TRIGGER WARNING #1 - Dave Chappelle: Sticks and Stones

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I haven’t watched that particular special so I can’t comment about it, but I did find this interesting article which I think is worth a read:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidi...er-tiger-exposes-the-myth-of-outrage-culture/

The difference is that Chappelle went after the most protected class of the SJW left. That is why they were so offended.

The premise of the article is flawed. The author says that Chappelle's stuff was lazy and below his usual standard, and that is why the critics canned it. Too bad that 99% of RT's current 36,407 audience reviews are fresh. So why should I believe this author's premise? What makes him an expert on comedy?

 

[Scalenex]

So why should I believe this author's premise? What makes him an expert on comedy?

The South Park creators put forth this theory. Critics are like someone forced to read the ransom note of their captors.

Matt Stone has a theory as to why critics slammed Chappelle’s new comedy special. Stone believes that the critics actually loved Sticks and Stones, but they were forced to poo-poo the comedy special because it was not “woke” enough. The critics didn’t want to feel the wrath of the Puritan-esque woke scolds on social media or because they feared that they could be fired from their jobs for the crime of wrongthink.

 

[Aginor]

Bill Burr has a lot more class than his program looks like. If you see him in interviews it becomes obvious to me that he is not only making fun of one group for the cheap shock effect. I get the feeling that he is quite... broad in his comedy, and thoughtful behind what exactly he does (if that makes any sense). He doesn't just pick the easy targets.
Still a bit hit and miss for me, probably because I miss a lot of the references to typical American cultural and social topics.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

He doesn't just pick the easy targets.

Who is considered to be the easy target? And who makes that determination?

 

[ravagekitteh]

Bill Burr has a lot more class than his program looks like. If you see him in interviews it becomes obvious to me that he is not only making fun of one group for the cheap shock effect. I get the feeling that he is quite... broad in his comedy, and thoughtful behind what exactly he does (if that makes any sense). He doesn't just pick the easy targets.
Still a bit hit and miss for me, probably because I miss a lot of the references to typical American cultural and social topics.

I have to say, I did read another review which said the same thing. From what it sounded like, it seems he is being far more thoughtful and intelligent with how he is doing it than just going “ha ha, rape”. Dave Chappelle did eventually get on to being more like that in Sticks and Stones, but he spent far to long on the lazy stuff first and while it might have been the cultural difference, when he did get on to the better stuff even then I didn’t think he was that funny. However, based on the review it sounds like Bill Burr does this much better so while I wasn’t going to before, I think I might now give it a try

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

but he spent far to long on the lazy stuff first

Says the 1%. The 99% seems to feel otherwise.

Objectively, it has been shown that his special was wildly successful....

I saw an entertainment news video saying that said that not only is Dave Chappelle's new special the most watched thing on Netflix

 

[Aginor]

Who is considered to be the easy target? And who makes that determination?

That's a good question and of course open for debate, but IMO the easy targets are extremists and other groups that are known for being easily offended OR having properties that are not considered normal by the majority of the audience. Other easy targets are groups that can be easily identified, such as disabled people, openly homosexual people, politicians, orthodox Jews, Furries and so on.
The classic minorities basically.

It depends on the audience of course. Jokes about muslims are probably not very numerous among muslims, and jokes about nazis won't be made among nazis. Same applies to jokes about feminists being made among feminists.

IMO that are the easy targets but YMMV.


Edit: also be careful: being viewed a lot of times doesn't say whether people liked it (and not even if they watched the whole thing). Controversies attract viewers. Also: of the people who liked it there aren't many that say what about the show they liked or not, only that they liked it in general.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

That's a good question and of course open for debate, but IMO the easy targets are extremists and other groups that are known for being easily offended OR having properties that are not considered normal by the majority of the audience. Other easy targets are groups that can be easily identified, such as disabled people, openly homosexual people, politicians, orthodox Jews, Furries and so on.
The classic minorities basically.

I basically hold the opposite view (surprise, surprise). Make fun of a straight white male and nobody gives a shit. You won't lose your job, you won't have the twitter mob after you and you won't be labelled by an "ist" or "ism" or "phobic". As you go up the victim-hood hierarchy, the backlash becomes increasingly greater.

