They are trying to cancel Dave Chappell

[Agema]

One thing I've noticed is that they are too loose with what can be turned into a study. Far too many times the methodology was flawed and how it got past and into the literature baffles me. Like, how do you let a paper go through when a bunch of co-author say that the data is made up? Was it a prevelant provlem and is it only an issue because antivaxxers picked it up?

Quite a lot of science is basically a load of crap... more I think than much of the public realises. And, worryingly, possible quite a few doctors and other scientists too.

Science - both in terms of collaboration and peer review - works under an assumption that scientists are well intentioned and honest. There's a debate going on after the covid debacles about whether this needs to change. Much of it I suspect is institutional, "publish or perish". There's just too much benefit in getting stuff out there, potentially with iffy quality and an inclination to cut corners, bullshit, and outright fraud.

There are authors packing out junk that they know is junk, but good for padding CVs. And there are junk journals (not necessarily even predatory publishers) that accept junk with low oversight because they get paid, and if they can get their hands on something big and/or controversial, all the better. In some cases, a peer reviewer knows the paper is kinda shit, but decides it's going into a low rank journal few people will probably read and even if they do those readers will assume it's pretty shit, so what's the harm? Well, maybe we're seeing the harm. Turns out there are a lot more dumbos out there who want to spin lead into gold than they think.

 

[AnxietyProne]

If you can't imagine a situation where you might defend Steven Crowder, your only principle is hatred.

Well, yes. He hates me, I hate him. It's mutual and that's fair. He wouldn't piss on me if my heart was on fire and I pray he get's crotch rot and his children are born deformed.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Quite a lot of science is basically a load of crap... more I think than much of the public realises. And, worryingly, possible quite a few doctors and other scientists too.

Science - both in terms of collaboration and peer review - works under an assumption that scientists are well intentioned and honest. There's a debate going on after the covid debacles about whether this needs to change. Much of it I suspect is institutional, "publish or perish". There's just too much benefit in getting stuff out there, potentially with iffy quality and an inclination to cut corners, bullshit, and outright fraud.

There are authors packing out junk that they know is junk, but good for padding CVs. And there are junk journals (not necessarily even predatory publishers) that accept junk with low oversight because they get paid, and if they can get their hands on something big and/or controversial, all the better. In some cases, a peer reviewer knows the paper is kinda shit, but decides it's going into a low rank journal few people will probably read and even if they do those readers will assume it's pretty shit, so what's the harm? Well, maybe we're seeing the harm. Turns out there are a lot more dumbos out there who want to spin lead into gold than they think.

I know lol. I've read the papers.

Yes sure everyone in the a very specific niche field has totally all read this one paper that basically created the field. Sure I totally believe the Japanese research group has read a paper only available by request in person at the specific museum in the USA and you have to view it in specially climate controlled conditions with gloves on because it's super old and delicate and hasn't been copied into a digital format yet. It's funny because every paper in the field references this 1 paper and while you can figure out what's on it you know for a fact basically none of the researchers in the field have seen that paper and it's likely not been looked at since about 50 years ago most likely.

Hell there was the nonexistent chemical a load of papers reference that made the news a while ago too.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Dave Chappelle Controversy Now Sees Netflix Hit With “Unfair Labor Charge” By Fired & Suspended Staffers

The reaction to 'The Closer' has just become a lot more intense with a filing an ex & a suspended streamer staffers

deadline.com

If you cant get dave off. Might as well file a lawsuit.

For *checks notes* firing and suspending people under false pretenses and retaliation, allegedly

 

[Gordon_4]

You mother fuckers all need to take a toke on a doobie the size of the USS Gerald Ford.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

You mother fuckers all need to take a toke on a doobie the size of the USS Gerald Ford.

