender" unnatural and they should seek psychiatric help?
Would we accept people who identify as a glass of orange juice? or identify as a wombat?
Probably not, you and I would call them crazy, or at least say something like "they're not playing with a full deck"
Doesn't mean I'm afraid of them, or that I can't be friends with them.
and using the term "cis" for "cisgender" is often used these days as a derogatory term, especially if the person the term is being used against is perceived as a conservative, Republican, white, male, and/or a Trump supporter, and since 2021, regardless of vaccine status. Hell, even if you're none of those things but disagree with ANYTHING the LGBTQA community espouses, you get called cisgender if you are straight.
Yet, "cis" is the term for "good" and "natural"... Funny how those terms get switched around..
That would mean "transphobic" means 'afraid of bad, unnatural things.'
No one uses the term "cisphobic" strangely enough.
So when you think about it, these prefixes shouldn't be used to describe anyone's gender or sexual preferences.
Your entire argument on why it's ok for you to call transgender people crazy and unnatural is based on a dumb and incorrect inference on what the prefixes cis and trans mean.
I didn't say it's ok to call transgender people 'crazy' and 'unnatural'.
The argument is using these terms, in a language we've all agreed on using, are terms that shouldn't be used to describe them in the first place, because the topic of semantics came up in this thread, and I pointed out more hypocrisies of the usage of those terms.
Despite that, are you saying only cis gendered people can be crazy? or racist? or phobic of other groups of people different from themselves? Are these people not human?
Are you saying there are no crazy people in the LGBTQA community at large?
"trans" and "cis" are only categorized as bad and good respectively to how the chemical compounds affect the human body. Should we change the term "trans fat" to something else, so that "trans" doesn't carry any negative connotation? Why are they reversed for people's sexual identities when compared to molecular structure?
-
I'm clearly not saying that, and it's unclear why you would expect me to engage with such blatantly disingenuous bait.
-
I'm clearly not saying that, and it's unclear why you would expect me to engage with such blatantly disingenuous bait.
No bait, I'm pointing out how the two terms 'trans' and 'cis' mean the opposite when describing sexual identity, because the topic of semantics came up, and I find that stuff interesting, since the use of the English language is filled with inconsistency, especially in the US.
If we were consistent, calling someone "transgender" would actually be an insult, a microaggression.
I like the English language, and how it gets twisted over time.
Think about it, people used to call midgets midgets, then little people, now I think it's "height impaired"
or crippled people, first you had to call them handicapped, now it's "differently abled".
but no one wants to call transgenders "those suffering from gender dysphoria" even though that is what it is. I'm not making it up. I'm not saying they're bad people for it. Just like I wouldn't call someone suffering from clinical depression or schizophrenia a bad person. It's not bad or good. It's just a product of how our brains develop over time from birth to adulthood and beyond. Everyone is different. Everyone. Not everyone accepts that, though. However, we've all agreed to use the same language (at least when using English) and agreed on the definitions of the words we use, except when it isn't convenient for some. Transgender is also a human thing. Sure, some animals can show sequential hermaphroditism, but that is different. Of course, humans are the only species that commit genocide, killing for pleasure, torturing others, necrophilia, and all kinds of things that you would probably say is not good, healthy, or natural. But I'll probably get banned from DTF for even bringing this up in this thread.
-
Ok, since apparently we're going to keep doing this:
Despite that, are you saying only cis gendered people can be crazy? or racist? or phobic of other groups of people different from themselves? Are these people not human?
Are you saying there are no crazy people in the LGBTQA community at large?
This is bait. I'm obviously not saying any of these things and neither of us are dumb enough to believe I am, so the only goal is either to just annoy me or bait me into defending a dumb argument I didn't make. So point on the first, at least.
Further, you're still wrong in your semantics argument because defining cis as good and trans as bad based on a really narrow and hand-wavey interpretation of how those prefixes are used. Cis and trans are used in lots of places in science and have nothing to do with whether something's good or bad or not.
-
How do you know they are depressed Dr. Darkshade?
-
How do you know they are depressed Dr. Darkshade?
We're all depressed until you study history. Then it's hard to be depressed when you realize you have a toilet and running water and an abundance of food everywhere, often 24/7 (unless the current "administration" has anything to do with it) and we're the most tolerant society to ever exist, so far as known recorded history is concerned.
-
Ok, since apparently we're going to keep doing this:
Despite that, are you saying only cis gendered people can be crazy? or racist? or phobic of other groups of people different from themselves? Are these people not human?
Are you saying there are no crazy people in the LGBTQA community at large?
This is bait. I'm obviously not saying any of these things and neither of us are dumb enough to believe I am, so the only goal is either to just annoy me or bait me into defending a dumb argument I didn't make. So point on the first, at least.
Further, you're still wrong in your semantics argument because defining cis as good and trans as bad based on a really narrow and hand-wavey interpretation of how those prefixes are used. Cis and trans are used in lots of places in science and have nothing to do with whether something's good or bad or not.
Sorry, I didn't mean to bait you or anyone, or give off that impression. The terms themselves are benign, when talking chemistry. It's how they affect the human body that makes them good or bad. Trans fats weren't banned for no reason.
-
I'd say you're wring. Some feel liberated admitting they are cis, ect. It's liberating for some coming out. I know this from a few friends that did.
-
I'd say you're wring. Some feel liberated admitting they are cis, ect. It's liberating for some coming out. I know this from a few friends that did.
That's great! I'm all for what makes people feel better about themselves.
but that has nothing to do with semantics.
Wouldn't coming out as "cisgender" be like a baseball player coming out and admitting "I like baseball" though?
cis·gen·der
/sisˈjendər/
adjective
denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds with their birth sex.
"this newfound attention to the plight of black trans folks by primarily cisgender allies is timely and necessary
Definitions from Oxford Languages
-
Saying we are all depressed is disingenuous.
-
Saying we are all depressed is disingenuous.
Is using the word 'disingenuous' three times in one thread similar to saying 'Beetlejuice' three times?
-
You are being disingenuous. Your thought process is the true though process. Not all think like you.
-
You are being disingenuous. Your thought process is the true though process. Not all think like you.
That would make for a boring existence if they did, after about a week.
I never stated transgenders are 'depressed' by the way, although the term 'transgender' was first coined by a white male 'cisgender' psychiatrist.
-
You didn't? Better check the definition bro.
but no one wants to call transgenders "those suffering from gender dysphoria" even though that is what it is
-
You didn't? Better check the definition bro.
but no one wants to call transgenders "those suffering from gender dysphoria" even though that is what it is
Having it can lead to depression, sure, but it doesn't mean they're automatically depressed because they have it. So you can't say all transgender people are depressed because they're transgender.
I don't believe anyone, in the US at least, is truly depressed though. Unenlightened? Maybe... Sad at times, sure, who isn't? Melancholic? Sometimes.
I have my good days and bad days.
Read a history book or two, a good one, and your depression melts away. I'd rather be depressed in 2021 than happy in 1179, 1682, 1847, or even freaking 1945, only 75 short years ago.
-
You didn't? Better check the definition bro.
but no one wants to call transgenders "those suffering from gender dysphoria" even though that is what it is
Having it can lead to depression, sure, but it doesn't mean they're automatically depressed because they have it. So you can't say all transgender people are depressed because they're transgender.
I don't believe anyone, in the US, is truly depressed though. Unenlightened? Maybe... Sad at times, sure, who isn't? Melancholic? Sometimes.