 

[Aginor]

I basically hold the opposite view (surprise, surprise). Make fun of a straight white male and nobody gives a shit. You won't lose your job, you won't have the twitter mob after you and you won't be labelled by an "ist" or "ism" or "phobic". As you go up the victim-hood hierarchy, the backlash becomes increasingly greater.

So jokes about Jews are inherently better than jokes about, say, accountants?
Or maybe I misunderstood your point.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

So jokes about Jews are inherently better than jokes about, say, accountants?
Or maybe I misunderstood your point.

My point is that the truly easy targets are those deemed powerful or "privaledged" by the left.

Make fun of a black person... racist! Make fun of a white person... nothing.
Make fun of a woman... sexist! Make fun of a man... nothing
Make fun of a Muslim... Islamophobic! Make fun of a Christian... nothing
Make fun of a homosexual... homophobic! Make fun of a heterosexual... nothing.
Make fun of a trans person... transphobic! Make fun of a "cis" person... nothing.

 

[ravagekitteh]

Says the 1%. The 99% seems to feel otherwise.

Objectively, it has been shown that his special was wildly successful....

My apologies your highness. You have proven to me that your use of statistics shows anyone who disagrees with you is obviously incorrect because other people think the same as you. I will now reevaluate my personal opinions since they are so clearly wrong...

Seriously?! It’s one thing using those statistics to disprove a statement saying that the special was unpopular - if someone said that, then yes, you would be right to quote them to prove them wrong. However, it is quite another to respond to a personal opinion with them and act like it somehow proves it wrong. I was simply stating what I thought of the special; other people’s views mean f*** all to the validity of it. You seem to absolutely love trying to use statistics and videos to ‘prove’ that other people’s personal opinions are somehow wrong and it’s getting incredibly irritating. If you want to use them to back up your own explanations of your opinions then that’s fine, if unnecessary. However, they have no place in statements that you disagree with other’s personal opinions, especially if the implication is that said opinions are somehow less valid or wrong because of the existence of the statistic.

 

[Aginor]

My point is that the truly easy targets are those deemed powerful or "privaledged" by the left.

Make fun of a black person... racist! Make fun of a white person... nothing.
Make fun of a woman... sexist! Make fun of a man... nothing
Make fun of a Muslim... Islamophobic! Make fun of a Christian... nothing
Make fun of a homosexual... homophobic! Make fun of a heterosexual... nothing.
Make fun of a trans person... transphobic! Make fun of a "cis" person... nothing.

Only if your goal is to offend and not just make a joke to make people laugh.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

My apologies your highness. You have proven to me that your use of statistics shows anyone who disagrees with you is obviously incorrect because other people think the same as you. I will now reevaluate my personal opinions since they are so clearly wrong...

Be careful. Live by the sword and die by the sword. If we go down the route of insulting one another, you will not fair well.

Seriously?! It’s one thing using those statistics to disprove a statement saying that the special was unpopular - if someone said that, then yes, you would be right to quote them to prove them wrong. However, it is quite another to respond to a personal opinion with them and act like it somehow proves it wrong

You said that his work was lazy (at least the first half of it), I showed that the vast majority of people feel otherwise. When his special is the most watched thing on Netflix, than maybe your assessment of his work being lazy is simply incorrect. Your personal opinion can in fact be wrong. You can subjectively feel that his work is lazy, but I can then objectively prove that it is not.

Objective > Subjective


Facts don't care about your feelings!

You seem to absolutely love trying to use statistics and videos to ‘prove’ that other people’s personal opinions are somehow wrong and it’s getting incredibly irritating

Life's tough!

Sorry (not sorry) that my factual data is contradicting your high and mighty personal opinions. Rather than complain about it, why not re-evaluate why your opinions are constantly at odds with objective facts and truth.

If you feel that your personal opinions are not subject to criticism, then I humbly you suggest that you don't put them on the internet (or discuss them with anybody). Don't try to hide behind this "all opinions are equally valid" nonsense.

If you want to use them to back up your own explanations of your opinions then that’s fine, if unnecessary. However, they have no place in statements that you disagree with other’s personal opinions

The problem is that I don't follow your commands. I don't have to conform to your method of debating, especially when it is objectively less effective than mine.

especially if the implication is that said opinions are somehow less valid or wrong because of the existence of the statistic.

