Of course comedy is subjective, but I loved it. Chappelle absolutely does not give a rat's ass about backlash for his words. Comedy should be without limits. I think even us maniacs in CPDC who watch it will mostly give it a thumbs up.
Netflix chief Ted Sarandos defends controversial Dave Chappelle special in staff memo: Reports
Jenna Ryu
USA TODAY
Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos is defending his decision to keep comedian Dave Chappelle's controversial special "The Closer" on the streaming service.
In a Friday staff memo obtained by Variety and The Verge, Sarandos pledged Netflix's commitment to the special, despite backlash about the comedian's transphobic comments. "Chappelle is one of the most popular stand-up comedians today, and we have a long standing deal with him," Sarandos wrote in Chappelle's defense.
He continued: "As with our other talent, we work hard to support their creative freedom – even though this means there will always be content on Netflix some people believe is harmful, like 'Cuties,' '365 Days,' '13 Reasons Why,' or 'My Unorthodox Life.' "
Chappelle drew criticism for his comments in the special about the transgender community, including his defense of author J. K. Rowling, who previously conflated sex with gender and defended ideas suggesting that changing one's biological sex was a threat to her own gender identity.
"They canceled J.K. Rowling – my God," Chappelle said. "Effectually she said gender was a fact, the trans community got mad as (expletive), they started calling her a TERF… I'm Team TERF. I agree. I agree, man. Gender is a fact."
TERF is an acronym that stands for "trans exclusionary radical feminists" and describes feminists who are transphobic.
In the memo, Sarandos used Chappelle's previous special "Sticks & Stones" as an example, writing that it was also "controversial" and "our most watched, stickiest, and most award winning stand-up special to date."
USA TODAY has reached out to Netflix for comment.
Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos defended comedian Dave Chappelle's controversial comedy special, "The Closer." Sarandos also said Netflix doesn't believe that "The Closer" promotes hate speech.
"Several of you have also asked where we draw the line on hate. We don’t allow titles on Netflix that are designed to incite hate or violence, and we don’t believe 'The Closer' crosses that line," he said.
"I recognize, however, that distinguishing between commentary and harm is hard, especially with stand-up comedy which exists to push boundaries. Some people find the art of stand-up to be mean-spirited but our members enjoy it, and it’s an important part of our content offering."
"The Closer," the sixth installment in the comedian's Netflix deal, which the "Chappelle's Show" comedian describes as "his last special for a minute," includes tongue-in-cheek jokes about race, the coronavirus pandemic and negotiating "the release of DaBaby" after the rapper's homophobic comments.
Many on social media slammed Chappelle and the streaming platform, including writer Jaclyn Moore, who also serves as showrunner for Netflix's "Dear White People."
In-depth story:How trans 'Harry Potter' fans are grappling with J.K. Rowling's legacy after her transphobic comments
"I've been thrown against walls because, 'I'm not a "real" woman,' " Moore, who is transgender, tweeted. "I've had beer bottles thrown at me. So, @Netflix, I'm done."
Advocacy group GLAAD responded to the memo Monday.
“Netflix has a policy that content ‘designed to incite hate or violence’ is not allowed on the platform, but we all know that anti-LGBTQ content does exactly that," GLAAD said in a statement. "While Netflix is home to groundbreaking LGBTQ stories, now is the time for Netflix execs to listen to LGBTQ employees, industry leaders, and audiences and commit to living up to their own standards.”
Last week, the group tweeted that Chappelle's brand "has become synonymous with ridiculing trans people and other marginalized communities."
Originally Posted by Snopes Hammer:
I guess the idiot brigade is fine with rioters being bailed out if they can afford it, but not being helped out if they can't.
No, but organizations who help those who solicit them bear responsibility for the decisions they make on who to bail out.
You can't even pretend that if someone like Trump had bailed out someone like Chauvin or Roof, you wouldn't have made the exact same criticisms that are being levied at Harris bailing out rioters.
I am fine with;
bail existing,
bail not being excessive,
securing bail being the responsibility of the accused,
those who provide bail for others being responsible for that decision, both financially [bondsmen] and socially [activist organizations]. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Snopes Hammer:
I guess the idiot brigade is fine with rioters being bailed out if they can afford it, but not being helped out if they can't.
Hi Dipshit.....
Course....I am sure you were up in arms when Cameltoe was bailing out the rioters over the summer...Right? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
Hey dumbass. I get most redhats drool and walk at the same time, but at least try to focus here for a second.
Your "attack" on Harris about bailing our rioters is you parroting talking heads about her comments on a non for profit who focus on helping people afford bail.
Dont be so far in the cult, you are parroting talking points without even understanding them.
I mean, how pathetic and outright low functioning to you have to be to not even understand that talking points you parrot?