Read a history book or two, a good one, and your depression melts away.
I don't know, Darkshade. No matter what the generational circumstances are, the concerns are always the same. Providing for and the welfare of one's family. I realize cavemen didn't have iPhones but it doesn't make our worries any less than theirs.
I don't have to be worried about being eaten by a dinosaur, sure, but I do work in the city, and I worry about getting hit by a stray bullet just driving to work.
-
You are suggesting they are. If you didn't mean that, you wouldn't bring it up. Again, your thought process is not theirs.
Same with me. I don't understand their thought process because I don't think like that. That being said, I can still sympathize with them.
Also, you are bringing up something that Chappelle didn't. Thus, adding your 2 cents about how you feel.
.sometimes it's better to say nothing.
-
You didn't? Better check the definition bro.
but no one wants to call transgenders "those suffering from gender dysphoria" even though that is what it is
Having it can lead to depression, sure, but it doesn't mean they're automatically depressed because they have it. So you can't say all transgender people are depressed because they're transgender.
I don't believe anyone, in the US, is truly depressed though. Unenlightened? Maybe... Sad at times, sure, who isn't? Melancholic? Sometimes.
Read a history book or two, a good one, and your depression melts away.
I don't know, Darkshade. No matter what the generational circumstances are, the concerns are always the same. Providing for and the welfare of one's family. I realize cavemen didn't have iPhones but it doesn't make our worries any less than theirs.
I don't have to be worried about being eaten by a dinosaur, sure, but I do work in the city, and I worry about getting hit by a stray bullet just driving to work.
What I mean is, studying history can give you new appreciation for current times, how easy we all have it. Of course there are things to worry about. There always are. We don't know what people in the distant future will have that we don't, cavemen didn't know what they were missing. Who's to say ancient people didn't have luxuries similar to ours, before some catastrophe wiped them and the evidence of what their society was like, out? Who's forcing you to stick to this job that requires you to dodge literal bullets during your commute? Surely these days it is easier than ever to change professions, unlike 100 years ago or more, where options were way more limited.
-
You are suggesting they are. If you didn't mean that, you wouldn't bring it up. Again, your thought process is not theirs.
Same with me. I don't understand their thought process because I don't think like that. That being said, I can still sympathize with them.
Also, you are bringing up something that Chappelle didn't. Thus, adding your 2 cents about how you feel.
.sometimes it's better to say nothing.
but you know my thought process, which is why you insist it's why I brought up the medical term?
Sorry but the actual definition doesn't mention depression, other than it can sometimes lead to it. Many things can lead to depression. Being a straight man and marrying a woman can also lead to depression. You wouldn't say all straight men who marry a woman are depressed.
I empathize more than I sympathize, though I do both. Empathy is lacking in our culture these days. Doesn't mean I can't enjoy dissecting language, or have no sense of humor or don't enjoy tongue in cheek jabs.
-
Darkshade, I've studied plenty of history. I both appreciate it and respect it.
I think your assertion that we don't have anything to be depressed about compared to olden times is way off base. It's too simplistic and doesn't take into account what humans actually fear.
I used the example of stray bullets, but I could've easily used the example of drunk drivers.
-
Or someone who types hate speech on others serial identity.
-
Darkshade, I've studied plenty of history. I both appreciate it and respect it.
I think your assertion that we don't have anything to be depressed about compared to olden times is way off base. It's too simplistic and doesn't take into account what humans actually fear.
I used the example of stray bullets, but I could've easily used the example of drunk drivers.
Humans fear death and being made a fool of in front of a group of people more than 3 in size.
I don't fear drunk drivers. If you decide to enter a motor vehicle, you should know the risks.
I think distracted drivers and speeders pose more of a threat on the road anyway.
I'd rather drive on a road filled with drunk drivers and people looking at their phones, than a dark empty road with one cop sitting on the side with his lights off.
-
Or someone who types hate speech on others serial identity.
I know the cons have been saying this a lot lately, but I don't believe hate speech is real.
Is giving attention to speech that calls for incitement of violence an intelligent thing to do? The media does this all the time.
Is it hate speech if I say I wish all Trump supporters should be identified, and publicly hanged or shot? Depends on who you ask.'
If hate speech is real, how come it has no legal definition under U.S. law?
Back to semantics, what's the difference between a violent crime and a hate crime? Anyone who commits a violent crime has hate in their heart.
It's not a hate crime if a white guy kills another white guy? The victim has to be some other identifier for it to be so??
-
For those confused about what's going on right now:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
-
Or someone who types hate speech on others serial identity.
You're sig includes a quote from Bob Newhart, which could be viewed as hate speech against anyone who likes country music.
-
For those confused about what's going on right now:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
That made me laugh. I didn't do it on purpose, though I wouldn't say my arguments lack strength. I was responding to kindshmegland insistence of knowing my thought process. He's also this close to calling me all the trendy terms used in political discourse when their argument isn't strong enough.
-
For those confused about what's going on right now:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
I felt like there was a bit of sea lion mixed into the stew as well.
-
For those confused about what's going on right now:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
I felt like there was a bit of sea lion mixed into the stew as well.
Rhetorical questions aren't bait or trolling, no matter how much you think it is.
I pointed out a lot of things related to semantics as well as human behavior, but yea, I'm trolling you.
-
Well, I'm glad we're in agreement then.
-
Well, I'm glad we're in agreement then.
I forgot DTF likes to use green text to indicate sarcasm. :shadowninja:
-
Or someone who types hate speech on others serial identity.
You're sig includes a quote from Bob Newhart, which could be viewed as hate speech against anyone who likes country music.
My sig is a joke about my dislike of country music. You are annoying.
-
For those confused about what's going on right now:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
That made me laugh. I didn't do it on purpose, though I wouldn't say my arguments lack strength. I was responding to kindshmegland insistence of knowing my thought process. He's also this close to calling me all the trendy terms used in political discourse when their argument isn't strong enough.
If you are calling me trendy, you truly are delusional.
-
Ok, since apparently we're going to keep doing this:
Despite that, are you saying only cis gendered people can be crazy? or racist? or phobic of other groups of people different from themselves? Are these people not human?
Are you saying there are no crazy people in the LGBTQA community at large?
This is bait. I'm obviously not saying any of these things and neither of us are dumb enough to believe I am, so the only goal is either to just annoy me or bait me into defending a dumb argument I didn't make. So point on the first, at least.
Further, you're still wrong in your semantics argument because defining cis as good and trans as bad based on a really narrow and hand-wavey interpretation of how those prefixes are used. Cis and trans are used in lots of places in science and have nothing to do with whether something's good or bad or not.
Say what you want about Darkshade's specific point on trans- and cis-, there's no need to mock the approach; this happens EVERY DAY in politics. The semantics DO matter. "Progressive"; who wants to be "regressive", amiright? "Pro-LIFE"; who's pro-death, amiright? There are entire books - no, treatises (meaning, multiple volumes) - on the semantics of political and ideological discourse. (George Lakoff's "Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate" is essential reading, and many of Noam Chomsky's works incorporate these ideas).
