Does Political Correctness stifle satire?

[Shadow Wolf]

Read the reviews of the critics.

Here is a gem

What happened to Dave Chappelle: The cruelty of "Sticks & Stones" is a sign of the times

Or this with Fox News dropped in.

Sticks & Stones Isn’t Very Funny

That doesn't actually address the critics claim. Chappelle mentions people are getting offended by some of his jokes. He also says he doesn't try anymore. The way I have seen this argument presented is that in general those who don't like it (such as the critics) are offended by it. Clearly, to some, it's just not funny like he used to.

 

[Shad]

That doesn't actually address the critics claim. Chappelle mentions people are getting offended by some of his jokes. He also says he doesn't try anymore. The way I have seen this argument presented is that in general those who don't like it (such as the critics) are offended by it. Clearly, to some, it's just not funny like he used to.

Actually the reviews I linked due use PC as a reason for a low rating. You didn't read those reviews.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Actually the reviews I linked due use PC as a reason for a low rating. You didn't read those reviews.

Yes, I did. One had nothing to do with critic reviews, and the other says this:
While several critics and comedians liken the latest form Chappelle’s taken to a grumpy, middle-aged uncle who refuses to evolve with the times, I have a different theory.
Which doesn't support the idea that the critics who don't like it are just offended. It says some of them are, which is a given, but not as many as this claim makes. Yes, it's possible some people just didn't find his newer stuff anywhere near as good as his older stuff.

 

[Shad]

Yes, I did. One had nothing to do with critic reviews, and the other says this:

Wrong as both were reviews from Rotten Tomatoes.

While several critics and comedians liken the latest form Chappelle’s taken to a grumpy, middle-aged uncle who refuses to evolve with the times, I have a different theory.

All while ignoring the PC babble in the articles. You stopped reading at the point you could quote. Nothing more.

"Then there’s the easily offended “alphabet people,” his shorthand for the LGBTQ community, particularly, as he says, the “confusing” Ts. The #MeToo movement, organizers of school shooting drills — they’ve all gotten out of hand and need to be taken down a peg."

"In his new Netflix special “Sticks & Stones,” the objects of Chappelle’s ire are folks ostensibly making their personal tragedies everyone’s problems by using them to perpetrate career death and reputation homicide upon celebrities. These people, he tells us, have made him a “victim blamer.”

"Chappelle even takes a moment to stereotypically mimic Asians, which he defuses later on by reminding the audience that his wife is Asian. The entirety of “Sticks & Stones” is structured around such logic: by signaling to those who are true believers in his genius that it’s all just a joke, only words, this earns his ability to “punch down,” as the parlance goes."

Which doesn't support the idea that the critics who don't like it are just offended.

Read it again. This time do not pretend to read it.

It says some of them are, which is a given, but not as many as this claim makes. Yes, it's possible some people just didn't find his newer stuff anywhere near as good as his older stuff.

Really? Have you looked at the critic reviews from Rotten Tomatoes? Almost every negative review babbles about PC or PC culture

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Wrong as both were reviews from Rotten Tomatoes.

It was a Salon article and some blog.

 

[AsianActivist]

I personally am a big fan of PC culture. We should not say things that could be construed as sexist or racist. In other words we should be polite and use common sense when interacting with others.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Really? Have you looked at the critic reviews from Rotten Tomatoes? Almost every negative review babbles about PC or PC culture

Then why has no one posted directly to them?

All while ignoring the PC babble in the articles. You stopped reading at the point you could quote. Nothing more.

What I quoted came after what you posted, so, I guess once again you show you haven't read the article very well.

 

[Shad]

It was a Salon article and some blog.

Which were sourced from Rotten Tomatoes... You do not know what Rotten Tomatoes is do you?

 

[Shad]

Then why has no one posted directly to them?

I did. You just have no idea what the site actually is. Your problem.

What I quoted came after what you posted, so, I guess once again you show you haven't read the article or read it as well as I did.

So? You only quoted what you wanted and ignored the very parts that proved me right.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I did. You just have no idea what the site actually is. Your problem.

Salon and Ian Thomas Malone are not Rotten Tomatoes.

So? You only quoted what you wanted and ignored the very parts that proved me right.

No, I pointed out where someone else said "several critics" rather than "almost every negative review." And where that article said "I'd like to propose a different idea," which came after what you screamed and shouted at me.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

How hard is it to link to direct evidence to support a claim?

 

[Shad]

Salon and Ian Thomas Malone are not Rotten Tomatoes.

Okay you just have no idea what Rotten Tomatoes is. Next!

No, I pointed out where someone else said "several critics" rather than "almost every negative review." And where that article said "I'd like to propose a different idea," which came after what you screamed and shouted at me.

As you ignored the whining about violations of PC right above it.

More so what comes after your quote

"On the whole, “Sticks & Stones” exists as a defiant design to intentionally offend large swaths of the audience Chappelle deems too thin-skinned and easily outraged, too quick to find offense, while serving up simple, low-bar yucks to anyone yearning for validation of their anti-P.C. stance. Indeed, it may end up being one of the defining comedy specials of our time.