Yeah, nothing to see here, just Senator Suckadick trying to help out misunderstood and oppressed citizens down on their luck. No politicking or anything going on, just helping normal everyday people misunderstood after wrecking entire city blocks over some crackhead none of them knew. And not that it matters, but I really do understand the bail system in this country, so stop arguing that point. What I don't understand is why you keep trying to focus on that and not why a Senator running for Vice President would contribute to any of these people getting out of jail, though. Care to explain that, or do you have some more dud snark you want to throw out that absolutely nobody is seeing as you deflecting off the subject raised to you? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Snopes Hammer:
I guess the idiot brigade is fine with rioters being bailed out if they can afford it, but not being helped out if they can't.
I know a quick and easy way how none of this would have ever become an issue. Want to try and guess what it is? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bowser:
I know a quick and easy way how none of this would have ever become an issue. Want to try and guess what it is?
If cash bail no longer existed and people were only kept in jail before their trial if they were a flight risk or deemed to be a credible threat to the public? [Reply]
Originally Posted by NJChiefsFan27:
If cash bail no longer existed and people were only kept in jail before their trial if they were a flight risk or deemed to be a credible threat to the public?
Oh look, Commie Three has entered the game.
Sorry Commie Three, the correct answer we were looking for is "don't fucking destroy the city in the first place and avoid jail altogether". A valiant attempt, but absolutely the wrong answer. [Reply]
These kind of arguments just go to show how dishonest these far left nut jobs are.
There’s no way you can possibly tell me that these hypocrites wouldn’t have lost their shit if Trump solicited bail money for January 6th rioters (and rightfully so).
The people that fail to condemn her for those actions are all full of shit if they are saying otherwise. There’s no point in going back and forth with these pieces of shit. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
These kind of arguments just go to show how dishonest these far left nut jobs are.
There’s no way you can possibly tell me that these hypocrites wouldn’t have lost their shit if Trump solicited bail money for January 6th rioters (and rightfully so).
The people that fail to condemn her for those actions are all full of shit if they are saying otherwise. There’s no point in going back and forth with these pieces of shit.
Dishonest.
From the biggest phoney on the forum...do Republicans just love being hypocrites or does it come naturally?
Originally Posted by Bowser:
Oh look, Commie Three has entered the game.
Sorry Commie Three, the correct answer we were looking for is "don't ****ing destroy the city in the first place and avoid jail altogether". A valiant attempt, but absolutely the wrong answer.
....."We don't destroy cities but we do murder cops in our attempt to overthrow the government and the entire system that our life is based on."
Originally Posted by mkp785:
....."We don't destroy cities but we do murder cops in our attempt to overthrow the government and the entire system that our life is based on."
There. Helped you finish that sentence.
Now explain why then Senator Loosejaws didn't bail those people out? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bowser:
Now explain why then Senator Loosejaws didn't bail those people out?
Think you're confused. Lauren Boebert is the only slut in congress and she's in the House, not the Senate. The loosest jaws appear to be MTGQ-who actually had an affair if I'm correct which also makes her slutty, but again she's a state rep.
I wasn't aware that they had bailed out the murderers (attempted) from Jan. 6th, I do know that MTGQ tried to call attention to the seditionists.
Originally Posted by mkp785:
Think you're confused. Lauren Boebert is the only slut in congress and she's in the House, not the Senate. The loosest jaws appear to be MTGQ-who actually had an affair if I'm correct which also makes her slutty, but again she's a state rep.
I wasn't aware that they had bailed out the murderers (attempted) from Jan. 6th, I do know that MTGQ tried to call attention to the seditionists.
Is this what you're talking about.....?
Outside of Veep Cackles LITERALLY jump starting her political career with a blowjob and subsequent affair with Willie Brown, you are absolutely correct with all that.
And what is it with you libs constantly dodging the question, anyway? Why did Harris bail out looters and rioters during the Summer of Love, but not the rioters from 1/6? It doesn't make any sense considering bail and constitution and whatever else triggers lefties, especially considering how some of the 1/6 rioters rotted away in jail for months on end? And the only murderer I know of from that day is named Michael Byrd, and he was doing the rounds on talk shows. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
No, but organizations who help those who solicit them bear responsibility for the decisions they make on who to bail out.
You can't even pretend that if someone like Trump had bailed out someone like Chauvin or Roof, you wouldn't have made the exact same criticisms that are being levied at Harris bailing out rioters.
I am fine with;
bail existing,
bail not being excessive,
securing bail being the responsibility of the accused,
those who provide bail for others being responsible for that decision, both financially [bondsmen] and socially [activist organizations].
"Judges who help people secure bail by granting them it to them bear responsibility for the decisions they make on who to bail out."
That is how stupid you sound, trying to vilify bail granted by a judge. [Reply]