Way ahead of you.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Anecdotal data is enough to disprove your claim that was entirely unsupported by any data, yes. Hell, I could have not even included that part and still been entirely correct: " What [was] asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

Op-Ed: Student-enforced censorship at Pennsylvania's private colleges

At first glance, Pennsylvania doesn’t stand out in the second annual College Free Speech Rankings, the results of a survey of more than 37,000 students in 159 colleges. You won’t

www.thecentersquare.com

Opinion | Alumni Unite For Freedom Of Speech

Many left-of-center professors now realize that they too can be brutally canceled by the mob.

www.wsj.com

So where is your equivalent analysis of the other 17 committee members' unanimous approval position? See, here's the problem with your stance: You claim to be on the side of "nuance" and not "making it a binary issue", but you entirely ignore the 94.4% of expert opinions in favor of only listening to the remaining 5.6% who support your pre-existing positions.

Uhh... I agree that vaccines should be made available for kids, though mandates hell fucking no (California did that BEFORE the data was even in and collected). Anyway, what I said originally that you replied to was that you get banned from forums and platforms for saying what an expert doctor said, not that the vote itself was wrong or bullshit. If you listen to the discussion, all the points he makes are, you know, discussed, because they are valid issues (which aren't allowed to be talked about online in many many many places).

Ok to address this and this is where the problem comes in.
At a very optimistic guesstimate the number of "Naturally immune" people in the world is Less then 0.001%.
The issues being the the distortion of the term really because naturally immune would be innate immunity which is rom genetic mutation or inheritance of resistance via inheriting initial memory immune cells as a baby from your mother.
The other kind of immunity is developed immunity which while natural is something you don't naturally have you naturally develop to infections.

There's a group of Anti-vaxx lot that are pushing Naturally immune to be "I have an immune system thus am naturally immune because I can develop immunity". The problem with that is with developing immunity you're then in a race with the virus to fight it off before it does too much damage. Also you are infectious and can create mutant strains in that time.

Those who have had Covid-19 and developed immunity sure it could be argued shouldn't need the jab, the issue is that's far more time consuming and costly to test than it is to produce vials of vaccines and stick them in peoples arms. We have the infrastructures to deliver Millions of vaccines we don't have the infrastructure to do and deliver and processes millions of blood tests

The CDC calls immunity from previous infection natural immunity, that's the official term for it.

Types of Immunity to a Disease | CDC

Immunity to a disease is achieved when there are antibodies to that disease in a person’s system. There are two types of immunity: active and passive.

www.cdc.gov

Mutant strains can happen in anyone regardless of the kind of immunity (none, natural or vaccine). The argument for not needing the vaccine because of natural immunity is that those (well over 100 million in the US) that got infected before vaccines were available, not to purposefully get infected post-vaccines available to acquire natural immunity as that is obviously more dangerous.

Basically every other country has immunity passports (not vaccine mandates) and recognizes natural immunity. Why do you have to 100% make sure everyone is telling the truth and not lying? You can get fake vaccine cards pretty easy. In fact, I've never shown my actual card to my boss or employer (or anyone), it could be totally fake for all they know, although seeing it themselves isn't gonna do much, it's not like these things have watermarks and stuff.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Having this Chappelle special available is accommodation

Customers literally paid Netflix for the special.

Im pretty sure you mistaking banned for refuted. I sure as shit hope university don't teach about miasma anymore.

One thing I've noticed is that they are too loose with what can be turned into a study. Far too many times the methodology was flawed and how it got past and into the literature baffles me. Like, how do you let a paper go through when a bunch of co-author say that the data is made up? Was it a prevelant provlem and is it only an issue because antivaxxers picked it up?

Nope, I know the meaning of words. You can literally get banned from many sites and platforms for saying those that previously had covid don't need to get vaccinated. What methodology for natural immunity is flawed? The fucking reason we invented vaccines to begin with was because we observed how strong natural immunity is. A vaccine does the same thing as being infected (sans the danger of infection obviously). The science and data for natural immunity is hundreds of years old at least. Who cares what anti-vaxxers use? Are they not allowed to use scientific facts?

