What Are Your Thoughts on Dave Chappelle?

[Debater Slayer]

Comedians push at our boundaries. It's how we know where those boundaries are.

Do you need a comedian to make fun of Holocaust victims or make a Holocaust-denying joke in order to know that this is a boundary and that jokes downplaying it are problematic?

 

[PureX]

Do you need a comedian to make fun of Holocaust victims or make a Holocaust-denying joke in order to know that this is a boundary and that jokes downplaying it are problematic?

Humor is far more complicated then that, and addresses far more than just the subject of the joke.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

What are the thoughts of people here on Dave Chappelle? More specifically, I'm mainly thinking of his work in the last few years, since that's where a lot of his jokes about LGBT people, Me Too, and sexual assault allegations are.

I personally think he's a good comedian who has significantly polluted his comedy with thoughtless and irresponsible material. Sometimes there's a fine line between funny, insightful bluntness and dismissive, harmful tastelessness, and I think some of Chappelle's material falls within the latter category.

The world can be a depressing place. It’s nice to be informed, but news is depressing.
Therefore, I prefer the comedy channel for my news.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Humor is far more complicated then that, and addresses far more than just the subject of the joke.

The OP is specifically about what people think of Dave Chappelle's jokes about trans people, Me Too, and the sexual assault allegations against Michael Jackson and C.K. Louis. Your response doesn't seem to address this.

 

[PureX]

The OP is specifically about what people think of Dave Chappelle's jokes about trans people, Me Too, and the sexual assault allegations against Michael Jackson and C.K. Louis. Your response doesn't seem to address this.

People have all kinds of different reactions to this material, depending on a whole array of internal circumstances. Comedians specifically address all this complexity in a way that helps us to see ourselves and each other in all our weirdness, and to laugh together about it. I think that's an amazing thing. An amazing gift that they give us. To get caught up in our own self-righteousness, only to be offended, is to miss that opportunity. Which is a sad thing.

 

[Debater Slayer]

People have all kinds of different reactions to this material, depending on a whole array of internal circumstances. Comedians specifically address all this complexity in a way that helps us to see ourselves and each other in all our weirdness, and to laugh together about it. I think that's an amazing thing. An amazing gift that they give us. To get caught up in our own self-righteousness, only to be offended, is to miss that opportunity. Which is a sad thing.

I'm not sure I can see your point, especially because I find the argument quite simplistic. But that's okay; I don't see a point in debating your posts further.

 

[PureX]

I'm not sure I can see your point, especially because I find the argument quite simplistic. But that's okay; I don't see a point in debating your posts further.

Debating humor is a fool's errand. Sorry.

 

[epronovost]

Sometime, I find him funny; sometimes I don't. If Dave Chapelle makes "risky jokes" about sensitive subjects, the risk is that he will offend people or worst, that he will feed the problem and make the world worst for those who were the subject of his joke. In those instances, he has failed. The joke missed, people didn't laugh and maybe, they missed so badly, the joke has turned into a weapon against its subject. That's the "risk" in the "risky jokes". It's on him for the failure since he was the creator of that joke and deserves to be critiqued and maybe even reviled for it. If you think a comedian sucks or is insulting or is even a hatemonger with a clown outfit, criticize him. Nobody is above criticism and every artist and audience needs criticism if only to refine their taste, appreciate art in a different manner and grow. Is Dave Chapelle funny? Yeah, he is often funny. Is he often sagacious? Yeah he is often sagacious, especially on subjects he knows like racism or poverty. Is he sometime extremely bad and even feeding hate instead of laughter? Yeah it does happen. Never trust an artist that says in essence "you shouldn't say that about my work" nor an audience "you shouldn't feel nor say those things about this work". That's the biggest red flag there is and that's how both an audience and an artist are trying to insulate themselves from thinking and the worst can happen.

 

[Stevicus]

What are the thoughts of people here on Dave Chappelle? More specifically, I'm mainly thinking of his work in the last few years, since that's where a lot of his jokes about LGBT people, Me Too, and sexual assault allegations are.

I personally think he's a good comedian who has significantly polluted his comedy with thoughtless and irresponsible material. Sometimes there's a fine line between funny, insightful bluntness and dismissive, harmful tastelessness, and I think some of Chappelle's material falls within the latter category.

I don't follow Dave Chappelle that closely (or any current comedian, for that matter). I'm familiar with some of his stuff on a cursory level, so I can see he might have a tendency to rub some people the wrong way. Humor itself has changed over the years, and some things that might have been acceptable decades ago are no longer acceptable today. I recall when I was a kid, ethnic and racial jokes were still pretty widespread. I also ran into some people who liked to tell "dead baby" jokes. I've heard some pretty tasteless and highly offensive jokes that I won't repeat here, but I can certainly understand why anyone wouldn't like them and think that it's a bad idea to have it broadcast over TV by famous comedians.

