i kind of knew but
i didn't know meth was this passionate about trans citizens
i like the passion!
did u like any of part of the special or was it just all not ur speed?
When it comes to human rights, indifference is not neutral. If I were any less passionate about this than about other forms of systemic injustice, like racism or sexism, then I could not claim to believe in
equality.
I have referenced and enjoyed much of Dave Chappelle's comedy over the years, but I believe that comedy is
a powerful tool that ought to be used ethically. Dave has the shown the ability to do this as well as anyone, which makes his lapses especially disappointing.
He is better than this.
but I just its important we debate these things in a good faith way
So you called trans people a
"super minority" and cited the author of "
Hate Crime Hoax"?
I don't think either of those things are particularly "nuanced."
it doesn't mean that black LGBTQ people don't exist.
white LGBTQ people use black trans lives as a bloody shirt to enforce their preferred speech environment.
and want to wrap it in their desire to protect black and brown trans people. to stifle dissent
One of the many problems with the binary oppositional framework commonly applied by the media is that, as Melissa Gira Grant has noted, it centers coverage around the transgressor and aggregates all those harmed into a single class of "accusers" or "critics."
Rather than actually consider Raquel Willis or Jaclyn Moore's perspectives, it seems you want to shove them off to the side so you can tether this to your favorite targets. It's disrespectful.
Black trans people aren't involved in this conversation just because White people are using them as a human shield. Black trans people are involved for
because they are trans people, and included among the group mocked in these routines
. When trans people are publicly ridiculed, it is trans women of color, and especially Black trans women, who are disproportionately impacted. Their perspectives are essential.
Dave attempted to claim that his issue isn't
really with trans people, but White supremacism. It's then worth asking if his material
really only targets White people, which is just demonstrably untrue. He's told multiple jokes in The Closer alone mocking trans women's bodies and implying that trans people receive preferential treatment. He referred to himself as
trans exclusionary. He did another variation on the joke he previously told about "Black dudes in Brooklyn" who "wear high heels to feel safe." This implies that Black LGBTQ Americans are treated better, and
less subject to violence, than cishet Black Americans.
If there is a focus on violence against trans people, in the greater conversation around Dave's recent specials, it is because these types of jokes dismiss or
downplay that violence.
I would again encourage you to read this:
It’s no coincidence this is the conversation people opted to have instead of the one about transphobia. It’s much easier to focus on the oppression we experience rather than the oppression we inflict.
www.essence.com
Remove the White liberals from the equation and think about how your points resonate. You've arguably spent most of your time here challenging the extent to which trans people suffer.
So you think that Dave's special fomented and a previously non existent transphobia in the mind of some innocent NTer.
And where, exactly, did I say
that? The word I used was "emboldened."
People were directly quoting the offensive content in the special and seizing the opportunity to make offensive claims in this thread like, say, that hate crimes against trans people are a hoax, violence against them is overstated, and they're coddled by society.
It's not a reach to suggest that the special and the offensive comments about the special
made in the thread about the special might be related, but you'd apparently much rather discuss things
nobody in here said, like this "straight line" to "skyrocketing murder rates."
Does it really require "mind reading" to see your preoccupation with White liberal clichés? You're ranting about "trigger warnings" and the term "unhoused people."
Do you still wonder why you might come across as an "anti-woke scold?"
For years and years the college educated intelligencia told us that trigger warnings were essential interventions to reduce harm against some marginalized people.
You seriously used ninjahood's misspelling of intelligentsia?
We've really gotta get you out of the politics thread.
I actually think
Methodical Management
Methodical Management
does an excellent job of this moderating this forum.
and balancing that.
Thank you for that, though all praise regarding our community moderation should really be addressed to the team as a whole. In a lot of ways, Internet moderation is like trying to fight the tide with a spoon.
It's hard to feel "successful" by any meaningful measure.
I do appreciate it whenever someone indicates that they find the experience better for our efforts.
I think if you just stop with the attempts at mockery, I think my disagreement is pretty nuanced.
I wish you'd apply that logic internally the next time you poke at something that is an abstract curiosity for you and a matter of personal safety for others.
I find it ironic that you can see mockery as counterproductive or even harmful when you believe it affects you, but mockery on a global scale as marketed by a massive corporation doesn't matter 1) unless it directly and irrefutably leads to death and 2) if it interferes with "art."
Your sudden distaste for mockery also clashes with your tendency to continually needle those whose positions are in any way reminiscent of or adjacent to those of the liberals you seemingly hold in greater disdain than the overt bigots you consistently manage to co-sign or defend.
That you dislike a stat
nobody here used hardly justifies throwing a hand grenade into the room in the form of some "hate crimes are a hoax" take you failed to vet. THAT is acting in bad faith.
Your contempt for the performative activism of many White progressives is well-justified, but you react to that in knee-jerk ways that are, in some respects, indistinguishable from reactionary backlash. In this case, it led you to
quite literally "signal boost" reactionary backlash.
Want to prove you're nothing like a performative activist?
Follow through.
That is doing what they won't do.
Playing contrarian on questions of basic human dignity is just cutting off your nose to spite your face.
www.gq.com
variety.com