Peer-reviewers aren't going to know the data is made up, there's no way for them to check that. They make sure the math and everything they did checks out, not the methodology as that's on the reader to look at. The original study that linked vaccines to autism had made up data. The problem with that wasn't that it had made up data, it was that the news ran with it without asking doctors and experts about it. Even if the data wasn't made up, the study was super small and proved nothing, the study itself said it didn't prove anything in its own conclusion in fact. IIRC, the study has less than 20 kids, how are you gonna base a link of anything with such a small sample size? You can do a study on anything as long as you got the money to do it obviously. Even the CDC "fudges" the numbers right now with covid. For example, the myocarditis risk in young people the CDC lists is technically true but very misleading. Myocarditis happens almost exclusively to young men but the CDC includes young women as well in the 1-in-whatever risk to make it look less prevalent. The fact that a lot of people are being mandated to get the vaccine and they are purposefully misleading you is a bunch of bullshit. They should show you the real risks so people can make an educated decision like getting the J&J vaccine for young men is the least risky vaccine but the opposite is true for young women (as that's the group that got blood clots very rarely).

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

Libbabbal poppaganba deployment initiated

 

[Agema]

Libbabbal poppaganba deployment initiated

Fundamentally I'm not sure a lot of conservative comedy is funny because conservatives more tend to represent power. Conservative comedy can thus be the strong making fun of the weak, which comes across more as bullying and that's not really so funny.

Humour is often a leveller: a reaction and way to cope with adversity or disadvantage. Your boss might be your boss lording it over you no matter their incompetence, arrogance and generally twattery, but at least you can make fun of them (behind their backs, one assumes). Doesn't reduce their power of course, but there's a certain satisfaction to it.

In fact, I suspect many comedians became funny because it was their way of reacting to being uncool, out-of-place, weak, etc. Your average jock can just get respect by being good at sports, and gain satisfaction by punching someone, he doesn't need to develop wit and humour. In this sort of vein, a quote I once saw: "Violence is the repartee of the illiterate".

 

[Buyetyen]

Fundamentally I'm not sure a lot of conservative comedy is funny because conservatives more tend to represent power. Conservative comedy can thus be the strong making fun of the weak, which comes across more as bullying and that's not really so funny.

There's a couple of different reasons conservative comedy doesn't work, although that is part of it. It's made worse by the fact that so many conservatives are more anti-Other than they are pro-humor. A lot of them have the mistaken impression that the quality of a joke is measured by the number of people it offends, which is not so much comedy as a coping mechanism for being an asshole.

Compounding this is the fact that the modern Republican party and by extension many of its voters have no real ethical framework outside of, "win no matter the cost." And related to that is the plague of disinformation that forms the life's blood of conservative media outlets like Fox, OANN, Newsmax and The Daily Caller. What you end up with is an audience who sees comedy as another front in the culture war that they have to win. And as you yourself pointed out, violence is the rhetoric of choice for people with more anger than wit.

As defenders of the status quo, conservatives are particularly resistant to change and while they identify a few societal problems correctly, for the most part they just make up fantasies about how persecuted they are by time moving on without them. Other people's problems can be boiled down to cliched answers like, "personal responsibility," and, "tradition." Which makes any kind of humorous sociopolitical commentary borderline impossible.

Perhaps the biggest problem of all is that modern conservatives live in such a bubble that they can no longer even agree with everyone else on what is real. To write good comedy, you need to be able to see the absurdities in reality and how they interact with the mundane and that which we typically take for granted. You need to be able to process complicated ideas like irony, without which sarcasm is just saying things in an off-putting way. Without a solid foundation of agreement on reality, communication with the audience becomes impossible unless they are approaching the material from the same angle as you are. The people who go to see conservative comedians aren't looking to laugh about the absurd. They're looking for someone to tell them they're right and everyone else is the problem.

And I guarantee that at least one conservative will reply to this post in a manner that will prove at least one of these points.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

Fundamentally I'm not sure a lot of conservative comedy is funny because conservatives more tend to represent power. Conservative comedy can thus be the strong making fun of the weak, which comes across more as bullying and that's not really so funny.

