As an aside, scrolling is a problem on a phone for a thread this long and these many sub-threads. The comments start to disappear after 4 or 5 steps down.
One quick note on the "Space Jews" joke: it wasn't commented on by the mainstream media because the MSM largely agrees with Chapelle's critique.
At the end of the day, I did not find the special particularly funny (it was amusing, but not in the top 10 comedy specials I have ever seen/heard). Chapelle's politics are piss poor ones for the Democratic Party for the reasons Matt outlines in the Washington Post: like Kyrsten Sinema's politics, they're a dead end. Most comedians likely fall into the same boat.
Would you mind writing a post at some point regarding your personal definition of 'Progressive'? It's a vague term to begin with but the usage I see here and on your twitter is near to meaningless, and I'd like to understand what you mean by it. Just using this post as an example: Are you and your wife 'progressives'? Is Obama? Expanding outward, are Sunrise Activists and twitter socialists? Is early 90's Zach de la Rocha? Where does the term begin, and where does it end?
I think they're actually right about journalists actively trying to blow this up. I hate to say it, but I think it helped Trump's appeal over the last few years that the media is almost as bad as he says it is.
I had managed to avoid twitter all day, but I just now watched the video of the guy getting his "we like Dave" sign destroyed at the protest, after which they accused him of having a weapon (the pole that was holding the sign). But what really scared me is the person shaking a tamborine in his face shouting "repent motherfucker!" over and over again. What does that even mean?
Standard experience for me, this. I predominantly follow left-wing people on social media, but while I know that is an 'echo chamber', in practice it often turns me off strong versions of woke ideologies, as they seem like overreach, and the people making them are often pretty smug and annoying.
Then - and this is not the first time I have experienced something like this - I read a bunch of comments from people like those who seem to have emerged from nowhere in this thread, saying things like - to take one example - trans women are 'deluded' 'men pretending to be women' who have had a 'makeover' (all from one poster, that), and it suddenly makes me want to be the wokest person in the world. Come back, woke Twitterers, all is forgiven.
Matt has advocated for Democrats advocating less openly for climate change, and packaging it in more popular blurbs, like clean air and water.
He’s repeatedly complained that progressive activists demand their lawmakers loudly take politically toxic stances, instead of sneaking it in the back door, the way Charles Koch does.
I have mixed feelings about the substantive policy issues relating to trans people, but I resent the fuck out of being afaid for my job and social status to state obvious and true facts like “sex is binary and immutable”, “human males are more likely to commit sexual assault than females”, or to be scolded for using terms like “mother” that have had common meanings for literally thousands of years in every language. I don’t play pretend with religious people - I don’t seek to offend them, I respect them as people, but I make no bones about disagreeing about what is real and true with them. And I resent and will resist the intrusion of religious taboos on general speech and nonbelievers. Just so with those factually false or unverifiable statements by trans activists, beliefs they are free to hold and espouse but which I am not bound to agree with or keep silent when I disagree.
If I go up to my black coworkers and loudly state the true fact "Statistically, black people commit more crime than white people", I would be reprimanded, very justifiably so.
I dont think "sex is binary and immutable" quite reaches the same level*, but it's still analogous. Sentences have literal meanings and implied connotations. Its the connotation that tends to be the problematic part in these examples.
*FWIW I disagree with the statement. I'd say sex is bimodal, not binary. a semantic quibble.
It’s not a semantic quibble. Sex is binary like 0 or 1. Sex-linked characteristics have more variation.
As for the statement about black people and crime, give me a break. Might as well say I’m offended by the fact that the Earth is round and forbid everyone else from talking about it. It’s not even the same kind of thing as talking about a sociological phenomenon like race and crime. But even those are not taboo in the same way and I’ve had productive and I think sensitive conversations that have touched on that without fearing for my job.
If your black coworkers went around telling everyone that "statistically, black people commit less crime than white people" and you disagreed with them and showed statistical and historical evidence to the contrary - should you be justifiably reprimanded or fired?