Because our time is defined by cruelty. Me-first, to-hell-with-everyone-else cruelty.

Said whining.

"“Few people may be aware that a taboo exists, but everyone knows when it’s violated. A stand-up comedian appears on stage and, with no preface, simply yells an obscenity; people are likely to laugh and applaud as if he has said something funny,” wrote Joyce Carol Oates in 1990. “… Because taboos are part of what we are taught as children, their violation — and the rowdy applause it engenders — is a defiant cry to parents, elders, and custodians of authority: You don’t control us after all.”

Oh no someone violated some rule in someone's head.

"Or maybe that’s just outdated thinking. Today Chappelle’s “Sticks & Stones” is a performing wildly well among the far-right, the main perpetrators of the racism he still skewers and stands against. He’s also earned ample praise from Jackson loyalists, a portion of whom have been sending threats to the late pop star’s accusers and anyone who stands with them, including Oprah. They’re on board with the meanness."

MEH RACISM

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Okay you just have no idea what Rotten Tomatoes is. Next!

You seem to be the one confusing Salon with Rotten Tomatoes. Do you think it's acceptable if I presented a Wikipedia article as an OED entry?

As you ignored the whining about violations of PC right above it.

I've ignored nothing. I realize there is a big difference between "several" and "almost nearly all." It shouldn't be this hard for you to link to what is actually Rotten Tomatoes to support your claim.

 

[Shad]

You seem to be the one confusing Salon with Rotten Tomatoes. Do you think it's acceptable if I presented a Wikipedia article as an OED entry?

Or I could just link the source directly showing, again, you have no idea what the site is.

Dave Chappelle: Sticks & Stones (2019)

Now follow the links.....

Again you have no idea what the site is.

Rotten Tomatoes - Wikipedia

"Rotten Tomatoes is an American review-aggregation website for film and television."

Review aggregator - Wikipedia

"A review aggregator is a system that collects reviews of products and services (such as films, books, video games, software, hardware, and cars)."

The wiki proves my point. Didn't read that either did you?

I've ignored nothing.

Wrong.

I realize there is a big difference between "several" and "almost nearly all." It shouldn't be this hard for you to link to what is actually Rotten Tomatoes to support your claim.

Go look at the rest of the rotten reviews yourself.

You have lost track of the conversation. Now go back and read where it started. You are projecting points I never made when you bring up someone said X. I am not that someone so your point is irrelevant.

 

[PureX]

When you go to college, you are required to take courses you may not like. If you like math and science, you might prefer to avoid the humanities. If you like humanities you may prefer to avoid math and science. Even though students pay to go to college, the colleges will force certain requirements on all the students because they want the students to have a more well balanced education. They do not want lopsided people to remain lopsided. They know the students will appreciate the full experience, someday.

That was back before profits ruled ALL decision-making in this country (was there ever really a time like that?). Now it's all about the money.

Part of the college experience is taking chances and trying new things. Many students go from the quiet nerd in high school to the party animal in college. It is not about staying lopsided, afraid to try new things. It is about that unique opportunity to live outside the box where anything can happen.

Political lopsidedness is a negative aspect of Progressive run education.

There is no "political correctness" or "progressive run education". It's a myth generated by the right to stir up righteous indignation for fun and profit. Every time someone exercises free speech against their agenda, it the outrage of "political correctness", but when they do it it's "free speech". In reality, profit and power-seeking runs everything.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is no "political correctness" or "progressive run education". It's a myth generated by the right to stir up righteous indignation for fun and profit.

That is one perspective.
Many of us disagree.

A problem in this thread....
Some defend enforcing PC on others as legal.
Others defend being non-PC as legal.
Both are right, so the arguments are moot.
The better issue....
When is it right to stifle the speech of others?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Again you have no idea what the site is.

That was the first real, legit, actual Rotten Tomatoes link you posted. Salon =/= Rotten Tomatoes. I know what the site is. You don't seem to know how to present proper evidence until multiple requests are made demanding direct evidence that doesn't come from third-party sources. Posting two articles from there that agree with you while the reviews vary is a poor debate move.
And what's the first thing I see from Rotten Tomatoes itself?

Critics Consensus
Edgy, but empty, Sticks and Stones won't break any bones, but it won't elicit many laughs, either.

What else did I find?

Sticks & Stones leaves the audience with the sense that there was more work to be done before the special was filmed.

You've got our attention, pal. You just haven't delivered the funny.

He's one of the few comedians who can really touch on a lot of different sensitive topics and still make it funny.

There's an overwhelming feeling of the now as you watch "Sticks and Stones." It feels immediate, a plea from one of our very best comedians to his own audience to stop the hysteria.

Sticks & Stones" isn't necessarily a failure, it just feels like Chappelle presenting half-formed material with few jokes that truly hit hard and stand out.