I've personally written a lot about this, and will continue to do so. The recent terminology "I'm not okay with that"; it's divisive; it totally eliminates the possibility of a neutral stance on things. The reasonable approach would be "Yes (ok)", "no" and "maybe (indifferent)". When something is "not ok" it emcompasses the indifferent. Most people don't even notice this semantics game, and many don't care (or don't intend it). But it's there, and the pscyhe notices, picks up on it. The same with the slippery slope of "tolerance"; when the identity politics movement started, the goal was "tolerance". Just "tolerate"; you need not accept or think like we do, but "tolerate". "Tolerate" soon became a euphemism for acceptance; it wasn't enough to "tolerate", we had to "accept" fully. Now we're past that, and some, on the fringes to be sure, now actually DO want to change the way others think. It's not even enough to accept and live in harmony, we've got to full understanding and ideological homogeneity.
As for the genesis of the words, I think Darkshade is grasping at straws, at least to my understanding. But he's not completely wrong; I HAVE heard "that's so cis" as a disparagement.
ALL of this is "in-groups" and "out-groups". Just another way to segregate and marginalize. This is where our bigotry takes root. To Bart's point in another thread, we - Americans, and I would extend this to "humans" in this regard - are not good at separating ourselves from our "greatness" and this is one of those areas. We need to me more conscious of how our words create boundaries and create segments. It's these segments that are leading to what Robert Gates - ex Secretary of Defense - has called the single greatest threat to our democracy - our polarization (Yeah, that's the second reference to that; I heard him say it and got a little bit of a woody, there, I'll admit).
-
Dude was pretty funny in Robin Hood: Men in Tights, right?
-
Or someone who types hate speech on others serial identity.
You're sig includes a quote from Bob Newhart, which could be viewed as hate speech against anyone who likes country music.
My sig is a joke about my dislike of country music. You are annoying.
One man's joke is another man's hate speech. The quote calls a large group of people stupid, unintelligent, and uneducated.
Like I said, I don't believe hate speech is real, but I'm just following the logic of this whole outrage over Chappelle's speech.
-
Also maybe controversial, but I thought he was quite pleasant in You've Got Mail.
-
Also maybe controversial, but I thought he was quite pleasant in You've Got Mail.
Never saw that film.
-
Also maybe controversial, but I thought he was quite pleasant in You've Got Mail.
Never saw that film.
Bro. I'll be in your area in December, we are totally watching You've Got Mail. It's just lovely.
-
Or someone who types hate speech on others serial identity.
You're sig includes a quote from Bob Newhart, which could be viewed as hate speech against anyone who likes country music.
My sig is a joke about my dislike of country music. You are annoying.
One man's joke is another man's hate speech. The quote calls a large group of people stupid, unintelligent, and uneducated.
Like I said, I don't believe hate speech is real, but I'm just following the logic of this whole outrage over Chappelle's speech.
Then you saw my earlier posts where I said I liked it. Good open conversations. He's a comedian. It's jokes.
-
Is this still the Dave Chappelle thread? :P
Finally got around to watching the Netflix show. Meh. Which is pretty consistently my take on Chappelle. Sometimes I laugh but most of the time I just think he's trying too hard to say something controversial to get attention.
I also think all the hoopla around some of what he said is hyped up.
But I have to say, for someone who claims not to be homophobic or transphobic or whatever it came off as "me thinks he doth protest too much." I actually came away wondering if like those studies that show the most homophobic people are often closeted gays, Chappelle is trying to run from something he doesn't like that lives inside of himself.
-
I'm watching the Daphne part of the show right now.
It's not super duper ultra offensive. He comes off more as an egotistical dick than anything else. I get it's the stage persona, but is it? None of this was very funny, at least to me. And I think there ARE problems with it. Essentially the idea of "the good (insert minority here)". The one who sides with the majority, befriends them, and doesn't push back too much against anything derogatory from them. It is what it is. All of us minorities go through that and have those people and those situations.
So, in my personal opinion only, did Dave do anything horribly egregious that would warrant protests or whatever? Nah
Was he funny? Nah
Was he correct? Nah
Did he spread a decent amount of unhelpful perspectives? Yea.
But such is life. Nothing about this is a huge deal. It's just a guy being unfunny and trying to cover a topic he doesn't understand well enough to cover. Not the first time it's happened, won't be the last.
But who else wants to join me and RJ (he'll eventually agree) in watching You've Got Mail?
-
I'm watching the Daphne part of the show right now.
It's not super duper ultra offensive. He comes off more as an egotistical dick than anything else. I get it's the stage persona, but is it? None of this was very funny, at least to me. And I think there ARE problems with it. Essentially the idea of "the good (insert minority here)". The one who sides with the majority, befriends them, and doesn't push back too much against anything derogatory from them. It is what it is. All of us minorities go through that and have those people and those situations.
So, in my personal opinion only, did Dave do anything horribly egregious that would warrant protests or whatever? Nah
Was he funny? Nah
Was he correct? Nah
Did he spread a decent amount of unhelpful perspectives? Yea.
But such is life. Nothing about this is a huge deal. It's just a guy being unfunny and trying to cover a topic he doesn't understand well enough to cover. Not the first time it's happened, won't be the last.
But who else wants to join me and RJ (he'll eventually agree) in watching You've Got Mail?
If RJ is cookin', I'm in, but you're SEVERELY over-selling that movie. :)
-
I'm watching the Daphne part of the show right now.
It's not super duper ultra offensive. He comes off more as an egotistical dick than anything else. I get it's the stage persona, but is it? None of this was very funny, at least to me. And I think there ARE problems with it. Essentially the idea of "the good (insert minority here)". The one who sides with the majority, befriends them, and doesn't push back too much against anything derogatory from them. It is what it is. All of us minorities go through that and have those people and those situations.
So, in my personal opinion only, did Dave do anything horribly egregious that would warrant protests or whatever? Nah
Was he funny? Nah
Was he correct? Nah
Did he spread a decent amount of unhelpful perspectives? Yea.
But such is life. Nothing about this is a huge deal. It's just a guy being unfunny and trying to cover a topic he doesn't understand well enough to cover. Not the first time it's happened, won't be the last.
But who else wants to join me and RJ (he'll eventually agree) in watching You've Got Mail?
If RJ is cookin', I'm in, but you're SEVERELY over-selling that movie. :)
Am I? I said it was lovely. It is lovely! It's obviously not When Harry Met Sally or even Sleepless in Seattle, but neither of those movies have Dave Chappelle. We could also just watch Robin Hood Men in Tights or Half Baked? But I'd rather watch You've Got Mail cause RJ hasn't seen it.
If he agrees to cook, I'll handle the baking.
-
I've never seen that movie. I'm down for a DTF movie night.
-
I'll pass on watching that movie, but I'll take some of RJ's cooking
-
Adami makes killer deserts.
-
Wtf? I take a break to pee and all of a sudden I'm cuddling with Adami watching romantic comedies in December and cooking dinner for all of DTF?
-
Wtf? I take a break to pee and all of a sudden I'm cuddling with Adami watching romantic comedies in December and cooking dinner for all of DTF?
Yes. I mean, we don't HAVE to invite everyone else, I was just trying to share the wealth.
-
Wtf? I take a break to pee and all of a sudden I'm cuddling with Adami watching romantic comedies in December and cooking dinner for all of DTF?
Hey baby
-
Wtf? I take a break to pee and all of a sudden I'm cuddling with Adami watching romantic comedies in December and cooking dinner for all of DTF?
Yes. I mean, we don't HAVE to invite everyone else, I was just trying to share the wealth.
Hmmmm....I....
Hey baby
...........
