ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 22 of 24
« First < 121819202122 2324 >
Patteeu Memorial Political Forum>Dave Chapelle's "The Closer": He Fucking Roasts Everyone
AdolfOliverBush 11:30 AM 10-12-2021
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."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/enter...ts/6094754001/
[Reply]
Loneiguana 03:15 PM 01-05-2022
Originally Posted by Bowser:
So you have a problem with white people that commit crimes, but not minorities that commit crimes. Got it. You also see no issue with a sitting Senator bailing out those minorities that caused billions in damages across the country, but being eerily silent when it comes to white folks thrown in jail for committing crimes (that likely reside on the opposite side of the aisle whose votes can't be bought)

Who would have ever thought a homegrown commie in this country would be so into race baiting? I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you. Well, not that shocked.
I have a problem with numbnuts like you only caring about an issue only when it directly affects you or others like you.

You only use "rotting away for jails months on end" because you are just another wannabe victim parroting the worst of conservative media.

We have a issue in this country with pre-trial jail times, people sitting in jails only because they cannot afford a fine, and a whole host of other reasons. And the response from you and your side is exactly what you already typed "Don't do the crime then."

But as soon as someone "on your side" (because people attacking the peaceful transfer of power is on your side, eh?) people like you complain "rotting away for months on end".

And like a typical conservative coward, when called on your transparent hypocrisy, you whine and crime the victim.

The only person who has tried to make a difference between 1-6 insurrectionist and summer rioters is you. And all you are doing now is throwing a temper tantrum I'm calling you out on it.
[Reply]
GloryDayz 06:16 PM 01-05-2022
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.
Nothing wrong with locking-up lesser people. Hell, they should have been aborted
[Reply]
Bowser 07:01 PM 01-05-2022
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
Yes. I have.

You "Harris said some stuff about bail. The horror. Me angry."

Me, addressing your stupid point: "Um, bail is a constitutionally protected right granted by a judge......"

You "Me too stupid to get what you are saying."

Stop being so stupid and I would stop calling you stupid.



Interesting. You make a stupid comment pages back, and I guess now, you realize how stupid it was.

So you think adding "but but but she didn't mention 1/6 rioters" will some how save you dumbass. Sure, go ahead and change your argument to something just as dumb. You do you son.

But what a mystery. Why wouldn't Harris mention January 6th 2021 in a June first, 2020 tweet. I bet it is a political agenda!

I bet you are smart to figure that one out. Let us know! :-)
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
I have a problem with numbnuts like you only caring about an issue only when it directly affects you or others like you.

You only use "rotting away for jails months on end" because you are just another wannabe victim parroting the worst of conservative media.

We have a issue in this country with pre-trial jail times, people sitting in jails only because they cannot afford a fine, and a whole host of other reasons. And the response from you and your side is exactly what you already typed "Don't do the crime then."

But as soon as someone "on your side" (because people attacking the peaceful transfer of power is on your side, eh?) people like you complain "rotting away for months on end".

And like a typical conservative coward, when called on your transparent hypocrisy, you whine and crime the victim.

The only person who has tried to make a difference between 1-6 insurrectionist and summer rioters is you. And all you are doing now is throwing a temper tantrum I'm calling you out on it.
You didn't need this many words to convince anyone you are playing defense and are effectively debating at a fourth-grade level. Take a breath after you go outside and scream at the sky.

Thanks for letting us all know you're a hypocrite and a racist, though. That was an unexpected chuckle. Not that we didn't know you hated the dasterdly wHiTe nAtIOnAlIStS, to be fair. And thanks also for never engaging the question as to why Montel Williams' side piece did what she did throughout all these proceedings, as well. Nobody really thought you would, but it still needed pointed out.
[Reply]
Snopes Hammer 07:32 PM 01-05-2022
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.
What individuals did Harris secure bail for?

Oh, that's right, she didn't. She asked for donations to a non-profit.


Originally Posted by :
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].
So you're ok with bail for some and not for others.
[Reply]
Snopes Hammer 07:33 PM 01-05-2022
Originally Posted by Snopes Hammer:
I guess the idiot brigade ...
Originally Posted by Al Czervik:
Hi...
At least you know who you are.
[Reply]
POND_OF_RED 11:13 PM 01-05-2022
Originally Posted by Bowser:
Do you think this completely non partisan non profit should have bailed out the 1/6 rioters? And if you don't, do you feel maybe this "non partisan" non profit was acting on the orders from Senator Deepthroat and that's why they didn't? I'm sure you have a great explanation as to why that didn't happen, and I can't wait to hear it.

In the meantime, you calling me names and saying to pull my head out of my ass while you CONTINUE to dance around the subject absolutely makes you appear super intelligent and your outbursts totally justified and relevant. And trust me, nobody else is picking up on this, so you're likely safe there. You're an amusing dancing monkey, for sure.