I don't know that it can be banned outright, but ultimately, it's up to the viewers to decide as to whether or not they'll watch and support this kind of programming. I don't really watch it myself; I don't even subscribe to Netflix anymore, and I haven't had cable TV in over a decade (although I still have cable internet). Not necessarily because it offends me (although some of it does), but I just find it incredibly boring and unentertaining. If more viewers were like me, most of these TV networks would go broke. I honestly don't understand the viewing habits of most people these days.

I guess the larger question here might be, how far should humor be allowed to go before it goes over the line and considered "tasteless"? There might be examples of what might be called "dark humor" or "gallows humor," where serious or grave events might be treated in a humorous or light-hearted fashion. The final scene of Life of Brian might be an example of that. But there's also a certain detachment of the viewer from a scene like that, and it's really so absurd, along with the knowledge that it's really just a movie and no one is really being crucified, that it works to make people laugh. But Monty Python did kind of push the envelope a bit with the macabre and some pretty tasteless humor. But that was back during a different era.

I've seen similar criticisms about Hogan's Heroes and others that made satires and jokes about Nazis, not because they were insensitive to the victims of the Nazis, but because they were anti-Nazi. They were making fun of the Nazis, but perhaps it was a bit too whitewashed and made to look like "too much fun" and downplayed and minimized the seriousness of what actually happened. There was also Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles which also had a lot of imagery and language which wouldn't really fly in today's world. Then there's All in the Family and many other Norman Lear series which many liberals took to, even if it may have taken a humorous approach to serious issues facing America at the time.

But now, that kind of humor doesn't really seem to go over too well, but as with anything, it's whatever the public chooses to buy.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'm mainly thinking of his work in the last few years, since that's where a lot of his jokes about LGBT people, Me Too, and sexual assault allegations are.

I think that the main thing is not to combine malice with humor -- not to be malicious when joking, not to encourage malicious behavior.

If they are encouraging malice then call them out. Let them know. If they are dealing with malice and encouraging compassion then don't.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As I see it, if one is offended by a comic or their joke, one is taking humor too seriously.

He's not as funny as he was in the 90s and early 2000s, but he's still funny.
He's also defended trans people and supported us, even during his alleged anti-LGBT stuff. And he defended trans while criticizing Rachel Dolezal and kicking her under the bus.
Or like Ricky Gervais' joke about Caitlyn Jenner, that did acknowledge she transitioned and accepted enough to apply female driving stereotypes against her as she did kill someone while driving. But according to the twitter mob is was transphobic.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There was also Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles which also had a lot of imagery and language which wouldn't really fly in today's world.

I watched it not too long ago on TV, broadcast in all its uncut amd uncensored glory.

 

[Stevicus]

I watched it not too long ago on TV, broadcast in all its uncut amd uncensored glory.

Wow, I didn't that kind of stuff would pass muster these days.

 

[Debater Slayer]

He's not as funny as he was in the 90s and early 2000s, but he's still funny.
He's also defended trans people and supported us, even during his alleged anti-LGBT stuff. And he defended trans while criticizing Rachel Dolezal and kicking her under the bus.
Or like Ricky Gervais' joke about Caitlyn Jenner, that did acknowledge she transitioned and accepted enough to apply female driving stereotypes against her as she did kill someone while driving. But according to the twitter mob is was transphobic.

It's not just Twitter circles that have a problem with comedians like Ricky Gervais; I think a lot of these controversial comedians, Chappelle included, are finding it hard to adapt to the cultural and political climate of the 2020s and are resorting to "defying" taboos as a result--even though there's nothing defiant about what they're doing when they're usually multimillionaires who have enthusiastic "non-PC" audiences and multiple awards.

It reminds me of some unintentionally ironic and clearly prejudiced reviews on some of Lilly Singh's work. A few of them lambasted her for "anti-white propaganda"... and then recommended Dave Chappelle instead. One has to wonder why those people didn't follow the "don't take humor seriously"/"it's just a joke!" mantra when they disagreed with her sketches. Of course, almost anyone who is familiar with far-right cliches probably knows that many of them indeed take humor seriously at times... but only if it goes against far-right prejudices.

I'm no fan of Lilly Singh or any other comedian, mind you, but the hypocrisy, tribalism, and vapid mantras I keep seeing in American politics from certain segments of the right and the left are amusing and also sad, to say the least.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's not just Twitter circles that have a problem with comedians like Ricky Gervais; I think a lot of these controversial comedians, Chappelle included, are finding it hard to adapt to the cultural and political climate of the 2020s and are resorting to "defying" taboos as a result--even though there's nothing defiant about what they're doing when they're usually multimillionaires who have enthusiastic "non-PC" audiences and multiple awards.