(https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/forumavatars/avatar_2648_1589658190.gif)
-
Wtf? I take a break to pee and all of a sudden I'm cuddling with Adami watching romantic comedies in December and cooking dinner for all of DTF?
All in all, that really does sound like a win-win-win, if you ask me. :)
-
What does cis even mean. I have no idea what this term is?
-
What does cis even mean. I have no idea what this term is?
You and I are cis. Our genders match our physical born-with sexes, and always have.
-
What does cis even mean. I have no idea what this term is?
You and I are cis. Our genders match our physical born-with sexes, and always have.
Is cis an acronym for something? I didn't realize my male gender with my born-with male anatomy needed a term other than...male.
-
What does cis even mean. I have no idea what this term is?
You and I are cis. Our genders match our physical born-with sexes, and always have.
Is cis an acronym for something? I didn't realize my male gender with my born-with male anatomy needed a term other than...male.
"Cis-" in this context (science; it's a big term in chemistry too) denotes "on the same side of".
-
What does cis even mean. I have no idea what this term is?
You and I are cis. Our genders match our physical born-with sexes, and always have.
Is cis an acronym for something? I didn't realize my male gender with my born-with male anatomy needed a term other than...male.
"Cis-" in this context (science; it's a big term in chemistry too) denotes "on the same side of".
Correct.
It's a term you (TAC) probably never heard because there was rarely a need to contrast it. Now that the idea of being trans is getting more traction and notice, then the idea of being CIS is talked about more.
-
What does cis even mean. I have no idea what this term is?
You and I are cis. Our genders match our physical born-with sexes, and always have.
Is cis an acronym for something? I didn't realize my male gender with my born-with male anatomy needed a term other than...male.
Well, for one, "cis" has nothing to do with being male, so there's that. And two, it's regular practice to have very specific terms for all instances of something for the sake of scientific literature. Cisgender has its origin in the Latin-derived prefix cis-, meaning 'on this side of', which is the opposite of trans-, meaning 'across from' or 'on the other side of'. It's been around since 1994 and is nothing new. What you're saying would be akin to hearing the word heterosexual and commenting "I didn't realize my male straightness with my naturally instinctive desire to want to pound pussy needed a term other than .... straight".
Edit: ninja'd twice
-
I must still be 12 at heart. For some reason the "instinctive desire to want to pound pussy" made me laugh. :)
-
It's a term you (TAC) probably never heard because there was rarely a need to contrast it. Now that the idea of being trans is getting more traction and notice, then the idea of being CIS is talked about more.
How is it talked about? Not being a dick or anything, but I have never heard of the term before this thread and I'm trying to figure out how it would even be used in a conversation.
Well, for one, "cis" has nothing to do with being male, so there's that. And two, it's regular practice to have very specific terms for all instances of something for the sake of scientific literature. Cisgender has its origin in the Latin-derived prefix cis-, meaning 'on this side of', which is the opposite of trans-, meaning 'across from' or 'on the other side of'. It's been around since 1994 and is nothing new. What you're saying would be akin to hearing the word heterosexual and commenting "I didn't realize my male straightness with my naturally instinctive desire to want to pound pussy needed a term other than .... straight".
No I understand it has nothing to do with being male, but was going off of what Hef said.
I'm sure the first time my grandfather heard the term heterosexual, he must've been WTF is that? I'm straight. I get it.
How is it used in scientific literature? During an experiment? and how is it used in a sentence?
-
You guys are "Meathead" to Tim's "Archie."
-
You guys are "Meathead" to Tim's "Archie."
I never read Archie, so I don't get either! :lol
I'm actually being serious and not mocking it.
-
It's a term you (TAC) probably never heard because there was rarely a need to contrast it. Now that the idea of being trans is getting more traction and notice, then the idea of being CIS is talked about more.
How is it talked about? Not being a dick or anything, but I have never heard of the term before this thread and I'm trying to figure out how it would even be used in a conversation.
Well, for one, "cis" has nothing to do with being male, so there's that. And two, it's regular practice to have very specific terms for all instances of something for the sake of scientific literature. Cisgender has its origin in the Latin-derived prefix cis-, meaning 'on this side of', which is the opposite of trans-, meaning 'across from' or 'on the other side of'. It's been around since 1994 and is nothing new. What you're saying would be akin to hearing the word heterosexual and commenting "I didn't realize my male straightness with my naturally instinctive desire to want to pound pussy needed a term other than .... straight".
No I understand it has nothing to do with being male, but was going off of what Hef said.
I'm sure the first time my grandfather heard the term heterosexual, he must've been WTF is that? I'm straight. I get it.
How is it used in scientific literature? During an experiment? and how is it used in a sentence?
I'm sure somewhere out there there's some kind of phycological study comparing cisgender to transgender individuals. Such writings would use both terms as to differentiate between subjects/data when referring to the experiment or research.
-
You guys are "Meathead" to Tim's "Archie."
I never read Archie, so I don't get either! :lol
I'm actually being serious and not mocking it.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Pr501k11/Archie-e1506372815257.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
How is it used in scientific literature? During an experiment? and how is it used in a sentence?
I am not sure of every usage, but in general it's becoming more common to use it to differentiate between people who identify with their sex at birth and those who do not. So if one is using the term "trans" or "transgender" in any kind of a setting that isn't just people talking, then "cis" or "cisgender" is commonly used to distinguish. Like if I write up a note on a new person, I'll usually include "cisgender" in their demographics if that's what they are. It's used in most clinical writing and becoming more common in general identification as time goes on.
-
What does cis even mean. I have no idea what this term is?
You and I are cis. Our genders match our physical born-with sexes, and always have.
Is cis an acronym for something? I didn't realize my male gender with my born-with male anatomy needed a term other than...male.
Well, for one, "cis" has nothing to do with being male, so there's that. And two, it's regular practice to have very specific terms for all instances of something for the sake of scientific literature. Cisgender has its origin in the Latin-derived prefix cis-, meaning 'on this side of', which is the opposite of trans-, meaning 'across from' or 'on the other side of'. It's been around since 1994 and is nothing new. What you're saying would be akin to hearing the word heterosexual and commenting "I didn't realize my male straightness with my naturally instinctive desire to want to pound pussy needed a term other than .... straight".
Edit: ninja'd twice
sooo trans doesnt mean bad and cis doesnt mean good? :biggrin:
-
What does cis even mean. I have no idea what this term is?
You and I are cis. Our genders match our physical born-with sexes, and always have.
Is cis an acronym for something? I didn't realize my male gender with my born-with male anatomy needed a term other than...male.
Well, for one, "cis" has nothing to do with being male, so there's that. And two, it's regular practice to have very specific terms for all instances of something for the sake of scientific literature. Cisgender has its origin in the Latin-derived prefix cis-, meaning 'on this side of', which is the opposite of trans-, meaning 'across from' or 'on the other side of'. It's been around since 1994 and is nothing new. What you're saying would be akin to hearing the word heterosexual and commenting "I didn't realize my male straightness with my naturally instinctive desire to want to pound pussy needed a term other than .... straight".
Edit: ninja'd twice
sooo trans doesnt mean bad and cis doesnt mean good? :biggrin:
No. I'd say Chino did a cis job explaining it, but you're not asking a trans question. It has cis intention even if it comes off as trans.
Excuse me, as interesting as this is, I'm gonna go watch A Few Cis Men. Love a good Tom Cruise performance.
