They are trying to cancel Dave Chappell

[TheMysteriousGX]

Libbabbal poppaganba deployment initiated

I absolutely adore this video for two reasons:
1) it has examples of good conservative comedy that used to exist, as well as contemporary conservative humor that's still attempting jokes
2) it has numerous examples showing just how easy it is to absolutely roast "the left" while being funny as shit

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

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

So want to argue the news stuff I posted and actual links are fake news now?

 

[Kwak]

So want to argue the news stuff I posted and actual links are fake news now?

You don't get what words mean do you?

 

[Mister Mumbler]

So want to argue the news stuff I posted and actual links are fake news now?

Wait...this seems alwfully familiar...

AOC is selling a $65 Green New Deal hoodie made from petroleum products

https://notthebee.com/article/aoc-is-selling-a-green-new-deal-hoodie-made-from-petroleum-products Of all the the ways to screw up the messaging and make it seem like it's not genuine but just about looking good 20% polyester and polyester is indeed a synthetic fiber derived from petroleum...

forums.escapistmagazine.com

Oh yeah. Of which, I feel this comment sums up the issue quite nicely;

She also produces carbon dioxide. WHAT A FUCKING HYPOCRITE!

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

You don't get what words mean do you?

I do. Apparently you think they mean something entirely different because what I posted does show my claims have validity...............

Wait...this seems alwfully familiar...

AOC is selling a $65 Green New Deal hoodie made from petroleum products

https://notthebee.com/article/aoc-is-selling-a-green-new-deal-hoodie-made-from-petroleum-products Of all the the ways to screw up the messaging and make it seem like it's not genuine but just about looking good 20% polyester and polyester is indeed a synthetic fiber derived from petroleum...

forums.escapistmagazine.com

Oh yeah. Of which, I feel this comment sums up the issue quite nicely;

And I think my reply in there pointing out none of her other stuff had synthetic fibres made using petroleum which shows the kind of silliness of the thing. The one time she would want to actually show support for her ideals and it might be scrutinised or it she manages to goof. But hey it's not like she worse a dress to a wealthy gala event with the messaging saying Tax the Rich on the dress that was custom made by a person with a history of tax avoidance and unfair pay practices toward employees or anything.......

 

[BrawlMan]

You don't get what words mean do you?

He never does. Only in his unique and special way. There's a good reason why I have them on ignore. I suggest you just do the same at this point.

 

[Buyetyen]

He never does. Only in his unique and special way. There's a good reason why I have them on ignore. I suggest you just do the same at this point.

And as this thread has proven, he's not even accidentally funny.

 

[Cheetodust]

So dave knows the difference between being laughed with and laughed at. All trans people want is to be treated with the same respect Dave expects to be shown. When you're appealing to the "I identify as an attack helicopter" crowd you're part of the "laughing at them" crowd. Like this is shit Dave does understand, he just pretends not to now because he's not the one on the receiving end of the bullshit this time.

Hell even George Carlin, talking about Andrew Dice Clay says he defends dice's right to say that shit but he specifically called out jokes about women and gay people as punching down.

To be clear people like George Carlin and Lenny Bruce were both dragged through the courts for jokes they made. That's censorship or canceling. Nobody is trying to end Chappelle's career or even really punish him for what he said. Dude's been paid already. He can say whatever he wants. Netflix can choose to work with him and people are free to say they don't want anything to do with Netflix as long as they do. Netflix will be fine. Dave will be fine. Trans people... Well actually a lot of them won't be fine but fuck 'em right?

 

[Agema]

Wait...this seems alwfully familiar...

AOC is selling a $65 Green New Deal hoodie made from petroleum products

https://notthebee.com/article/aoc-is-selling-a-green-new-deal-hoodie-made-from-petroleum-products Of all the the ways to screw up the messaging and make it seem like it's not genuine but just about looking good 20% polyester and polyester is indeed a synthetic fiber derived from petroleum...

forums.escapistmagazine.com

Yes, it was shortly after that crock of manufactured criticism (possibly that same thread) of AOC that Dwarvenhobble went on to uncritically tout various debunked Reddit rumours about her, claimed she wasn't from the Bronx despite her patently having been born there, and that she was lying about being working class because although her parents had working class jobs as recognised by standard societal measures, they just weren't deprived enough according to Dwarvenhobble's arbitrarily subjective whim. All this after the preceding couple of years of similar shit, final straw and he went on my ignore list. And credit to him in a sense, in my 10+ years on the Escapist forums, hardly anyone has ever managed get themselves on my ignore list.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

He never does. Only in his unique and special way. There's a good reason why I have them on ignore. I suggest you just do the same at this point.