I find the intense medical and surgical treatment often required for treating trans identifying people belies the accepted concept that this is a normal state of affairs that is no longer in the DSM. One would never treat someone diagnosed with body dysmorphic disorder with radical surgeries and hormone treatments.
Was having similar thoughts. This thread is an excellent conversation, the kind we should be having throughout the US. People need to air these things out, and I still believe that we find better solutions thereby.
Shutting people up has unfortunately been very effective on the surface. But it’s actually making a huge population hate activists on the left, even people who agree with them almost entirely.
This conversation has harmed no one, will certainly not lead to murder or whatever other dire consequences some have come to dread. It’s a shame for people to fear speaking this way. It’s unhealthy for our country, I’m certain of it.
Well done, everyone. At the risk of sounding cheesy, this thread has largely made me feel proud of us (or all of you, rather, I won’t praise my own pedestrian contributions).
We will know we’ve achieved an authentic and good place in the diversity and equity discussions when we no longer have to accept or are encouraged to engage in “noble” lying.
There is a middle ground here where you point out that Chapelle probably knows what he is doing here and its bad, but most people who like his show or agree with his views aren't as bad as he is.
Also the executives at Netflix definitely know what they are doing here and pressuring them to make different choices can be effective. Part of what is happening here is that Netflix doesn't have an advertising business so they have more freedom to ignore activists.
“…Netflix definitely know what they are doing here and pressuring them to make different choices can be effective.”
Guess how many people will cancel their Netflix memberships over this versus how many members Netflix gains from having exclusive Dave Chapelle specials.
Why should Netflix pull it, though? They have tons and tons of content, some of which is quite transphobic — apparently they have Ace Ventura, Pet Detective. They have content that could deeply offend other groups, and they have pro-trans content. Targeting this one special feels very arbitrary to me.
When a character appears to be trans, all of the characters on the scene barf. It's such a paradigmatic example of a transphobic movie scene that Joe Rogan and Bari Weiss agreed it was transphobic on his podcast.
What I want to know is- what are the total number of people in any given year who give birth, carry a fetus to term, yet do not identify as 'women'? Like the US has a population of 330ish million folks, I believe around 200 million adults- can we quantify how many non-women are giving birth in any one year? Because to me it seems like the absolute most niche issue on planet Earth- if you asked me to guess I would say maybe 5 or 6 people?
I know there's a lot of social pressure to be on the right side of issues that will look differently in a decade or two, but I'd take the bold bet that using the term 'birthing person' is not going to be the right side of history
Seems like most commentators don’t agree, but yes there should be a social cost to expressing flagrantly bigoted views. This is how social norms change.
I think Matt's point is you can only exact a social cost if the public agrees with you that the person is a bigot. Otherwise, you cause a backlash that makes people rally around them, and instead of changing the norm you reinforce it. The savvy thing to do is wait for the exact right moment when there's a tipping point, but people who spend too much time on twitter think the public agrees with them more than it does, so they act prematurely.
Right--ostracism is a tool when (picking a number) 90% of the public agrees with you, but it's counterproductive if 90% agrees with the guy you're trying to penalize.
It takes courage, in America 2022, to say, "X is not Y", even though they are both part of the alphabets.
It is strange, it is a passing strange.
As an aside, scrolling is a problem on a phone for a thread this long and these many sub-threads. The comments start to disappear after 4 or 5 steps down.
One quick note on the "Space Jews" joke: it wasn't commented on by the mainstream media because the MSM largely agrees with Chapelle's critique.
At the end of the day, I did not find the special particularly funny (it was amusing, but not in the top 10 comedy specials I have ever seen/heard). Chapelle's politics are piss poor ones for the Democratic Party for the reasons Matt outlines in the Washington Post: like Kyrsten Sinema's politics, they're a dead end. Most comedians likely fall into the same boat.
Hi Matt!