Humour is often a leveller: a reaction and way to cope with adversity or disadvantage. Your boss might be your boss lording it over you no matter their incompetence, arrogance and generally twattery, but at least you can make fun of them (behind their backs, one assumes). Doesn't reduce their power of course, but there's a certain satisfaction to it.

In fact, I suspect many comedians became funny because it was their way of reacting to being uncool, out-of-place, weak, etc. Your average jock can just get respect by being good at sports, and gain satisfaction by punching someone, he doesn't need to develop wit and humour. In this sort of vein, a quote I once saw: "Violence is the repartee of the illiterate".

Well, perhaps I should've noted the title is a bit inaccurate for the video's main thesis, which aims for a more fairer, balanced approach as they compare normal conservative comedy to trump-era conservative US comedy alongside addressing bad liberal comedy, and a bit near the beginning about whatever Chappelle counts as when he can't stop talking about the trans community during late comedy gigs, even providing advice for what would work better if wanting to attack liberals through humour. But that aside, I get what you mean yeah.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Libbabbal poppaganba deployment initiated

Ok that video is kinda bad already because it misses the part of the point. I've not watched Gutfeld but I can tell you the joke about Newton isn't the joke that "Lots of things are called Newton" but the joke of "The production is going wrong" it's the "This is not how things are meant to be done or meant to go" humour where you're laughing at the perception of things going wrong.

Also considering how much comedy these days seems to be getting rallied against I dunno do we now define Dave Chappelle as a conservative comic?

Most of that video just seems to come off as over a hour long whine of "Oh it's fine to make jokes about groups I don't like but unfair to do it to groups I do". It's long winded and often contradictory when you think about it. It's kind of telling the "Conservative" comedy the guy points to as funny seems to be more self deprecating red neck stereotype humour which while it has it's place it's almost as much of an overused trope as many other things really and seems mostly based in the idea of laughing at the perceived difference of people not like you rather than some attempt to subvert those ideas. The whole complaining about no taking shots at Trump is particularly baffling when Trump is low hanging fruit that everyone was taking shots at anyway and it's not exactly the height of comedy to point out how to Trump is actually a slang term in the UK for farting so America literally was run by President fart which I'm sure people would find appropriate considering how much hot air Trump seemed to emit.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

There's a couple of different reasons conservative comedy doesn't work, although that is part of it. It's made worse by the fact that so many conservatives are more anti-Other than they are pro-humor. A lot of them have the mistaken impression that the quality of a joke is measured by the number of people it offends, which is not so much comedy as a coping mechanism for being an asshole.

Compounding this is the fact that the modern Republican party and by extension many of its voters have no real ethical framework outside of, "win no matter the cost." And related to that is the plague of disinformation that forms the life's blood of conservative media outlets like Fox, OANN, Newsmax and The Daily Caller. What you end up with is an audience who sees comedy as another front in the culture war that they have to win. And as you yourself pointed out, violence is the rhetoric of choice for people with more anger than wit.

As defenders of the status quo, conservatives are particularly resistant to change and while they identify a few societal problems correctly, for the most part they just make up fantasies about how persecuted they are by time moving on without them. Other people's problems can be boiled down to cliched answers like, "personal responsibility," and, "tradition." Which makes any kind of humorous sociopolitical commentary borderline impossible.

Perhaps the biggest problem of all is that modern conservatives live in such a bubble that they can no longer even agree with everyone else on what is real. To write good comedy, you need to be able to see the absurdities in reality and how they interact with the mundane and that which we typically take for granted. You need to be able to process complicated ideas like irony, without which sarcasm is just saying things in an off-putting way. Without a solid foundation of agreement on reality, communication with the audience becomes impossible unless they are approaching the material from the same angle as you are. The people who go to see conservative comedians aren't looking to laugh about the absurd. They're looking for someone to tell them they're right and everyone else is the problem.

And I guarantee that at least one conservative will reply to this post in a manner that will prove at least one of these points.