You have me on ignore but can' help be keep passing comment lol

So dave knows the difference between being laughed with and laughed at. All trans people want is to be treated with the same respect Dave expects to be shown. When you're appealing to the "I identify as an attack helicopter" crowd you're part of the "laughing at them" crowd. Like this is shit Dave does understand, he just pretends not to now because he's not the one on the receiving end of the bullshit this time.

Hell even George Carlin, talking about Andrew Dice Clay says he defends dice's right to say that shit but he specifically called out jokes about women and gay people as punching down.

To be clear people like George Carlin and Lenny Bruce were both dragged through the courts for jokes they made. That's censorship or canceling. Nobody is trying to end Chappelle's career or even really punish him for what he said. Dude's been paid already. He can say whatever he wants. Netflix can choose to work with him and people are free to say they don't want anything to do with Netflix as long as they do. Netflix will be fine. Dave will be fine. Trans people... Well actually a lot of them won't be fine but fuck 'em right?

Laughing at vs laughing with can entirely come down to subjective positions on things a lot of the time.

I laughed at The Big Bang Theory because you know what I could see elements of people I know and myself in characters and could acknowledge the comedy value in said things. For some people that's Heresy right there because they got offended by that show because it did admittedly screw up on some stuff.

Also the whole "Nobody is trying to punish him" well the film festivals that rescinded his invites are certainly doing something there.

I think there's a level of you have to be able to laugh at yourself to an extent. Also a level of people acknowledging the difference between deliberate shots being disguised as jokes and people trying to be somewhat sincere about the jokes and not malicious

Yes, it was shortly after that crock of manufactured criticism (possibly that same thread) of AOC that Dwarvenhobble went on to uncritically tout various debunked Reddit rumours about her, claimed she wasn't from the Bronx despite her patently having been born there, and that she was lying about being working class because although her parents had working class jobs as recognised by standard societal measures, they just weren't deprived enough according to Dwarvenhobble's arbitrarily subjective whim. All this after the preceding couple of years of similar shit, final straw and he went on my ignore list. And credit to him in a sense, in my 10+ years on the Escapist forums, hardly anyone has ever managed get themselves on my ignore list.

Oh you mean like how she tried to frame it as her being part of the lets say rather poor areas all her life rather than moving from there quite early on going to a pretty good school not some inner city urban one etc etc.

Oh but what am I doing you literally can't address what I've actually said in here so have to back track to try and bring other stuff up to deflect and try to steer the argument into territory you feel you stand a better chance in.

 

[Satinavian]

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.

It is difficult.

If you do proper science, many of your studies should be about open questions. You usually have expectations for the results and if all works out, it will be good material for publishing.
But what if you can''t show what you hoped ? Or worse, what if the result is inconclusive ?

You can try to spin it somehow and get in into a bad journal anyway. Or you don't publish it but that will hurt you and, more importantly, hurt potential junior researchers that really need that publication to get a degree.

People complain a lot about too much rubbish based on weak data that gets published. But at he same time, there are also a lot of complaints about failures that don't get published even though it might be important to know that something doesn't work or maybe earlier results that can't be replicated were a fluke.



It is all not easy. Maybe we should get away from publish or perish. Maybe we should allow weak data and a failed experiment to be actually called weak data and a failed experiment in a paper without demanding euphemisms and spin. I don't know. It has gotten worse in the last years as the number of publications has risen and it is more tasking to keep being updated even in your own field.

 

[Agema]

But what if you can''t show what you hoped ? Or worse, what if the result is inconclusive ?

You can try to spin it somehow and get in into a bad journal anyway. Or you don't publish it but that will hurt you and, more importantly, hurt potential junior researchers that really need that publication to get a degree.

Agreed, it's a tough one.

