Dave Chappelle Sticks and Stones

[dholliday]

Joe and guest talking about mainstream media's PC-culture attempting to cancel Chappelle.

 

[dholliday]

by contrast, woke comedian Nanette's Special has 100% RT score (from 46 reviews) while over 800 users rate it an average of 35% fail.

There's obviously something wrong going on here, it's undeniable. And if you still deny it, ask yourself why.

I think it's perfectly valid if some people prefer Nanette to Chappelle, or that the RT scores for both closely match. But those discrepancy of scores tell us PC Culture in mainstream media is real, and they try to influence the acceptable cultural tastes of the masses. RT have always had a questionable influence in the media, you'll always find major news sites quoting them (rather than the more popular IMDB), even Wikipedia dutifully includes RT under every 'critical reception' section in its film/tv pages.

For reference, this is Nanette aka Hannah Gadsby:

 

[Blue 1]

Jerry Sadowicz had his TV career terminated because of a joke that became mainstream 30 years later on. And is still one of the absolute greats of stand up. He also never performed in Canada again after the opening 30s he did at Just for Laughs in the mid 90s.

Was that "Good evening, moose-f***ers"?

 

[Disgruntledgoat]

Was that "Good evening, moose-f***ers"?

It was. He then followed it up with "There's only two things I hate about Canada... Half of you speak French and the other half let you get away with it! You should all speak Indian. At least then you could say sorry to the people you stole the place from".

it was at this point a man got up and punched him in the face.

 

[Blue 1]

It was. He then followed it up with "There's only two things I hate about Canada... Half of you speak French and the other half let you get away with it! You should all speak Indian. At least then you could say sorry to the people you stole the place from".

it was at this point a man got up and punched him in the face.

Yeah, have a vague memory of it

He was up there with Bill Hicks back then.

Frankie Boyle is a 3rd rate Sadowitz tribute act.

 

[dead_soft]

by contrast, woke comedian Nanette's Special has 100% RT score (from 46 reviews) while over 800 users rate it an average of 35% fail.

There's obviously something wrong going on here, it's undeniable. And if you still deny it, ask yourself why.

I think it's perfectly valid if some people prefer Nanette to Chappelle, or that the RT scores for both closely match. But those discrepancy of scores tell us PC Culture in mainstream media is real, and they try to influence the acceptable cultural tastes of the masses. RT have always had a questionable influence in the media, you'll always find major news sites quoting them (rather than the more popular IMDB), even Wikipedia dutifully includes RT under every 'critical reception' section in its film/tv pages.

For reference, this is Nanette aka Hannah Gadsby:

Do you think it's a conspiracy? Do you think the reviewers are lying? If not, is it not just possible, as has ALWAYS been the case that critical and public reception don't match up? I've also checked what many of the audience reviews say, I'm not sure they are completely objective reviewers
I mean, are you not aware of RT audience scores being gamed by those obsessed with blaming identity politics.

 

[dead_soft]

Which show?

I'm not disagreeing with you on this, I just can't find much background on the TV show being cancelled because of the joke?

 

[Blue 1]

Aye. You're referring to the punch-up/punch-down idea.

punch-up: Tories, white males, conservatives/rightwingers, Christians...basically the 'priviliged'. It's ok to satirise these groups.

punch-down: non-white folk, muslims, 'poor' liberal students...basically the 'oppressed'. It's not ok to satirise these groups.

Stewart Lee got this right for me:

"The African-American stand-up Chris Rock maintained that stand-up comedy should always be punching upwards. It’s a heroic little struggle. You can’t be a right-wing clown without some character caveat, some vulnerability, some obvious flaw. You’re on the right. You’ve already won. You have no tragedy. You’re punching down. You can be a right-wing comedy columnist, away from the public eye, a disembodied, authoritarian presence that doesn’t need to show doubt. Who could be on a stage, crowing about their victory and ridiculing those less fortunate than them without any sense of irony, shame or self-knowledge? That’s not a stand-up comedian. That’s just a [inappropriate language deleted]."

 

[Deleted member 28206]

damn, didn't know Charlie Murphy had died

 

[dholliday]

Do you think it's a conspiracy? Do you think the reviewers are lying? If not, is it not just possible, as has ALWAYS been the case that critical and public reception don't match up? I've also checked what many of the audience reviews say, I'm not sure they are completely objective reviewers
I mean, are you not aware of RT audience scores being gamed by those obsessed with blaming identity politics.

Of course there are negative user-reviews of Nanette to spite RT. That was my point. Closer to reality with fair reviewing protocols would have Chappelle & Nanette probably being quite close in scores (both specials objectively have their strengths & weaknesses). This spiting we also see in Brexiteers and Trump supporters who double-down on their support because the mainstream double-down on their opposition. Here, the natural human response of fight or flight tends to produce only the fight response, as there's no physical danger present, only ideological attacks.

The woke movement's methods thus become counter-productive* as they end up producing more opponents than they originally had.