While I’m not trying to jump onto LoneIguana’s side, because I think he is being very narrow minded and childish in his discussion about this, I do want to point out that plenty of shitty proud boys, Neo-nazis, and January 6th rioters have made thousands of dollars from using crowdfunding apps so I don’t see a huge difference between the two parties being willing to help their fellow extremists push their extreme ideas to ridiculous levels.

While I know I’m going to be speaking to a lot of deaf ears I can say that Kamala never once said to donate to the rioters. She said to donate to the protesters. There were plenty of peaceful protesters that were arrested for being wrongfully associated with the group of rioters. The peaceful protesters that stayed out past curfews or got caught up in a peaceful march that had some bad apples in the bunch. These people do actually exist. Not everyone in the streets during the protests were rioters. While the bailouts should have been more vetted by the group, I think it’s understandable that a non-for profit group run by a limited number of employees and volunteers with an extreme influx of cash bailed out some of the shitty ones along the way as well.
[Reply]
Baby Lee 06:33 AM 01-06-2022
Originally Posted by POND_OF_RED:
While I’m not trying to jump onto LoneIguana’s side, because I think he is being very narrow minded and childish in his discussion about this, I do want to point out that plenty of shitty proud boys, Neo-nazis, and January 6th rioters have made thousands of dollars from using crowdfunding apps so I don’t see a huge difference between the two parties being willing to help their fellow extremists push their extreme ideas to ridiculous levels.

While I know I’m going to be speaking to a lot of deaf ears I can say that Kamala never once said to donate to the rioters. She said to donate to the protesters. There were plenty of peaceful protesters that were arrested for being wrongfully associated with the group of rioters. The peaceful protesters that stayed out past curfews or got caught up in a peaceful march that had some bad apples in the bunch. These people do actually exist. Not everyone in the streets during the protests were rioters. While the bailouts should have been more vetted by the group, I think it’s understandable that a non-for profit group run by a limited number of employees and volunteers with an extreme influx of cash bailed out some of the shitty ones along the way as well.
This goes back to when you choose to go 'big picture' and when you CHOOSE to go specific and granular.

Absolutely plenty of people have raised plenty of funds for plenty of purposes. But Kamala is a specific person who has a specific leadership position who stumped for specific funds for specific people. Let's have someone on the right rise to candidacy who specifically stumps for specific funds to bail out specific individuals, and let that population of specific individuals contain "shitty proud boys, Neo-nazis, and January 6th rioters" no matter how tangentially, and lets see how the rhetoric shifts.

You are assessing Kamala's actions under the rubric of 'it's potentially plausible that she may have had a pure purpose somewhere in there.' Ask yourself if you have the same rubric when assessing people you disagree with.
[Reply]
POND_OF_RED 06:42 AM 01-06-2022
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
You are assessing Kamala's actions under the rubric of 'it's potentially plausible that she may have had a pure purpose somewhere in there.' Ask yourself if you have the same rubric when assessing people you disagree with.
I definitely do. I’ve had plenty of discussions with people in this forum over the years that I’ve disagreed with, who have given me other perspectives that I hadn’t thought about before. I think the January 6th protests were also a large group of people whose original intentions were potentially plausible but unfortunately got caught up with a few bad apples that tainted the whole thing. It definitely happens to both sides.
[Reply]
Baby Lee 06:49 AM 01-06-2022
Originally Posted by POND_OF_RED:
I definitely do. I’ve had plenty of discussions with people in this forum over the years that I’ve disagreed with, who have given me other perspectives that I hadn’t thought about before. I think the January 6th protests were also a large group of people whose original intentions were potentially plausible but unfortunately got caught up with a few bad apples that tainted the whole thing. It definitely happens to both sides.
Do you apply it so diligently you would elect one of them to high office? No further inquiry, no imputation of possible plausible less than laudatory intentions allowed by anyone?
[Reply]
Loneiguana 08:25 AM 01-06-2022
Originally Posted by Bowser:
You didn't need this many words to convince anyone you are playing defense and are effectively debating at a fourth-grade level. Take a breath after you go outside and scream at the sky.

Thanks for letting us all know you're a hypocrite and a racist, though. That was an unexpected chuckle. Not that we didn't know you hated the dasterdly wHiTe nAtIOnAlIStS, to be fair. And thanks also for never engaging the question as to why Montel Williams' side piece did what she did throughout all these proceedings, as well. Nobody really thought you would, but it still needed pointed out.
Have you figured out why a tweet in June 2020 didn't mention 1-6-2021 yet?

Or are you too busy trying to weasel your way out suddenly whining about insurrectionists "rotting away in jail for months" while also attacking and getting angry about bail? (That change in your argument didn't really work out for you, eh?)