-
Adami, correct me if I'm wrong but most heterosexual men don't really k own the term cis and it's origins is from a news group in the mid 90's and about transsexuals?
For me, I just heard of this in the past 5 year. Probably because it's that we are learning more of serial orientation is and it's slowly becoming more acceptable to talk about.
-
No. I'd say Chino did a cis job explaining it, but you're not asking a trans question. It has cis intention even if it comes off as trans.
Excuse me, as interesting as this is, I'm gonna go watch A Few Cis Men. Love a good Tom Cruise performance.
:lol
But wow already giving up on Who Got Mail?
-
No. I'd say Chino did a cis job explaining it, but you're not asking a trans question. It has cis intention even if it comes off as trans.
Excuse me, as interesting as this is, I'm gonna go watch A Few Cis Men. Love a good Tom Cruise performance.
:lol
But wow already giving up on Who Got Mail?
First of all sir, it's YOU'VE Got Mail. And I am waiting till I am in the warm embrace of RJ's loving arms to watch that. (I just assumed we'd be on separate chairs, but he brought in cuddles and now he can't take it back)
-
How is it used in scientific literature? During an experiment? and how is it used in a sentence?
I am not sure of every usage, but in general it's becoming more common to use it to differentiate between people who identify with their sex at birth and those who do not. So if one is using the term "trans" or "transgender" in any kind of a setting that isn't just people talking, then "cis" or "cisgender" is commonly used to distinguish. Like if I write up a note on a new person, I'll usually include "cisgender" in their demographics if that's what they are. It's used in most clinical writing and becoming more common in general identification as time goes on.
Adami, thank you for explaining it.
-
Adami, correct me if I'm wrong but most heterosexual men don't really k own the term cis and it's origins is from a news group in the mid 90's and about transsexuals?
For me, I just heard of this in the past 5 year. Probably because it's that we are learning more of serial orientation is and it's slowly becoming more acceptable to talk about.
I may have studied it at some point, but I can't recall off the top of my head the sociological history of the term. It's possible. You're definitely right that it's a term just recently entering popular language and will likely eventually be much more common.
-
One woman's opinion but You've Got Mail sucked.
When Harry Met Sally is the obvious much better choice of these types of RomComs
-
One woman's opinion but You've Got Mail sucked.
When Harry Met Sally is the obvious much better choice of these types of RomComs
They both blow chunks.
-
One woman's opinion but You've Got Mail sucked.
When Harry Met Sally is the obvious much better choice of these types of RomComs
Obviously it's better. But again, Dave Chappelle isn't in it. If something comes up about Bruno Kirby (RIP) being transphobic or something, then we can all watch When Harry Met Sally.
-
No. I'd say Chino did a cis job explaining it, but you're not asking a trans question. It has cis intention even if it comes off as trans.
Excuse me, as interesting as this is, I'm gonna go watch A Few Cis Men. Love a good Tom Cruise performance.
:lol
But wow already giving up on Who Got Mail?
First of all sir, it's YOU'VE Got Mail.
:rollin :rollin :rollin :facepalm: I have no idea where the "who" came from
-
One woman's opinion but You've Got Mail sucked.
When Harry Met Sally is the obvious much better choice of these types of RomComs
They both blow chunks.
Disagree. Carrie Fisher alone is worth the price of admission.
Adami, that's how rumors get started! But your point is taken. :laugh:
-
One woman's opinion but You've Got Mail sucked.
When Harry Met Sally is the obvious much better choice of these types of RomComs
They both blow chunks.
Disagree. Carrie Fisher alone is worth the price of admission.
In Star Wars maybe.
-
You guys are "Meathead" to Tim's "Archie."
I never read Archie, so I don't get either! :lol
I'm actually being serious and not mocking it.
This is legendary on so many levels. :hefdaddy
-
It wasn't Archie that I wasn't mocking...it was the subject matter being discussed.
My brain went right to the comic book. :lol
-
It wasn't Archie that I wasn't mocking...it was the subject matter being discussed.
My brain went right to the comic book. :lol
Right, but the reference was to Archie Bunker and All In The Family. Thus, legend!
And what's this about Bruno Kirby?
-
It wasn't Archie that I wasn't mocking...it was the subject matter being discussed.
My brain went right to the comic book. :lol
Right, but the reference was to Archie Bunker and All In The Family. Thus, legend!
And what's this about Bruno Kirby?
Nothing! Man is a saint!
-
Oh, and am I the only one that prefers the Hallmark Christmas movies over any Meg Ryan movie?
I'm a sucker for that "she's got a great business career but her dad is sick and she's tired of the ratrace, so goes home, and he's a construction guy that isn't cut out for corporate life and has made a nice life for himself (and his two dogs! There are always two dogs!) in their home town, and they meet and bring out the best in each other!" story line. :)
-
I found CIS! in a context..
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ohio-college-student-angry-and-scared-after-cisgender-men-installed-radiator-in-dorms-safe-space/ar-AAPHqoA?li=BBnbfcL
-
I'm a compassionate person, I think, but my compassion has limits.
-
Then I guess FOX accomplished their goal.
-
Then I guess FOX accomplished their goal.
??
-
:lol
-
I saw When harry met Sally once. I didn;t like it - but my memory of it was that Billy Crystal had chicken legs.
-
Then I guess FOX accomplished their goal.
??
The article. Eh. I’ll choose not to go down this familiar road right now. You can me Pm if you really want to discuss it though.
-
Then I guess FOX accomplished their goal.
I generally avoid both Fox and CNN articles, and didn't realize it was a Fox article until after I read it. Did you find the article slanted? I didn't. Seemed pretty straightforward, no?
Did this kid submit real complaint to the school? Were those his quotes? I didn't take this as a fictional story.
-
Then I guess FOX accomplished their goal.
I generally avoid both Fox and CNN articles, and didn't realize it was a Fox article until after I read it. Did you find the article slanted? I didn't. Seemed pretty straightforward, no?
Did this kid submit real complaint to the school? Were those his quotes? I didn't take this as a fictional story.
I didn't see Fox, I saw MSN. I wasn't commenting on that, I was commenting on what I see as a level of entitlement that is IMO unreasonable. That's not his house. I get the concept of a "safe space" but I don't agree with it; that's where my compassion ends. We had this conversation a couple years ago when the Yale professors got into a world of hurt because of their handling of Halloween costumes (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/), and one of the narratives from the students was that the Yale campus was a "safe space" (I don't know that the article I cited included the "safe space" reference) and they shouldn't have to encounter things that made them uncomfortable (on an individual basis). That's entirely opposite of what a true university campus - a crucible of learning, of challenging ideas, of uncomfortable intellectual pursuits - ought to be about.
-
Should the university have hired trans workers to install the radiator?
Installations on equipment are running behind big time. Perhaps the school intended the installation for the summer but was delayed.
-
What does cis even mean. I have no idea what this term is?
You and I are cis. Our genders match our physical born-with sexes, and always have.
Is cis an acronym for something? I didn't realize my male gender with my born-with male anatomy needed a term other than...male.
Well, for one, "cis" has nothing to do with being male, so there's that. And two, it's regular practice to have very specific terms for all instances of something for the sake of scientific literature. Cisgender has its origin in the Latin-derived prefix cis-, meaning 'on this side of', which is the opposite of trans-, meaning 'across from' or 'on the other side of'. It's been around since 1994 and is nothing new. What you're saying would be akin to hearing the word heterosexual and commenting "I didn't realize my male straightness with my naturally instinctive desire to want to pound pussy needed a term other than .... straight".