Your claim that his work is lazy (or at least half of it) IS less valid when your opinion is only held by the 1%. His show's massive success does go a long way in discrediting your claims.

Nobody's opinions or ideas are beyond reproach. It will serve you well to learn that lesson.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Only if your goal is to offend and not just make a joke to make people laugh.

What I mean by easy target, is that the joke can be made with little risk of backlash (i.e. losing one's job, outrage mob, etc.). This is regardless of one's intention to make people laugh or to offend.

 

[Aginor]

This just again as you might have missed it since I edited it in. It is a possible point to keep in mind regarding this discussion.

also be careful: being viewed a lot of times doesn't say whether people liked it (and not even if they watched the whole thing). Controversies attract viewers. Also: of the people who liked it there aren't many that say what about the show they liked or not, only that they liked it in general.

But back to what we talked about:

What I mean by easy target, is that the joke can be made with little risk of backlash (i.e. losing one's job, outrage mob, etc.). This is regardless of one's intention to make people laugh or to offend.

Ah, there is the misunderstanding. I meant easy to hit, you meant easy to get away with.

About the victimhood though:
Not sure how it is on the other side of the great pond, but here in Germany the victimhood club has gained a lot of members in the last few years. The political right uses it all the time. The church (especially the catholic one) as well. The racial issue is too unbalanced here (almost no People of Color) to play any role though, and the cis vs. trans topic is hardly present at all (except when it helps to target a specific person, such as the leader of one German political party this year, and I'd like to add that it didn't really work).
But all the others have played the victim card to some degree or another in public discussions. The society being "female-controlled" (IMO a laughable claim) is very popular among some people here.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Edit: also be careful: being viewed a lot of times doesn't say whether people liked it (and not even if they watched the whole thing). Controversies attract viewers. Also: of the people who liked it there aren't many that say what about the show they liked or not, only that they liked it in general.

This just again as you might have missed it since I edited it in. It is a possible point to keep in mind regarding this discussion.

There is truth in that. However, when something reaches that much success, a large component of it ultimately comes down to word of mouth. You're right that controversies attract viewers, in fact that is in fact why I first watched it. However, I enjoyed it and subsequently discussed it with my wife, who then watched it as well based purely on word of mouth. So while controversies can provide the spark to gain some viewers, large scale success usually requires positive word of mouth. It is important to note that controversy can also backfire. Ghostbusters 2016 had plenty of controversy surrounding it, but it bombed in the box office.

Additionally, I'm not looking at this factor in isolation. When you couple it to the 99% audience score on RT, it starts to paint a pretty clear picture that most people liked it.

Ah, there is the misunderstanding. I meant easy to hit, you meant easy to get away with.

Agreed.

About the victimhood though:
Not sure how it is on the other side of the great pond, but here in Germany the victimhood club has gained a lot of members in the last few years. The political right uses it all the time. The church (especially the catholic one) as well. The racial issue is too unbalanced here (almost no People of Color) to play any role though, and the cis vs. trans topic is hardly present at all (except when it helps to target a specific person, such as the leader of one German political party this year, and I'd like to add that it didn't really work).
But all the others have played the victim card to some degree or another in public discussions. The society being "female-controlled" (IMO a laughable claim) is very popular among some people here.

Within the context of North America, I wouldn't go as far as to say that the right never uses victimhood, but it is very much an invention of the left (at least in its current iteration). Maybe (hopefully) things will change as people are beginning to push back. However, as it stands, there are separate rules at play for different groups of people.

 

[Scalenex]

The premise of the article is flawed. The author says that Chappelle's stuff was lazy and below his usual standard, and that is why the critics canned it.

but he spent far to long on the lazy stuff first

I have been a consumer of outrage comedy for a long time. Dave Chappelle has flaws but he is not lazy. His jokes are well constructed. His outrage jokes have careful set up and delivery. A lot of outrage jokes from other comedians or various Adult Swim cartoons and the like are not nearly as artistically delivered.

In my opinion anyway. If Dave Chappelle's jokes are lazy then EVERY outrage comedian's jokes are lazy.

Objectively, it has been shown that his special was wildly successful....

