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 Bowser:
Annnd you still haven't addressed it because it's inconvenient for you to do so and would blow up your whole GOTCHA act here.
Protip - just because she tweeted in June of 2020 about it doesn't mean she couldn't have done the same after 1/6. Just go ahead and admit she was playing political games with the Summer of Love looters and trying to harvest votes (which has been my point all along since you're too dense to see it) and spare yourself any more embarrassment. Or don't and keep rubbing your own shit on your own face and screaming how clever you are, your call.
So you are changing your comments from "Harris bailed out looters, that's bad" (which, besides being false is such a stupid attack. Any type of bail helps someone charged with a crime) to "Why didn't she mention 1-6 insurrectionist" (because that happened 6 months later) to "well, she should have done something after 1-6."
She did bail them out with her donations, right? And she chose not to do the same with the 1/6ers, right? Where's the disconnect for you here?
Admit she was playing greasy politics, it's all you have to do. Anyone with any semblance of common sense knows that's what happened, so just say it. Hell, YOU know that's what happened, but you just won't say it. And why do you think that is?
And really, you're just pissed I won't go down the road you want to take this thread, and you're pissed I won't trade teenaged girl insults with you. And I'm legit laughing at watching you flail around right now. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bowser:
She did bail them out with her donations, right? And she chose not to do the same with the 1/6ers, right? Where's the disconnect for you here?
She didn't tweet she donated to a non for profit. She tweeted about the non for profit. You still don't know what you are mad about.
Originally Posted by Bowser:
Admit she was playing greasy politics, it's all you have to do. Anyone with any semblance of common sense knows that's what happened, so just say it. Hell, YOU know that's what happened, but you just won't say it. And why do you think that is?
Playing politics with what? Bail? Protests? What stupid point do you think you are tying to make? That Harris has a history of siding with people too poor to afford legal fees? Get fox news on the phone, they will want to hear about this stunning development.
/we both know you don't have a point and this is just where you constant changing of argument has led you
Originally Posted by Bowser:
And really, you're just pissed I won't go down the road you want to take this thread, and you're pissed I won't trade teenaged girl insults with you. And I'm legit laughing at watching you flail around right now.
All I've done is follow the road of your ever changing arguments. Teenage insults? Like this:
Originally Posted by Bowser:
Senator Cackles, Heels Up, Senator Sidepiece
Those are teenager insults. Me calling you a stupid dumbass is a statement of fact. [Reply]
I am super-duper encouraged by how divided we continue to be. I feared that poopy pants was going to unite us (:-)) and we'd settle on the crap the liberal left had managed to implement since Barry's and Wookie's day defiling the White House.
If we can keep the hate and vitriol going, maybe, just maybe, we can find a path back to the great place and position America was once in.
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
She didn't tweet she donated to a non for profit. She tweeted about the non for profit. You still don't know what you are mad about.
Playing politics with what? Bail? Protests? What stupid point do you think you are tying to make? That Harris has a history of siding with people too poor to afford legal fees? Get fox news on the phone, they will want to hear about this stunning development.
/we both know you don't have a point and this is just where you constant changing of argument has led you
All I've done is follow the road of your ever changing arguments. Teenage insults? Like this:
Those are teenager insults. Me calling you a stupid dumbass is a statement of fact.
- You're the one obsessed with her tweet and convinced it makes any point counter to what I said, which it doesn't
- She's not siding with people too poor for bail and legal fees, she's buying up their votes and the votes of their families. And also, there you go again assuming minorities can't afford bail, racist
- my point has been the same throughout - Tulsi Gabbard's bitch played politics and campaigned on getting looters and rioters from the Summer of Love out of jail but ignored rioters from 1/6. Why do you think that is, exactly? Especially since she's just worried about broke rioters down on their luck.