Edit: ninja'd twice
sooo trans doesnt mean bad and cis doesnt mean good? :biggrin:
If you reread what I typed, I didn't say the terms trans and cis themselves mean 'bad' or 'good', just that their usage for fats is that trans is bad because it is unnatural for the human body, and cis is good because it's natural and more healthy for the human body; and how it is reversed in political discourse these days (eg: someone calling someone cisgender is typically used as an insult these days by LGBTQA people, or those who passionately support them, because non-LGBTQA people ask questions about the LGBTQA community, and anyone trans is considered an angel (Chappelle's latest special exposed how LGBTQA people are anything but angels)) and I concluded that neither prefixes should be used to describe anyone's sexuality.
-
except cis is absolutely not an insult
-
But sometimes people use it as one.
-
But sometimes people use it as one.
The only times I've seen it used as one is similar to when a man does something chauvinistic and a women will say "MEN!"
So, as a response to discriminating activity.
Not saying it's never used otherwise, just stating my experience.
-
I laugh when women go "Ugh Typical MAN!!!! ::)" cause it's like :lolpalm: Right and you saying that isn't "typical woman!" . . .
To me it's as meaningless as toilet seat up Vs down argument.
" You left the toilet seat up ! : :angry: "
" Yeah and ? You always leave it down? Whats your point ? Oh right - MEN AMIRITE. "
-
But sometimes people use it as one.
How would it be used as an insult?
-
But sometimes people use it as one.
How would it be used as an insult?
If and when someone acts like a "bro", acts exceedingly, cartoonishly masculine ("toxicly" masculine is the terminology today) someone might say "wow, that is so 'cis-'". I'm not saying it's an EFFECTIVE insult - one can suppose that those acting "toxicly masculine" aren't hip to the language to begin with - but it's one of the ways that the marginalized can call out the behavior they don't like (and thus furthering the marginalization, but that's for another thread).
-
Huh..
-
I'm also not sure it's super relevant?
Anything can be an insult if used as one.
That is SO Stadler....
...hmm, no that is more flattering than insulting. Well you know what I mean!
-
But sometimes people use it as one.
How would it be used as an insult?
If and when someone acts like a "bro", acts exceedingly, cartoonishly masculine ("toxicly" masculine is the terminology today) someone might say "wow, that is so 'cis-'". I'm not saying it's an EFFECTIVE insult - one can suppose that those acting "toxicly masculine" aren't hip to the language to begin with - but it's one of the ways that the marginalized can call out the behavior they don't like (and thus furthering the marginalization, but that's for another thread).
I'm sorry but this doesn't make sense to me. Most women are also "cis" so what does that have to do with toxic masculinity?
-
Just a personal guess is that males and females have heard Heterosexuals forever. Now someone with values and sexuality is calling those Heterosexual, Cis and that's what's off putting. Why do they get to name us. Not that it hasn't happened the other was forever as well. So some look at it as derogatory. Just like words, I ill not type out that we Heteros called others for a long time.
I've worked hard not to use them in my vocabulary like I did in my past.
-
But sometimes people use it as one.
How would it be used as an insult?
If and when someone acts like a "bro", acts exceedingly, cartoonishly masculine ("toxicly" masculine is the terminology today) someone might say "wow, that is so 'cis-'". I'm not saying it's an EFFECTIVE insult - one can suppose that those acting "toxicly masculine" aren't hip to the language to begin with - but it's one of the ways that the marginalized can call out the behavior they don't like (and thus furthering the marginalization, but that's for another thread).
I'm sorry but this doesn't make sense to me. Most women are also "cis" so what does that have to do with toxic masculinity?
I was just explaining how I had heard that used as an insult. I intended it as an example for TAC, not as an all-encompassing explanation of the use of the word. You are correct; I imagine it's possible to use it in a female context as well; I'm not a woman so I can't really come up with a version of that, but I'm sure it exists.
-
When I arrive to work every morning, I always have to walk through the accounting area first, which is comprised of 4-5 women, and I used to always greet them with a friendly, "Morning, ladies," but I stopped it a while back as apparently there are some out there who now considered lady an insult. :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin I don't think any of the women here would get bothered by it, but I still figured better to be safe than sorry. It's a mad world these days. :lol :lol
-
I'm just posting to declare that it took me 6 months to discover that Cis meant straight. So we went from straight to hetro to Cis. ::)
Ugh......
-
I am just hearing Aerosmith in my head...
"Dude looks like a lady."
and the variant of it...
"Chick looks like a gentleman(?)"
-
I'm just posting to declare that it took me 6 months to discover that Cis meant straight. So we went from straight to hetro to Cis. ::)
Ugh......
I apologize for those 6 months, but cis doesn't mean straight or hetero. In this context, it simply means that you identify with the sex you were born in, that's all. You can be cis and gay or trans and straight.
-
I'm just posting to declare that it took me 6 months to discover that Cis meant straight. So we went from straight to hetro to Cis. ::)
Ugh......
Well, no, because as it has been explained here, cis doesn't mean straight or hetero. My stepson is gay. But he a male that was born a male, hence cis..right?
He's not straight, or hetero, but he is still cis.
Did I do that right??
-
I'm just posting to declare that it took me 6 months to discover that Cis meant straight. So we went from straight to hetro to Cis. ::)
Ugh......
Well, no, because as it has been explained here, cis doesn't mean straight or hetero. My stepson is gay. But he a male that was born a male, hence cis..right?
He's not straight, or hetero, but he is still cis.
Did I do that right??
Crushed it like Chino crushes pussy.
-
I'm just posting to declare that it took me 6 months to discover that Cis meant straight. So we went from straight to hetro to Cis. ::)
Ugh......
Cis doesn't mean straight though. You can be cis and gay. Cis just means your inner gender identity matches with your genetic sex.
-
RJ is a Cis Chef.
I am a Cis Couch Potato.
-
:heart
-
I'm just posting to declare that it took me 6 months to discover that Cis meant straight. So we went from straight to hetro to Cis. ::)
Ugh......
Well, no, because as it has been explained here, cis doesn't mean straight or hetero. My stepson is gay. But he a male that was born a male, hence cis..right?
He's not straight, or hetero, but he is still cis.
Did I do that right??
Crushed it like Chino crushes pussy.
But I thought Chino was married.
-
I'm just posting to declare that it took me 6 months to discover that Cis meant straight. So we went from straight to hetro to Cis. ::)
Ugh......
Well, no, because as it has been explained here, cis doesn't mean straight or hetero. My stepson is gay. But he a male that was born a male, hence cis..right?
He's not straight, or hetero, but he is still cis.
Did I do that right??
Crushed it like Chino crushes pussy.
But I thought Chino was married.
In keeping with this thread, you can be married and still crush pussy. I mean, not me, but maybe Chino. :) :)
-
I'm just posting to declare that it took me 6 months to discover that Cis meant straight. So we went from straight to hetro to Cis. ::)
Ugh......
Cis doesn't mean straight though. You can be cis and gay. Cis just means your inner gender identity matches with your genetic sex.
I can't keep up. I'm going back to bed.....
-
I'm just posting to declare that it took me 6 months to discover that Cis meant straight. So we went from straight to hetro to Cis. ::)
Ugh......
I apologize for those 6 months, but cis doesn't mean straight or hetero. In this context, it simply means that you identify with the sex you were born in, that's all. You can be cis and gay or trans and straight.