*tho' there is a school of thought that those behind the woke movement (i.e. publishers, editors) are only interested in clicks-driving ad revenue. Those driving the movement (opinion writers, commentariat, cheerleaders) are oblivious or gleefully clickbaiting along. It's a fun game for many, I suppose.

Surely you don't think a 33/99 spread for Chappelle and 100/35 spread for Nanette is based on fair reviewing protocols? RT handpick which critics-reviews make the cut. They thus effectively decide if something is 'hot' or 'rotten'. I wouldn't care normally, but as I mentioned earlier they have a big influence on mainstream media. They are blatantly attempting to shape acceptable cultural tastes of the masses.

It's cultural propaganda. If you have a convincing Gegenargument then I'd like to hear it.

Stewart Lee got this right for me:

"The African-American stand-up Chris Rock maintained that stand-up comedy should always be punching upwards. It’s a heroic little struggle. You can’t be a right-wing clown without some character caveat, some vulnerability, some obvious flaw. You’re on the right. You’ve already won. You have no tragedy. You’re punching down. You can be a right-wing comedy columnist, away from the public eye, a disembodied, authoritarian presence that doesn’t need to show doubt. Who could be on a stage, crowing about their victory and ridiculing those less fortunate than them without any sense of irony, shame or self-knowledge? That’s not a stand-up comedian. That’s just a [inappropriate language deleted]."

I get the sentiment, but who is up and who is down is often in the eye of the beholder. Putting people in pigeon-holed groups is the problem anyway, whether that's to categorise in punch-up or punch-down groups, or a 'comedian' making a bigoted joke about Pakistani taxi drivers.

So I disagree with Chris Rock/Stewart Lee that if you're a white Tory/Trump voter you've "already won". One guy from that group may be a depressed alcoholic living in a filthy bedsit unable to see his kids because his wife doesn't return his calls. He has no tragedy? He's already won?

People are individually far more complex than the groups they get assigned to in this identity-politics age. That's why if I'm in the mood for comedy I prefer this fella, who's not arsed with any of that:

 

[dead_soft]

Of course there are negative user-reviews of Nanette to spite RT. That was my point. Closer to reality with fair reviewing protocols would have Chappelle & Nanette probably being quite close in scores (both specials objectively have their strengths & weaknesses). This spiting we also see in Brexiteers and Trump supporters who double-down on their support because the mainstream double-down on their opposition. Here, the natural human response of fight or flight tends to produce only the fight response, as there's no physical danger present, only ideological attacks.

The woke movement's methods thus become counter-productive* as they end up producing more opponents than they originally had.

*tho' there is a school of thought that those behind the woke movement (i.e. publishers, editors) are only interested in clicks-driving ad revenue. Those driving the movement (opinion writers, commentariat, cheerleaders) are oblivious or gleefully clickbaiting along. It's a fun game for many, I suppose.

Surely you don't think a 33/99 spread for Chappelle and 100/35 spread for Nanette is based on fair reviewing protocols? RT handpick which critics-reviews make the cut. They thus effectively decide if something is 'hot' or 'rotten'. I wouldn't care normally, but as I mentioned earlier they have a big influence on mainstream media. They are blatantly attempting to shape acceptable cultural tastes of the masses.

It's cultural propaganda. If you have a convincing Gegenargument then I'd like to hear it.




I get the sentiment, but who is up and who is down is often in the eye of the beholder. Putting people in pigeon-holed groups is the problem anyway, whether that's to categorise in punch-up or punch-down groups, or a 'comedian' making a bigoted joke about Pakistani taxi drivers.

So I disagree with Chris Rock/Stewart Lee that if you're a white Tory/Trump voter you've "already won". One guy from that group may be a depressed alcoholic living in a filthy bedsit unable to see his kids because his wife doesn't return his calls. He has no tragedy? He's already won?

People are individually far more complex than the groups they get assigned to in this identity-politics age. That's why if I'm in the mood for comedy I prefer this fella, who's not arsed with any of that:

You make a heck of a lot of assumptions here that you try to pass of as fact. Why are Chapelle and Gadsby objectively similar in quality? Why are you trying to force your view they are on commentators/viewers? You seem to refuse to accept that the views expressed by reviewers is in good faith. It's hard to argue with that point of view, so rooted in unsubstantiated claims. You're proving by your own arguments that it's not creating much issue with the mainstream as the viewers are voting separately.
You can't say this and just throw out ;it's cultural propaganda' and ask for proof it's not. Prove it is!

 

[witchdoc187]

It's funny because if it wasn't for the uproar I wouldn't have bothered with sticks and stones. I thought it was brilliant (well the first 30mins) had to put my little one to bed after that

 

[dholliday]

You seem to refuse to accept that the views expressed by reviewers is in good faith.

i rest my case, m'lud

 

[dead_soft]

i rest my case, m'lud

So you think there’s a conspiracy? Or they’re paid to expressly write reviews about comedy that promote some form of cultural propaganda? Seriously?

 

[Prevenger17]

Have to say, I enjoyed it a lot.