Your premise is flawed. Even if 99.9% of people upvoted the show it's not objective. Art is always subjective. If the only metric of being wildly successful means lots of people watch it then that means Michael Bay is an artistic genius.

You might be able to objectively say that something is wildly commercially successful, but even that is debateable. Netflix is paying Dave Chappelle a lot and they may or may not see a solid return on their investment.

My apologies your highness. You have proven to me that your use of statistics shows anyone who disagrees with you is obviously incorrect because other people think the same as you. I will now reevaluate my personal opinions since they are so clearly wrong...

Yeah, I basically said what he said, I just used less sarcasm.


As for victimhood. It's not a Left or Right issue. Nearly every bully sees themselves as the victim. Most dictators talk about how their people are being threatened by subversive forces and use that as justification for their ironfisted actions.

Generally when the Right uses victim mentality the conclusion is to kill or deport the Bad People. The Left uses victim mentality more often but they rarely go to the extreme of literally getting rid of the Bad People outright. They just want to shame and belittle the Bad People and make them unemployable.

Ghostbusters 2016 had plenty of controversy surrounding it, but it bombed in the box office.

The movie itself didn't have much social justice themes in it, but the marketing for the movie tried to use it. The big problem with the movie was that it poorly written and poorly directed, very poorly directed. I liked the lead actresses in other things they did. It's not the fault of the female cast. It's the fault that the director opted to make 1/2 the move out of cut and pasted improv.

So jokes about Jews are inherently better than jokes about, say, accountants?
Or maybe I misunderstood your point.

Accountants are the most abused minority group at all. I demand my victim card!

Make fun of a black person... racist! Make fun of a white person... nothing.
Make fun of a woman... sexist! Make fun of a man... nothing
Make fun of a Muslim... Islamophobic! Make fun of a Christian... nothing
Make fun of a homosexual... homophobic! Make fun of a heterosexual... nothing.
Make fun of a trans person... transphobic! Make fun of a "cis" person... nothing.

I agree, except maybe with point 3. There is a backlash when Christians are made fun of. Going back to the playing the victim card, Right wing news sources love to cover persecution of Christians in great detail.

And it's a real thing. Especially in China where the CCP locks up Christians and systematically harvests their organs. Along with Budhists, Muslims, and Falun Gang. I never pass up an opportunity to bring up that the CCP is systematically harvesting and selling human organs taken from political prisoners. The CCP is equal opportunity for oppressing any and all groups for having wrongthink.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Your premise is flawed. Even if 99.9% of people upvoted the show it's not objective. Art is always subjective. If the only metric of being wildly successful means lots of people watch it then that means Michael Bay is an artistic genius.

You might be able to objectively say that something is wildly commercially successful, but even that is debateable. Netflix is paying Dave Chappelle a lot and they may or may not see a solid return on their investment.

When I speak of objective success, I don't mean it in an artsy fartsy sort of way. There is no point in analyzing/commenting on the success of something unless you can measure that success in some way. So how do we measure the success of Chappelle's special...

• sold out venue ➔ this is pretty easy for a comedian of Chappelle's stature, but it is still an important measure of success
• garner views on Netflix ➔ by the report you mentioned, it was the most viewed
• positive feedback from audience ➔ 99% is nearly as good as you can hope for
• positive acclaim from comedians ➔ while I have not done an exhaustive search, those that I have heard speak of it were very complimentary

What else can we objectively measure? I might have missed something, but those listed above are pretty good markers. When it comes to Netflix, they hire comedians to create such exclusive content in order drive up new membership sales and maintain existing ones. Unfortunately, outside of an exhaustive survey of every person who purchases a new membership or renews their membership, this criteria is impossible to directly and accurately measure. Even Netflix's internal data wouldn't give us a clear picture as Chappelle's special is just one piece of media in a library of thousands offered by Netflix. However, in place of a direct and complete membership survey, I think it is fair to use view count in conjunction with audience feedback as viable markers of success. When hiring Chappelle to create his special, Netflix's goal would be to generate as many views and positive audience experiences as possible; in this regard we can say that Chappelle's special was indeed objectively successful!

With regards to your point on Micheal Bay, although I don't like his work myself, it is objectively successful. Those that hired him, did so with the purpose of generating a profit, which he did.