Not being sarcastic or snarky, but how would you define "trans" and "straight"? "Straight" would mean you're attracted to what, the opposite SEX or the opposite GENDER? I think for me that would be the opposite "sex" - female - so if I was trans, would that make me someone who transitioned to male, to align my gender with my physical attributes, right? So Catlyn Jenner, who transitioned to female, is dating a woman, that makes her a homosexual, correct?
(And that aspect is something I have to get my arms around in terms of understanding; if the gender makeup doesn't match the physical sex, but he went 60 years attracted to females, and maintains that, how does that wash with the gender makeup? I won't lie that I find some of this to be... hard to accept because it seems like a solution looking for a problem, or rather, an inexact solution to a deeper problem, since it seems overly complicated to assume that he was all these sort of low-probability things all at once.)
-
I think in that case caitlyn jenner is a trans woman and a lesbian(or bi-sexual or however she identifies, I don’t follow her closely). I mean I’ve also seen « gay » used to describe BOTH lesbians and homosexuals so whatever, the best thing is always to ask the person but that’s not always possible obvs.
-
I'm just posting to declare that it took me 6 months to discover that Cis meant straight. So we went from straight to hetro to Cis. ::)
Ugh......
I apologize for those 6 months, but cis doesn't mean straight or hetero. In this context, it simply means that you identify with the sex you were born in, that's all. You can be cis and gay or trans and straight.
Not being sarcastic or snarky, but how would you define "trans" and "straight"? "Straight" would mean you're attracted to what, the opposite SEX or the opposite GENDER? I think for me that would be the opposite "sex" - female - so if I was trans, would that make me someone who transitioned to male, to align my gender with my physical attributes, right? So Catlyn Jenner, who transitioned to female, is dating a woman, that makes her a homosexual, correct?
(And that aspect is something I have to get my arms around in terms of understanding; if the gender makeup doesn't match the physical sex, but he went 60 years attracted to females, and maintains that, how does that wash with the gender makeup? I won't lie that I find some of this to be... hard to accept because it seems like a solution looking for a problem, or rather, an inexact solution to a deeper problem, since it seems overly complicated to assume that he was all these sort of low-probability things all at once.)
I am having a hard time understanding some of what you're saying, but I will answer what I can understand.
1. Caitlyn (as Xe pointed out above me) would then be a trans-woman and lesbian or bi (if she identifies as that).
2. The attraction might be up to that individual. It gets kind of murky and difficult to make into binary definitions, which is of course kind of the point. A lot of this is moving away from binary concepts, which is difficult for many of us who have always lived with binary concepts.
As far as the rest goes, I dunno. I can't quite follow what you're saying on all of it. However, the concept of gender is very nebulous in general and doesn't have strict rigid definitions like sex seems to (though that can often be murky too).
-
Gender and Biological Sex are two separate concepts. This is how I see them.
What one feels in their attitudes and overall expression, let's go with Feminine as an example, are those that are common among the gender known as Female. Females, have feminine qualities. And Vice-Versa with Males, having Masculine qualities.
You can now be free to express your inner feminine/masculine qualities that you identify with in the manner that presents that quality. This expression is in the form of dress, behavior, emotions, and even dance.
Societies have assigned, and this is in nature itself, Gender Roles of Masculine and Feminine energies. Which is an entirely different concept than just being about males and females.
Biological Sex, has to do with the physical body one was born with, or was given at birth. Nature determines that Masculine energy usually has a penis attached that develops sperm to impregnate, Feminine Energy has a vagina that receives the sperm and forms an entirely new human body (in some species, their biology of this is reversed, or not ingrained in their biology at all). This is the process of life, it's a gift. And it's a big reason for why Native Culture hold women as sacred, and a reason for proving why our culture is matrilineal. In our society, the men didn't really own anything, nor had a say at all with feminine women matters such as child birth. The home was owned by the women, made by the man for her, just the same as a womb is the home of the fetus, so is the home a womb to shelter, comfort and soothe the human. The fields were also owned by the women, Just as the uterus is the field in which the man plants his sperm, so is the soil in the field the uterus of the Earth that man plants his seed into to nurture and grow the foods we need to survive.
So you have humans whom were born with a Male body, whom have Feminine Energy within. And a Female body, with Masculine energy within. Within some societies, these people had their own terms for these people....
https://www.ihs.gov/lgbt/health/twospirit/
And they incorporated themselves into both gender roles and positions. Which involves more than just the nature of Sexual Relations with another human of the same sex.
This is how I define the terms of "Cis", "Straight", and "Heterosexual" in relation to their counterpart terms of "Trans", "Gay/Lesbian", and "Homosexual".
Edit: I wanted to add...
Humans are now able to change and manipulate their naturally given body, to mold and match the energies they are projecting. There are also humans whom are fine with being a feminine energy within a man's body, and vice versa. They would be called a "Cis-Gay Man" or a "Cis-Lesbian Women", while the former would be "Trans-Lesbian Women" or a "Trans-Gay Man", as their inner feminine/masculine energies are now identifiable by transitioning into their inner self by manipulating the outer body to reflect that inner self, this is what "Trans" is to me, while "Cis" are those who are happy being that inner masculine/feminine energy in a male/female physical body.
I would identify myself as a "Cis-Bisexual Man" meaning I am a man whom has a male physical body and likes to engage in relationships with other male physical bodies. I am not really attracted intimately much to highly effeminate male physical bodied men, or Trans-Women. Being Bi, if I want a feminine body I will go after one with both Feminine Energies with the female body.
:corn :corn :hat :hat :coolio :coolio
-
I've read the last two pages, and here we are trying to education each other on the terminology. Terminology that will continue to change, mind you, so what you learn here today may well be offensive by this time next year.* This is an obviously complex thing, and we're trying to create a complex way of addressing it. Bully for us. I approve. :tup
The problem is, the more complex something is, the more tolerant you need to be towards others that don't get it, or even those that drop out because of frustration. Niel DeGrasee Tyson has probably never called a student "you fucking idiot!" because he confused leptons with hadrons. Nor would he lay into his butcher for not knowing the fundamentals of string theory. That tolerance doesn't seem to be something the people who care about these complex distinctions are interested in, though. This is where I see a problem, and it's a self-perpetuating issue when that lack of tolerance creates an atmosphere where others prefer to simply drop out rather than learn. You don't accomplish your goal of fomenting a greater understanding by being a dick about it.
Kev's example of calling the gals in the accounting department "ladies" is a dandy. I doubt there are all that many womyn out there that would actually take offense at "ladies," though there are undoubtedly more than a few. How are we to know who they are? Should unsuccessfully trying to interpret what the collective pronoun should be, assuming there even is one any given month, make you a bad person? This is why context is so important, and why its demise has been one of the most destructive things to happen to us. In practice it should be amazingly simple:
A: Hey, which one of you cupcakes wants to come over here and give me a blowjob.
B: Good morning, ladies.
Only one of these is bad, and it shouldn't be too difficult to figure out which is which.
*That's why I tend to just stick with queer. It'll always be acceptable to some and offensive to others, but as long as they keep changing sides it all evens out in the end.