So, yeah, I'm still not really seeing this plague of PC police who are all offended and that's the only thing people are complaining about. Some of them aren't even complaining. It's there and not absent, but it seems to reflect their minority status in the real world where there just aren't that many of them.

 

[Shad]

That was the first real, legit, actual Rotten Tomatoes link you posted. Salon =/= Rotten Tomatoes.

Both were sourced from the site I said. You just got confused. Move on.

I know what the site is. You don't seem to know how to present proper evidence until multiple requests are made demanding direct evidence that doesn't come from third-party sources.

Wrong. You didn't know what the site was at all. I linked examples. I said to look at the site for more reviews whining about exactly what I said. Take your L and move on.

Posting two articles from there that agree with you while the reviews vary is a poor debate move.

I told you how to read more. You are lazy. Not my problem

And what's the first thing I see from Rotten Tomatoes itself?

After skipping what 6 paragraphs? Yawn

What else did I find?

Nothing of substance as you ignore the very parts that proved me right.

"Sticks & Stones leaves the audience with the sense that there was more work to be done before the special was filmed."

Parts you didn't quote and ignoring the audience reviews which refute the review.

Who Is Dave Chappelle's Netflix Special 'Sticks & Stones' For?

.
"The short answer is no, because Sticks & Stones, while still structured like a comedy special, complete with setups and punchlines and clever pivots and callbacks, isn’t especially funny. Much of this stems from the topics that Chappelle covers, particularly in the first half of the special, as he talks about (among other things) cancel culture, Michael Jackson, R. Kelly, Louis C.K., and Chappelle’s own problematic jokes about the LGBTQ community. This is nothing new for Chappelle, of course, but tackling such emotionally charged, sensitive topics means that only the best jokes will actually generate laughter. Turns out, the jokes Chappelle brings are… well, fine. But they rarely reach a level of insight or surprise or humor that exceeds the shock of the topic, which means we’re mostly just left with, well, a bunch of uncomfortable topics that didn’t make us laugh."


Netflixable? Chapelle courts controversy in “Sticks & Stones” standup special

"When Chapelle gets into the funniest portion of the act, the last third, he comments on the Jussie Smollett fake hate crime, exaggerating and ridiculing the actor’s name in a fey-French fashion. That sounds a tad homophobic there, Dave, but no matter."

"Kyle Smith, who used to write for The New York Post, is being disingenuous or at the very least, is using Rev. Al — who is black — to beat up another black person — a favorite conservative tactic"

"When Chapelle describes his friend Kevin Hart as “damn near perfect,” you realize he’s too close to the subject to have an impartial take on the “cancellation culture” that “the alphabets” — the LGBTQ “social justice warrior” twitter outrage machine — used to take Hart’s “dream, hosting the Oscars,” away from him."

Like I said you are lazy. You didn't even read the reviews. You just quote one line as if it represents everything in the review. Try again. More effort next time.

"He's one of the few comedians who can really touch on a lot of different sensitive topics and still make it funny"

A positive review.... I wasn't talking about positive review.

"Sticks & Stones" isn't necessarily a failure, it just feels like Chappelle presenting half-formed material with few jokes that truly hit hard and stand out."

Dave Chappelle Wins and Loses With Netflix Comedy Special ‘Sticks & Stones’

"Chappelle has been criticized before for his jokes about the LGBTQ community and in “Sticks & Stones” it is indeed where he falls the flattest. He uses a joke about Kevin Hart’s tweetgate and the Oscars to segue into a long commentary about how in the industry you can’t criticize “the alphabet people,” but you can use the N-word. There might have been a more challenging, valid point to be made in this section, but instead of going deeper Chappelle twists it into a joke about not understanding trans people. He compares being trans to being a black man who feels Chinese, complete with making a face and voice. Chappelle’s cover is that his wife is Asian, but the real issue is that it’s simply not very funny. His takedown of the term LGBTQ itself plays that old joke of, “I’m not racist because I have (place your preferred ethnicity here) friends.” The funniest moment in this section is when an audience member’s cell phone goes off and Chappelle says, “what is this, high school? They’ve probably got a babysitter, go answer the phone.”

The joke was correct. No ftm knows what male itch feels like.

"“Sticks & Stones” isn’t necessarily a failure, it just feels like Chappelle presenting half-formed material with few jokes that truly hit hard and stand out. He can still grab a crowd’s attention, but it’s a harder job to provoke than to merely offend."

Oh no alphabet people are upset at jokes.

Try harder next time

 

[Estro Felino]

That is one perspective.
Many of us disagree.

A problem in this thread....
Some defend enforcing PC on others as legal.
Others defend being non-PC as legal.
Both are right, so the arguments are moot.
The better issue....
When is it right to stifle the speech of others?

I mean...THANKS Rev

Maybe because I am an indolent Roman...but why do people care?
Why do they care what others say?

I couldn't care less what the others' opinions are...
I am too self confident to care

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Wrong. You didn't know what the site was at all.

Yes. It's an aggregate site. Two articles featured on it doesn't represent it overall, especially since they aren't that many critic reviews to begin with.