God damn are you one dumb sob. :-)
[Reply]
Loneiguana 08:30 AM 01-06-2022
Originally Posted by Snopes Hammer:
So you're ok with bail for some and not for others.
The only constant in conservative logic, and why you cannot ever shame them, is that anything a democrat does is bad, anything a republican does is good.

So, when a democrat promotes a non for profit whose mission statement is helping Americans afford bail, that is bad. It encourages crimes. It supports riots. It gets violent criminals back on the street! The important thing is that conservative media has something to vilify a democrat with, no matter who important bail is to American justice.

But, as we see in this very thread with Babble lee's and bowsers own words, when it is "conservative criminals", like 1-6 insurrectionists and rioters, then suddenly its people "rotting away for months".

They don't even have the awareness to see their own hypocrisy and they never will.

Instead, what you will see, as they have already done, is just play the victim and pretend you are just as bad as they are.
[Reply]
Loneiguana 08:37 AM 01-06-2022
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
This goes back to when you choose to go 'big picture' and when you CHOOSE to go specific and granular.

Absolutely plenty of people have raised plenty of funds for plenty of purposes. But Kamala is a specific person who has a specific leadership position who stumped for specific funds for specific people. Let's have someone on the right rise to candidacy who specifically stumps for specific funds to bail out specific individuals, and let that population of specific individuals contain "shitty proud boys, Neo-nazis, and January 6th rioters" no matter how tangentially, and lets see how the rhetoric shifts.
Trump himself promised to pay people's legal fees for roughing up people.

Donald Trump Jr tried to using and promoting a crowdfunding site for his dad's legal fees.

Trump's communications asking for donations always asks for donations to pay his legal fees.

Once you start getting mad about a non for profit whose mission is helping those who cannot afford bail while being silent on your side literally begging for help on legal issues, you out yourself as a pure partisan hack.
[Reply]
Baby Lee 09:11 AM 01-06-2022
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
Trump himself promised to pay people's legal fees for roughing up people.

Donald Trump Jr tried to using and promoting a crowdfunding site for his dad's legal fees.

Trump's communications asking for donations always asks for donations to pay his legal fees.

Once you start getting mad about a non for profit whose mission is helping those who cannot afford bail while being silent on your side literally begging for help on legal issues, you out yourself as a pure partisan hack.
And every time you lot complained about that, no one said 'you CAN'T complain about that, it's a hallowed Constitutionally protected practice.'

No one is arguing that Kamala is not entitled to raise funds to bail out rioters. No one is arguing that it's illegal, or that she should be prosecuted for some trumped up charge. They are arguing that it's relevant to mention when she is running for office.

And no one is arguing that it's not fair that people alleged to have committed malfeasance on 1/6 are still in jail because bail itself is unfair. The argument is that people are dissuaded from raising bail funds for them, even if they are deserving of being bailed out, because you lot APPLY this standard of judging people for WHO they CHOOSE to bail out that you claim is out of bounds for Kamala.

We're the side in favor of applying rules equally to everyone. You lot are the side deciding what rules apply and which are ignored on partisan and tribal metrics.
[Reply]
POND_OF_RED 09:12 AM 01-06-2022
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
Do you apply it so diligently you would elect one of them to high office? No further inquiry, no imputation of possible plausible less than laudatory intentions allowed by anyone?
Are you asking if I would vote one of the capitol rioters into office? You took a giant leap there and lost the entire point of the discussion. Kamala wasn’t one of the Minnesota rioters herself was she? If you’re insinuating I voted for Biden Harris you would also be very wrong, so I’m finding it very difficult, as always, to figure out what the hell your babbling about now.
[Reply]
Baby Lee 09:19 AM 01-06-2022
Originally Posted by POND_OF_RED:
Are you asking if I would vote one of the capitol rioters into office? You took a giant leap there and lost the entire point of the discussion. Kamala wasn’t one of the Minnesota rioters herself was she? If you’re insinuating I voted for Biden Harris you would also be very wrong, so I’m finding it very difficult, as always, to figure out what the hell your babbling about now.
Choose for yourself, an actual accused rioter, someone alleged to be affiliated, or someone who raised funds to bail them out. . . . Would you blithely apply a charitable assessment and say those acts and affiliations are irrelevant to your vote? That's the standard the lefty trolls are trying to apply in Kamala's favor, that bail is a hallowed right, and any consideration of who she advocated raising bail funds for is utterly irrelevant to her fitness for your vote.

You applied a standard that Kamala raised funds for bail for a group, and that group contained rioters. But you decided that her intentions, intentions you imputed to her and applied, not even intentions she herself announced, . . . to only bail out the pure of heart should be dispositive, regardless of who actually got bailed out pursuant to her efforts. That's your standard, and I'm interrogating how rigorously you would apply it.
[Reply]
Page 22 of 24
« First < 121819202122 2324 >
Up