They seem to be doing just fine to me. The ones not adjusting are those whining and crying about changing standards. Those like Gervais announce he doesn't care and keeps doing what he's been doing.
Amd it's more than defying taboos. Comedy has always done that. Carlin, Hicks, Pryor, Tucker, Izzard, Schumer, Wong, Chappelle, Monty Python, even the court jesters of old got to make fun of the king. A good comedian shows us the world in an unusual way that we aren't familiar with. It is the familiar in unfamiliar situations. Even Iglesias has made some "mean" jokes such as associating cops with donuts in a joke, and he put together a gag racist gift bag for a black friend.
I think it's only hard for those who think comedy must change into something it has never been.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Wow, I didn't that kind of stuff would pass muster these days.

I don't remember the channel, but the world isn't as PC as SJWs want or Conservatives pretend

 

[Debater Slayer]

They seem to be doing just fine to me. The ones not adjusting are those whining and crying about changing standards. Those like Gervais announce he doesn't care and keeps doing what he's been doing.
Amd it's more than defying taboos. Comedy has always done that. Carlin, Hicks, Pryor, Tucker, Izzard, Schumer, Wong, Chappelle, Monty Python, even the court jesters of old got to make fun of the king. A good comedian shows us the world in an unusual way that we aren't familiar with. It is the familiar in unfamiliar situations. Even Iglesias has made some "mean" jokes such as associating cops with donuts in a joke, and he put together a gag racist gift bag for a black friend.
I think it's only hard for those who think comedy must change into something it has never been.

They're doing well financially and don't have any shortage of audiences, but some comedians notably respond badly to criticism. This is what I mean by not adjusting well to a changing social and political landscape; some of them seem to expect they can say the same things as in the '90s and not be criticized for doing so. And the fact that they're doing so well underpins the absurdity of claims like Chappelle's where he talked about "cancel culture." He hasn't been canceled or even touched at all.

Making fun of someone in power, like a king, is far different from making jokes about sexual assault or mocking sexual assault allegations about one's friends at the expense of the survivors. That's not defiance; that's simply cowardice and creative laziness.

There are satirists in certain parts of the world who have gotten imprisoned or otherwise persecuted for defying authority. That's the kind of comedy I can admire for breaking taboos, not some multimillionaire profiting off downplaying markedly problematic issues while having full legal protection and significant backing from their audience.

Also, I see nothing about the "familiar in unfamiliar situations" in jokes like the ones I described above: downplaying of sexual assault, minimizing its impact, and attempting to silence or shame those who come forward about being assaulted are far from unfamiliar situations. If anything, endorsing the opposite would be an act of going against a strong current that seeks to perpetuate the status quo, not making jokes that merely cater to deep-rooted, popular prejudice.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Never trust an artist that says in essence "you shouldn't say that about my work" nor an audience "you shouldn't feel nor say those things about this work".

The German band Rammstein has long had to do basically this to defend themselves against false accusations of them being Nazis.

 

[Debater Slayer]

They seem to be doing just fine to me. The ones not adjusting are those whining and crying about changing standards. Those like Gervais announce he doesn't care and keeps doing what he's been doing.
Amd it's more than defying taboos. Comedy has always done that. Carlin, Hicks, Pryor, Tucker, Izzard, Schumer, Wong, Chappelle, Monty Python, even the court jesters of old got to make fun of the king. A good comedian shows us the world in an unusual way that we aren't familiar with. It is the familiar in unfamiliar situations. Even Iglesias has made some "mean" jokes such as associating cops with donuts in a joke, and he put together a gag racist gift bag for a black friend.
I think it's only hard for those who think comedy must change into something it has never been.

I've been reading some older threads on the forum about MeToo, and I found this one you made (which I agree with):

I don't support feminist movements

I'm quite curious, though: in light of the above post, how do you not mind Dave Chappelle's comments about the people who came forward with accounts of sexual misconduct or assault from Louis C.K. and Michael Jackson? Chappelle's mocking and dismissal of their accounts is exactly the kind of thing MeToo seeks to counter, and you seem to support the movement. So I'm unsure what your exact stance is in this case.

 

[Yerda]

What are your thoughts on his jokes about trans people (e.g., Caitlyn Jenner) and his comments on the people who came forward with sexual assault allegations against Michael Jackson and Louis C.K.?

(Warning per Rule 5: The links contain some language.)

Dunno. What did he say about Caitlyn Jenner?

I've heard him make several jokes about Michael Jackson and I found them mostly funny. One of them almost buckled me but I couldn't repeat it here.