 

[Putzfrau]

The amount of times "the left" "the right" and "sjw culture" has been brought up in this conversation is too damn high.

And i legitimately can't take the assertion that "the right" doesn't use victimhood as often as "the left" seriously. Its a two way street.

That very statement nearly proves the point.

In terms of the comedy, i thought it was very much ok. Some parts weren't of my taste, but they didn't have to be. Some parts had me laughing out loud. I've watched a lot of his stuff and it was by far my least favorite. Is it because i'm older and more easily offended? I don't think so but who tf knows, haha.

I just think its ridiculous to blame SJW culture when 10 years ago this special wouldn't have even been made... period. We keep pushing the envelope farther and farther and there's still people yelling about "how dare you keep us down, why are you so easily offended." I legitimately just don't get it.

It's on netflix with millions of views. How is SJW culture keeping any of this down? Where are the offended people? the 99% audience score on RT? They don't sound very offended to me. No one in this thread sounds very offended. Twitter? Facebook? You give a soapbox to literally everyone on the planet and OF COURSE you're going to hear about it. Just like we're hearing about how the "politically correct sjw's are ruining comedy" all over everywhere. It's just super convenient now to scoop up a bunch of people's comments, make it seem like it's "everyone" thats saying it, and rally against it like you're some victim of society. It's bananas, it's all bananas.

I haven't checked out Paper Tiger yet, but its on my list of things to watch. I generally like Bill Burr, so i'm looking forward to it.

The difference is that Chappelle went after the most protected class of the SJW left. That is why they were so offended.

The premise of the article is flawed. The author says that Chappelle's stuff was lazy and below his usual standard, and that is why the critics canned it. Too bad that 99% of RT's current 36,407 audience reviews are fresh. So why should I believe this author's premise? What makes him an expert on comedy?

Wouldn't... the critics that canned it be experts in comedy? I mean, you can't make that argument right on the heals of "99% viewed it fresh" cause why should i believe literally any of them? Are THEY experts in comedy? Seems odd to dismiss every "critic' review while also propping up the audience reviews as some kind of validation.

Senses of humor are hard to pin down. A lot of people can find something funny and a lot of people can find something not funny. That really doesn't say a whole lot about anything other than what those individuals find funny.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Wouldn't... the critics that canned it be experts in comedy?

The critics who are used to calculate the critics score on RT are not experts in comedy. Many of them simply have large enough YouTube channels or write for websites. If you have a sufficiently large YouTube channel reviewing movies/shows they might select you (this was actually the case for the first "critic" who gave Sticks and Stones a fresh rating). These people are not trained in stand-up comedy and they are not even specific to comedy as they supply ratings for movies and TV shows as well. If you wanted to obtain expert opinions, you'd have to consult actual successful comedians. Of the ones I've heard speak on the topic (which I do not present as an extensive or all encompassing list) they have been very complimentary of Dave Chappelle and his Sticks and Stones special. I'm sure you can find others that may disagree.

The audience are most definitely not experts of comedy either. My point is that neither the critics or the audience are experts in comedy.

Seems odd to dismiss every "critic' review while also propping up the audience reviews as some kind of validation.

A fair query, so let me discuss the key objective difference. For that I will turn to my old friend math/statistics. Obviously, I'll use the numbers that are available to us today and acknowledge that they may shift or change over time as more reviews are put forth.



The most fundamental difference between the critics score and the audience score is the sample size of each.

Let's start with critics score of 35%, which is based on 17 total reviews. That means that out of 17 critics, 6 rated the special as "fresh" and 11 rated it as "rotten".

Let's contrast that with the audience score of 99%, which is based on 36,984 total reviews. That means that out of 36,984 reviews, 36,614 rated the special as "fresh" and 370 rated is as "rotten".


From a statistical standpoint the 36,614 positive vs. 370 negative audience score is far more significant than 6 positive vs. 11 negative critics reviews. In statistics, as the sample size increases, the reliability of the data (and the conclusions that can be drawn from it) also increases. For our little example here, what difference does it make when 11 critics gave the special a negative rating, when at the same time 36,984 audience members gave it a positive rating? To prove the point, let's combine the scores...