- Those aren't teenaged insults, they're facts. She slept her way into politics, was Montel Williams and Willie Brown's sidepiece, and she cackles. A lot. But please continue with the personal insults while reinforcing you'd rather make it about me than the fact you're getting shit on yet again, Black Knight from Monty Python. As I've said, you're good for a laugh if nothing else and I appreciate your efforts. [Reply]
Would you all be fine removing the bail system altogether? It seems that everyone is so focused on attacking not-for-profit bail fundraisers, while completely overlooking how ridiculous our made-for-profit justice system has become in this country. [Reply]
Originally Posted by POND_OF_RED:
Would you all be fine removing the bail system altogether? It seems that everyone is so focused on attacking not-for-profit bail fundraisers, while completely overlooking how ridiculous our made-for-profit justice system has become in this country.
Q
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].
And I take issue with the sloganeering of 'for profit justice.' Justice isn't expensive because people are greedy. It can be expensive because; there a lot of protections available for all, and 2) taking advantage of the full panel of those protections takes a lot of work from specialists with honed skills.*
* - now here, you can choose. You can choose to accept my thesis in the summary form here, or you can demand to know exactly what I mean, triggering a tsunami of 'babbling' [which is actually well-reasoned and detailed analysis, but you read, or don't, and then try to besmirch as confusing abstraction that leads to conclusions you disagree with but have no counter-argument to]. [Reply]
And I take issue with the sloganeering of 'for profit justice.' Justice isn't expensive because people are greedy. It can be expensive because; there a lot of protections available for all, and 2) taking advantage of the full panel of those protections takes a lot of work from specialists with honed skills.*
* - now here, you can choose. You can choose to accept my thesis in the summary form here, or you can demand to know exactly what I mean, triggering a tsunami of 'babbling' [which is actually well-reasoned and detailed analysis, but you read, or don't, and then try to besmirch as confusing abstraction that leads to conclusions you disagree with but have no counter-argument to].
But you understand that bail can easily be used as a tool to attack the helpless, right? That our overflow has led to innocents pleading guilty because they literally cannot afford to wait out the process (which is exacerbated by that overflow) and also can’t afford the bail. Or that they don’t want to risk defending themselves with a half ass public defender. And how easy that can be for public officials to use this as a tool to brag about chopping down crime. I get the purpose of bail but it is an extremely broken system particularly for the poor. Whether you are a Jan 6 rioter or a blm looter, there has to be a much better way. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bowser:
She did bail them out with her donations, right? And she chose not to do the same with the 1/6ers, right? Where's the disconnect for you here?
Admit she was playing greasy politics, it's all you have to do. Anyone with any semblance of common sense knows that's what happened, so just say it. Hell, YOU know that's what happened, but you just won't say it. And why do you think that is?
And really, you're just pissed I won't go down the road you want to take this thread, and you're pissed I won't trade teenaged girl insults with you. And I'm legit laughing at watching you flail around right now.
There is definitely a hypocrisy. You can’t be for bail reform and representation for looters and not rioters, or vice versa. And something stinks to high heaven about Kamala preaching about the criminal justice system she had no problem abusing to boost her career. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
But you understand that bail can easily be used as a tool to attack the helpless, right? That our overflow has led to innocents pleading guilty because they literally cannot afford to wait out the process (which is exacerbated by that overflow) and also can’t afford the bail. Or that they don’t want to risk defending themselves with a half ass public defender. And how easy that can be for public officials to use this as a tool to brag about chopping down crime. I get the purpose of bail but it is an extremely broken system particularly for the poor. Whether you are a Jan 6 rioter or a blm looter, there has to be a much better way.
I've said before, a common misapprehension is that our system is perfect. No system is perfect. People aren't perfect, or perfectable. . . Its virtue is in minimizing imperfections comprehensively and fairly.
This misapprehension of perfectability leads to cancerous impulses, that if something is imperfect, something different MIGHT be better, or LIKELY IS because it aspires to cure a single particular imperfection.
As Bill Clinton coined, 'nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed by what's right with America.' And in this case, corrupt prosecutors and inept public defenders are individuals failing to fulfill their duties, not design elements of the system.