People complain a lot about too much rubbish based on weak data that gets published. But at he same time, there are also a lot of complaints about failures that don't get published even though it might be important to know that something doesn't work or maybe earlier results that can't be replicated were a fluke.

Agreed. Science can suffer from the same problem as a lot of the internet: too much information and too little quality analysis (sometimes deliberate).

I am unhappy at some of the dishonesty and sharp practice. Predatory publishers. One journal I saw recently, not with a known predatory publisher, but all the articles it had ever published came from the laboratories of the editorial team or their collaborators. (Were they also peer reviewing each other's papers?) To the inexpert, this journal looks as good as any, but for an experienced eye there are warning flags all over it.

It is all not easy. Maybe we should get away from publish or perish. Maybe we should allow weak data and a failed experiment to be actually called weak data and a failed experiment in a paper without demanding euphemisms and spin. I don't know. It has gotten worse in the last years as the number of publications has risen and it is more tasking to keep being updated even in your own field.

Yes. Publish or perish is I think a danger to science. A few years ago, the ex-heads of the Society for Neuroscience and Federation of European Neuroscience Societies put out a joint message calling on reforms as it was bad for science and early career scientists.

There are seeds of hope. New systems exist which offer much more transparency in data publishing - some have work-in-progress papers where the data is much more available and they can receive feedback from readers throughout the process. Some Western government funding agencies are also getting tougher in trying to ensure that results have been verified by alternative mechanisms befre publication - either showing the same effects with different experimental techniques or validation by collaborating labs.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Libbabbal poppaganba deployment initiated

Ha, a friend just posted that clip on Facebook a couple days back. It's a horribly named clip because what conservative comedians did he even talk about? I guess you can do a 1:1 on Gutfeld and Colbert (or insert other late night show host), I've seen less than like 5 minutes of Gutfeld so I'm assuming they're similar enough. And when you do that, Gutfeld and Colbert are basically the same, neither shows are funny and both are way too political. Gutfeld only exists because of how liberal network late night comedy became. Back in the day with say Letterman or Carson, outside of the occasional joke about a presidential gaf or something, it was very apolitical where everyone could laugh at the jokes (some were funny, some were not obviously as a daily show isn't gonna be all hits). I just skimmed though Colbert's monologue on the 3rd, and it was literally all political. Where's the bits like Letterman where he'd try to see how many people dressed up as like Mario he could get into a Jamba Juice before they'd tell them to leave?

Crowder seems to be a political commentator vs comedian (I haven't seen a clip of Crowder but his video titles don't seem like it's comedy first). Pretty sure people aren't tuning in primarily for comedy like you would for Dave Chappelle or Norm McDonald or George Carlin or Bill Burr or Jeff Foxworthy. So how's he gonna say conservative comedians aren't funny when he's not even really talking about conservative comedians?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

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.

The Blue Collar guys were really big at one point. I don't really follow comedians too much, I'd rather watch funny TV shows like Curb (it's back baby!!!) or Arrested Development or What We Do In The Shadows vs standup honestly. A good comedian, you really shouldn't know what their political leaning is. The Blue Collar guys could be more left than right as their jokes are far more about culture in the South vs actual politics so you infer they are probably conservative because they're southerns and not from the political leaning of the jokes.

I really don't know how you can type out that last paragraph and be serious at all. I'm in the middle and both sides are in their own bubbles and neither can comprehend what is real anymore. Minnesota just voted to possibly get rid of the police, that is beyond fucking crazy. And I know what it wasn't about having no "police" but to replace the police with a new police basically. But how do you actually think that would've went well in anyway? The idea behind it is not horrible (there's many things to fix with police) but the execution is doomed to fail. You're gonna train new cops the right way but who's gonna be there for you to train? All the people that do want that job, you know, cops aren't gonna come back with probably no union and lower pay and worse benefits and if you didn't know, there's kinda a cop shortage in many places so the Minnesota cops you just let go are gonna be cops somewhere else and you think you got enough other citizens that will want to be "cops" and have the manpower to police the city properly?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Ha, a friend just posted that clip on Facebook a couple days back. It's a horribly named clip because what conservative comedians did he even talk about? I guess you can do a 1:1 on Gutfeld and Colbert (or insert other late night show host), I've seen less than like 5 minutes of Gutfeld so I'm assuming they're similar enough. And when you do that, Gutfeld and Colbert are basically the same, neither shows are funny and both are way too political. Gutfeld only exists because of how liberal network late night comedy became. Back in the day with say Letterman or Carson, outside of the occasional joke about a presidential gaf or something, it was very apolitical where everyone could laugh at the jokes (some were funny, some were not obviously as a daily show isn't gonna be all hits). I just skimmed though Colbert's monologue on the 3rd, and it was literally all political. Where's the bits like Letterman where he'd try to see how many people dressed up as like Mario he could get into a Jamba Juice before they'd tell them to leave?