Total reviews = critic reviews + audience reviews = 17 + 36,984 = 37,001

Total fresh ratings = fresh critic ratings + fresh audience ratings = 6 + 36,614 = 36,620

So our total RT fresh rating = total fresh ratings / total reviews = 36,620 / 37,001 * 100% = 99%


As you can see, the critics' reviews are mathematically insignificant when combined with the significantly larger set of audience scores. The audience score is significantly more trustworthy because it is is based on 2176 times the number of reviews as compared to the critics' ratings. This is based objectively on math alone, and I have yet to invoke any discussions or rationales based on right or left wing politics (we'll get to that below).. Without any of the further points I will make below, this should answer your question as to why I can dismiss the critics and at the same time prop up the audience score.



Now we get to the political stuff, which is at the heart of the thread topic. The Hollywood critics have a very large and obvious left-leaning political stance. I will use RT data to make this point because it is readily available and it is an amalgamation of critical reviews from various sources (newspaper, website, YouTube).

Obviously it is very difficult to make inferences on the critics' political bias based on only the Dave Chappelle: Sticks & Stones special. However, I've been following this topic for quite some time and as it turns out, that on average when a movie/show/special falls in line with leftist/woke/sjw agenda it gets great (better than deserved) critics scores. Conversely when a movie/show/special opposes the leftist/woke/sjw agenda it receives relatively poor critical ratings (as in the case of the Chappelle Sticks and Stones special). The problem with the critics scores is that they are based less on the actual quality of the movie/show and more on its alignment with leftest ideology. The way we can tell is when we see a massive discrepancy between the critics' rating and the audience ratings. Remember that the audience, although individual politically biased, are made up of people from both sides of the political fence, so they largely even each other out.

Let's look at a few examples:

This is the most pertinent and direct comparison we can make to Chappelle's special as Gadsby's offering is supposed to be a comedy special as well. Hannah Gadsby's comedy special is extremely woke and what do we see, a 100% critics fresh score. Of course, the her work is significantly less funny (or successful) than Chappelle, which clearly evidenced by the audience score of 25%.



Up next, the series Doctor Who decide to take a woke spin (and not because the lead character is now a female) in its 11th season:

Just look at that discrepancy between the critics and the audience.




Moving on, let's look at

Here the gap between the critics is and the audience is smaller but is still highly significant at a 24% differential. What makes this rather interesting, is that if you read many of the critics positive reviews (the RT website links to the full reviews), many of them are searching for a reason to give it a fresh rating. Many of their reviews are not that flattering of the movie in terms of story, pacing, performance etc, but they still give it a positive because it is in line with leftist ideologies.


Moving on...


Here we have woke Disney Star Wars. Once again, the critics praise it and the audience trashes it. Admittedly the discrepancy is not purely due to left vs right leanings (though that is a very large component) as Disney has incredible sway in the industry and critics hoping to retain press passes to events and early screenings need to play nice.


And one of my favorite examples:


This was the first example of Marvel going woke. Even all the goodwill that Marvel had built up through 20 prior MCU movies could not save this movie from the audience. Of course, since it hit the right leftist notes, it was quite well treated by the critics. This movie is a particularly interesting case though, because prior to its release Rotten Tomatoes changed the site's layout/functionality to protect it. Prior to the release of a movie, fans could vote if they were interested in seeing the film or not interested in seeing it. This was not a rating of how good the movie was (because that option only becomes available once the movie is released), only if the person wanted to see it or not. Of course Captain Marvel fell to abysmal levels (in the 20's or possibly even in the teens by the end). RT quickly took away the ability for people to be able to vote on not wanting to see it. This stands even to today, where the only option available is to click on "Want to see".


One more

Star Trek Discovery whose acronym fittingly is STD, is the worst received Star Trek series ever. Once again, the poor quality of the series doesn't seem to deter the critics because it fits in line with the woke narrative.




Overall,the critics are either grossly incompetent or they are motivated by something other than the quality of the film/show they are reviewing. Critics, on a whole, are becoming increasingly irrelevant. Their scores are disassociated with the actual quality of the media they are reviewing and the actual audiences' enjoyment of it. How many people actually choose to watch a movie (or not watch it) based on what the critics say? I'll take the audience rating over the critics rating any day.