-
Totally right, Senior Simpson. Being a dick about this stuff never helps. No matter how much Stadler wants us to keep being divisive. The terminology IS in its infancy, and is constantly evolving, changing. I get that can be annoying, but let's be patient and just do our best to keep up. If someone is a dick to you because of it, that really sucks and I'm sorry. As long as people are doing their best, that's all we can ask for. When people start pushing back and intentionally being anti-whatever new terminology is being used, that can be frustrating but still not a reason to be a dick. So let's all learn, grow, evolve, etc. together, and hopefully it'll be a smoother movement going forward.
-
My youngest was born female, but now identifies as male. I've adapted fairly well, but it continues to be a bit of a struggle for my wife. We try to stay on top of the terminology, but my kid knows that our heart is in the right place.
My youngest's significant other was also born female but now identifies as male. He's awesome.
They are definitely gay, and I definitely don't care. They are happy, so I'm happy. That's all that really matters.
-
The problem is, the more complex something is, the more tolerant you need to be towards others that don't get it, or even those that drop out because of frustration.
To bring this back to the OP, Dave Chappelle admits not knowing the terminology and says he is trying in the special. I think this is important before we rush to judgment on people.
Other than a joke I made, I've been on the sideline for this terminology discussion, simply because I am learning too.
-
I'm just posting to declare that it took me 6 months to discover that Cis meant straight. So we went from straight to hetro to Cis. ::)
Ugh......
I apologize for those 6 months, but cis doesn't mean straight or hetero. In this context, it simply means that you identify with the sex you were born in, that's all. You can be cis and gay or trans and straight.
Not being sarcastic or snarky, but how would you define "trans" and "straight"? "Straight" would mean you're attracted to what, the opposite SEX or the opposite GENDER? I think for me that would be the opposite "sex" - female - so if I was trans, would that make me someone who transitioned to male, to align my gender with my physical attributes, right? So Catlyn Jenner, who transitioned to female, is dating a woman, that makes her a homosexual, correct?
(And that aspect is something I have to get my arms around in terms of understanding; if the gender makeup doesn't match the physical sex, but he went 60 years attracted to females, and maintains that, how does that wash with the gender makeup? I won't lie that I find some of this to be... hard to accept because it seems like a solution looking for a problem, or rather, an inexact solution to a deeper problem, since it seems overly complicated to assume that he was all these sort of low-probability things all at once.)
I am having a hard time understanding some of what you're saying, but I will answer what I can understand.
1. Caitlyn (as Xe pointed out above me) would then be a trans-woman and lesbian or bi (if she identifies as that).
2. The attraction might be up to that individual. It gets kind of murky and difficult to make into binary definitions, which is of course kind of the point. A lot of this is moving away from binary concepts, which is difficult for many of us who have always lived with binary concepts.
As far as the rest goes, I dunno. I can't quite follow what you're saying on all of it. However, the concept of gender is very nebulous in general and doesn't have strict rigid definitions like sex seems to (though that can often be murky too).
You got most of it.
I struggle - in my ignorance, and I'll admit that, so others need not jump on me (though Adami can) - with what of this (if any) is something that is a fait accompli and what of this (if any) is something might be addressed and dealt with through a therapeutic approach. I think it's like anything else - or should I say, I think it's like many things involving our psychology - where there's a group, and there's a percentage (likely a majority) for whom the diagnosis and approach is fairly straightforward, and the solution is also fairly straightforward; align the gender and the sex and move on with life as happily and as productively as possible. And there's a percentage (likely a minority) for whom the diagnosis and approach is more based in hope and in the belief that they are part of a community, but the solution is not so straightforward.
None of this is meant in a "-phobic" way; none of this is to say that people can't be who they are, but for purposes of understanding, for purposes of implementing these concepts into society at large, there has to be SOME standardization, some uniformity. And from a practical perspective, the more the BOTH communities extend the olive branches, the better the chance we can find common ground and remove the in-groups and out-groups. EDIT: this last paragraph and Bart's post overlap in a big way.
-
I admit that I personally struggle with putting pronouns in my handle. I think mostly it's because I don't get a lot of folks being unable to figure mine out. But it's also because it seems to be very much a trendy thing and for the most part, I eschew trendy things out of principle.
That said, I have ZERO problem if other people do have pronouns in their bios. This seems to be an ugly thing happening on social media. People getting bullied or dismissed simply for having them. I mean, what difference does it make? I guess some see it as solely virtue signaling. I'm in the camp of "live and let live" so long as it doesn't hurt others.
-
Totally right, Senior Simpson. Being a dick about this stuff never helps. No matter how much Stadler wants us to keep being divisive. The terminology IS in its infancy, and is constantly evolving, changing. I get that can be annoying, but let's be patient and just do our best to keep up. If someone is a dick to you because of it, that really sucks and I'm sorry. As long as people are doing their best, that's all we can ask for. When people start pushing back and intentionally being anti-whatever new terminology is being used, that can be frustrating but still not a reason to be a dick. So let's all learn, grow, evolve, etc. together, and hopefully it'll be a smoother movement going forward.
I think a key part of Bart's post, though, was that it's pretty clear that our "best" isn't enough, and the patience is lacking on BOTH sides in this. As a straight white male, I'm already got three strikes against me, and if I confuse "trans woman" (is it where you STARTED, or where you END UP? I think I know the answer, but that's not to say that it's right) that doesn't make me a bigot. Yet, that's the default for many, on both sides of the argument.
-
I admit that I personally struggle with putting pronouns in my handle. I think mostly it's because I don't get a lot of folks being unable to figure mine out. But it's also because it seems to be very much a trendy thing and for the most part, I eschew trendy things out of principle.
That said, I have ZERO problem if other people do have pronouns in their bios. This seems to be an ugly thing happening on social media. People getting bullied or dismissed simply for having them. I mean, what difference does it make? I guess some see it as solely virtue signaling. I'm in the camp of "live and let live" so long as it doesn't hurt others.
Exactly how I feel
-
I admit that I personally struggle with putting pronouns in my handle. I think mostly it's because I don't get a lot of folks being unable to figure mine out. But it's also because it seems to be very much a trendy thing and for the most part, I eschew trendy things out of principle.
That said, I have ZERO problem if other people do have pronouns in their bios. This seems to be an ugly thing happening on social media. People getting bullied or dismissed simply for having them. I mean, what difference does it make? I guess some see it as solely virtue signaling. I'm in the camp of "live and let live" so long as it doesn't hurt others.
We're largely in the same camp, I think. I won't put them out there, for the two reasons you give, but also, it's not that important to me. I don't offend easily, and I don't feel defined by that, so I don't feel like I have to control the narrative in that way. But I do see a danger of that virtue signaling; too often in the identity politics realm if you're not "with us" you're "against us", and I worry about a day where the lack of that designation is taken as a statement in and of itself. Not everyone is "live and let live so long as it doesn't hurt others", and I'm finding that what I think is "hurt" is shockingly not for others.
-
Stads, your questions are good. I can't get to them at the moment, but I wanted to acknowledge them. I work till super late tonight so I might not be able to get to them till tomorrow, so if anyone lese with knowledge wants to take a stab at it, feel free and I'll chime in when I got the time.
And I'll jump on you any time. :biggrin:
-
btw this thing is still going, there was an organized walkout of Netflix employees today https://www.cbsnews.com/news/netflix-walkout-dave-chappelle-transphobia/
-
despite what that cbs news blurb I just linked said, apparently the letter or manifesto of the employees did NOT include taking down the Chappelle special. https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/18/22733098/netflix-trans-employees-demands-dave-chappelle-walkout