Crowder seems to be a political commentator vs comedian (I haven't seen a clip of Crowder but his video titles don't seem like it's comedy first). Pretty sure people aren't tuning in primarily for comedy like you would for Dave Chappelle or Norm McDonald or George Carlin or Bill Burr or Jeff Foxworthy. So how's he gonna say conservative comedians aren't funny when he's not even really talking about conservative comedians?

He's literally got clips of Crowder's stand up, amongst other attempts at explicit comedy.

 

[Kwak]

I'm in the middle and both sides are in their own bubbles and neither can comprehend what is real anymore.

No you aren't you're an apologist for the right wing every single time. You're right wing.

 

[Buyetyen]

noise noise I'm in the middle words words

lol nope

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Snarky Snearing dismissal with no actual arguments being made.

About what I expected to happen.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

He's literally got clips of Crowder's stand up, amongst other attempts at explicit comedy.

That's besides the point I was making. Is Crowder mainly watched/listened to for his comedy or political commentary? I'm guessing he's mainly a political commentator. Joe Rogan does stand-up comedy but his popularity is not due to his comedy so saying Joe Rogan is an example of [insert Joe Rogan's "label/team"] being bad at comedy is a pretty bad argument. It's like saying progressives are bad at acting and using Jon Stewart's acting as your basis when he's not really an actor even though he's been in movies. If the pool of people the video was criticizing was the most popular conservative comedians (whose primary job is comedy) vs most popular progressive comedians, then he could have something there but that wasn't the video.

No you aren't you're an apologist for the right wing every single time. You're right wing.

Haha, I'm no where close to right wing on the vast vast majority of issues. I've continually said nobody should vote for democrats or republicans (outside a few good ones) because whatever you want to change is not gonna happen voting for them. Why do you think Biden said "We need a strong Republican party"? So the democrats don't have to do what they promise and what people actually want and have the excuse of it was the republicans' fault. The reason I "defend" the right isn't because I'm right but ignoring HUMAN BEINGS is not how you make things better. Say the left is 80% right and 20% wrong and the right is 20% right and 80% wrong, don't you want to listen to the other side and fix your shortcomings? And wouldn't the other side be less mad when they're actually listened to and their concerns do help shape new policy? Now we just have the other side is completely wrong and shouldn't even be acknowledged (regardless if your right or left), that is not leading to good policy or healthy society.

I'm very progressive on most things because chances are that the way we are currently doing something is not the best way to do something. If you ask me what country the US should try to emulate/copy, it would be one of the social democratic countries like Denmark, which has the highest happiness rate among citizens in the world I believe. My take on energy is neither fossil fuels (right) or green energy (left), it's nuclear because if you look into it nuclear is the best option by far. My take on healthcare is that it shouldn't be run as a profit making business nor should any necessity. How would that be right-wing? The only reason you and others may think I'm right-wing is because of how insane the left has gone with regards to covid. Everyone would say Denmark is very left-wing, correct? Yet their covid response is far closer to what the right wing American response has been. School in Denmark reopened April 2020. Guess what Denmark doesn't have, mask mandates or vaccine mandates. Are you gonna argue that Denmark is some crazy right wing country when they have probably all the stuff in place like public healthcare that just about any left wing person would love to have? The greatest shift in wealth just happened in the US due to left wing covid policies, I'm sure all the billionaires are loving the democrats right now.

 

[Buyetyen]

I'm guessing he's mainly a political commentator.

No, he's a shock jock. There's a difference. And fence sitters like you are right wing, you just have commitment issues.