This all seems to tie into the cancerous notion of 'privilege,' that everyone who enjoys the benefits of what the American system created stole it from those who the system fails. The aspiration is that everyone enjoy it, but this notion of privilege is that no one should enjoy such benefits if everyone doesn't at every moment.
This just assures that everyone lives in a mediocrity of misery. No more justice than a typical DMV teller can craft. No better medical care than the man on the street can provide. No better nutrition than bland average food-pellets that nourish all 'equally.' No quality of life in any pursuit beyond what the administrative state deems fair for you to enjoy. [Reply]
Originally Posted by POND_OF_RED:
Would you all be fine removing the bail system altogether? It seems that everyone is so focused on attacking not-for-profit bail fundraisers, while completely overlooking how ridiculous our made-for-profit justice system has become in this country.
You'd have to add an amendment to the Constitution. Ain't gonna happen. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
I've said before, a common misapprehension is that our system is perfect. No system is perfect. People aren't perfect, or perfectable. . . Its virtue is in minimizing imperfections comprehensively and fairly.
This misapprehension of perfectability leads to cancerous impulses, that if something is imperfect, something different MIGHT be better, or LIKELY IS because it aspires to cure a single particular imperfection.
As Bill Clinton coined, 'nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed by what's right with America.' And in this case, corrupt prosecutors and inept public defenders are individuals failing to fulfill their duties, not design elements of the system.
This all seems to tie into the cancerous notion of 'privilege,' that everyone who enjoys the benefits of what the American system created stole it from those who the system fails. The aspiration is that everyone enjoy it, but this notion of privilege is that no one should enjoy such benefits if everyone doesn't at every moment.
This just assures that everyone lives in a mediocrity of misery. No more justice than a typical DMV teller can craft. No better medical care than the man on the street can provide. No better nutrition than bland average food-pellets that nourish all 'equally.' No quality of life in any pursuit beyond what the administrative state deems fair for you to enjoy.
Let's go back to what I said earlier and say we change the system so that instead of bail being granted on the basis of your ability to fork over cash, we focus solely on the defendant's level of threat to the public and their flight risk.
Isn't that just a common sense change that everybody should be in favor of? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
I've said before, a common misapprehension is that our system is perfect. No system is perfect. People aren't perfect, or perfectable. . . Its virtue is in minimizing imperfections comprehensively and fairly.
This misapprehension of perfectability leads to cancerous impulses, that if something is imperfect, something different MIGHT be better, or LIKELY IS because it aspires to cure a single particular imperfection.
As Bill Clinton coined, 'nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed by what's right with America.' And in this case, corrupt prosecutors and inept public defenders are individuals failing to fulfill their duties, not design elements of the system.
This all seems to tie into the cancerous notion of 'privilege,' that everyone who enjoys the benefits of what the American system created stole it from those who the system fails. The aspiration is that everyone enjoy it, but this notion of privilege is that no one should enjoy such benefits if everyone doesn't at every moment.
This just assures that everyone lives in a mediocrity of misery. No more justice than a typical DMV teller can craft. No better medical care than the man on the street can provide. No better nutrition than bland average food-pellets that nourish all 'equally.' No quality of life in any pursuit beyond what the administrative state deems fair for you to enjoy.
There’s a difference between privilege and having tools available to exploit the poor. It’s one thing if poor people can’t afford a nice meal. It’s quite another when they can’t afford to defend their own liberty. The system of course will have imperfections. But when those imperfections get exploited then you have to make changes to that system.
It’s not just a few bad apples. It’s systemic. The overflows are overwhelming our system and even innocents are held in jail for weeks just waiting to be heard. That’s very problematic. It’s just another example of the compounding problem that comes with mass incarceration. Everyone should be entitled at the very least to a speedy trial. Poor people usually cannot afford to take weeks off as many of them work hourly and live paycheck to paycheck. That time off can be catastrophic. [Reply]