Have you considered the idea that conservative comedy isn't as funny because the ridiculousness of the more radical "progressives" in reality often ends up more absurd than any conservative comedian could actually make up thus it actually makes people more sad for how far reality has ended up going.

Like if I were to tell you that to protest border walls and police brutality a group tried to succeed from the USA, set up a border wall round their own own area and had their own security force who in about 1 week had already shot 3 people and assaulted more you'd think I was exaggerating but that happened at CHAZ / Chop.

Part of comedy relies on some level of self awareness happening but apparently have all your clothes for sale being 100% natural but your Green New Deal range being made using oil products and synthetic fibres is fine and pointing out the sheer lack of seeming thought is just bad form to do.

Like it's already so absurd and not self aware it would be like if the little kid laughing because the emperor had no clothes was then dragged away and shamed and social media because clearly the emperors new clothes are the height of fashion.

 

[Avnger]

And I guarantee that at least one conservative will reply to this post in a manner that will prove at least one of these points.

And point 3 is already scratched off the list.

 

[Buyetyen]

And point 3 is already scratched off the list.

Knew it wouldn't take long. They just can't help themselves.

 

[Piscian]

Have you considered the idea that conservative comedy isn't as funny because the ridiculousness of the more radical "progressives" in reality often ends up more absurd than any conservative comedian could actually make up thus it actually makes people more sad for how far reality has ended up going.

Like if I were to tell you that to protest border walls and police brutality a group tried to succeed from the USA, set up a border wall round their own own area and had their own security force who in about 1 week had already shot 3 people and assaulted more you'd think I was exaggerating but that happened at CHAZ / Chop.

Part of comedy relies on some level of self awareness happening but apparently have all your clothes for sale being 100% natural but your Green New Deal range being made using oil products and synthetic fibres is fine and pointing out the sheer lack of seeming thought is just bad form to do.

Like it's already so absurd and not self aware it would be like if the little kid laughing because the emperor had no clothes was then dragged away and shamed and social media because clearly the emperors new clothes are the height of fashion.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

And point 3 is already scratched off the list.

Knew it wouldn't take long. They just can't help themselves.

Now the true challenge.

What did I say that isn't based on reality again?

Seattle: one teen killed and another injured in shooting in police-free zone

Six people have been shot in area of Capitol Hill Organized Protest zone in 10 days, prompting officials to look at dismantling it

www.theguardian.com

Meet the Gun Club Patrolling Seattle’s Leftist Utopia

Though everyone from Trump to local cops have expressed fear about the idea of anti-brutality activists being armed, they say it’s essential to ward off dangerous extremists.

www.thedailybeast.com

Nicely shows the border fence they put up such that it is.

How about the Green New Deal Hoodie?

Green New Deal Hoodie

Made in USA Union printed 80% cotton/ 20% polyester "Unisex" fit

shop.ocasiocortez.com

80% cotton/ 20% polyester

So are we going to disagree here on reality because if so the argument is that I'm not accepting your version of reality rather than what the information points to as actual reality.

 

[Avnger]

Now the true challenge.

What did I say that isn't based on reality again?

Seattle: one teen killed and another injured in shooting in police-free zone

Six people have been shot in area of Capitol Hill Organized Protest zone in 10 days, prompting officials to look at dismantling it

www.theguardian.com

Meet the Gun Club Patrolling Seattle’s Leftist Utopia

Though everyone from Trump to local cops have expressed fear about the idea of anti-brutality activists being armed, they say it’s essential to ward off dangerous extremists.

www.thedailybeast.com

Nicely shows the border fence they put up such that it is.

How about the Green New Deal Hoodie?

Green New Deal Hoodie

Made in USA Union printed 80% cotton/ 20% polyester "Unisex" fit

shop.ocasiocortez.com

So are we going to disagree here on reality because if so the argument is that I'm not accepting your version of reality rather than what the information points to as actual reality.

 

[Kwak]

What did I say that isn't based on reality again?

Lot's of incorrect assumptions are BASED on reality.
Any Qanon belief is BASED on some real thing.