Would you mind writing a post at some point regarding your personal definition of 'Progressive'? It's a vague term to begin with but the usage I see here and on your twitter is near to meaningless, and I'd like to understand what you mean by it. Just using this post as an example: Are you and your wife 'progressives'? Is Obama? Expanding outward, are Sunrise Activists and twitter socialists? Is early 90's Zach de la Rocha? Where does the term begin, and where does it end?
American journalism, folks:
https://mobile.twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1450985119817375753
https://mobile.twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1450980749704843266
I think they're actually right about journalists actively trying to blow this up. I hate to say it, but I think it helped Trump's appeal over the last few years that the media is almost as bad as he says it is.
I had managed to avoid twitter all day, but I just now watched the video of the guy getting his "we like Dave" sign destroyed at the protest, after which they accused him of having a weapon (the pole that was holding the sign). But what really scared me is the person shaking a tamborine in his face shouting "repent motherfucker!" over and over again. What does that even mean?
The guy seemed to take it in pretty good humor. “They took my STICK!!!!”
Standard experience for me, this. I predominantly follow left-wing people on social media, but while I know that is an 'echo chamber', in practice it often turns me off strong versions of woke ideologies, as they seem like overreach, and the people making them are often pretty smug and annoying.
Then - and this is not the first time I have experienced something like this - I read a bunch of comments from people like those who seem to have emerged from nowhere in this thread, saying things like - to take one example - trans women are 'deluded' 'men pretending to be women' who have had a 'makeover' (all from one poster, that), and it suddenly makes me want to be the wokest person in the world. Come back, woke Twitterers, all is forgiven.
People are obsessed with bathrooms. I think it's weird.
We spent SOOO much money remodeling ours. We are weird though.
Dude people pretend widely held views don’t exist all the time.
1 global warming is a hoax. We pretend that doesn’t exist.
2 Birth control should be legal conservatives pretend no one feels that way except a few rich people.
Matt has advocated for Democrats advocating less openly for climate change, and packaging it in more popular blurbs, like clean air and water.
He’s repeatedly complained that progressive activists demand their lawmakers loudly take politically toxic stances, instead of sneaking it in the back door, the way Charles Koch does.
Well the carbon reductions won’t happen short of war
I have mixed feelings about the substantive policy issues relating to trans people, but I resent the fuck out of being afaid for my job and social status to state obvious and true facts like “sex is binary and immutable”, “human males are more likely to commit sexual assault than females”, or to be scolded for using terms like “mother” that have had common meanings for literally thousands of years in every language. I don’t play pretend with religious people - I don’t seek to offend them, I respect them as people, but I make no bones about disagreeing about what is real and true with them. And I resent and will resist the intrusion of religious taboos on general speech and nonbelievers. Just so with those factually false or unverifiable statements by trans activists, beliefs they are free to hold and espouse but which I am not bound to agree with or keep silent when I disagree.
If I go up to my black coworkers and loudly state the true fact "Statistically, black people commit more crime than white people", I would be reprimanded, very justifiably so.
I dont think "sex is binary and immutable" quite reaches the same level*, but it's still analogous. Sentences have literal meanings and implied connotations. Its the connotation that tends to be the problematic part in these examples.
*FWIW I disagree with the statement. I'd say sex is bimodal, not binary. a semantic quibble.
It’s not a semantic quibble. Sex is binary like 0 or 1. Sex-linked characteristics have more variation.
As for the statement about black people and crime, give me a break. Might as well say I’m offended by the fact that the Earth is round and forbid everyone else from talking about it. It’s not even the same kind of thing as talking about a sociological phenomenon like race and crime. But even those are not taboo in the same way and I’ve had productive and I think sensitive conversations that have touched on that without fearing for my job.
If your black coworkers went around telling everyone that "statistically, black people commit less crime than white people" and you disagreed with them and showed statistical and historical evidence to the contrary - should you be justifiably reprimanded or fired?
I find the intense medical and surgical treatment often required for treating trans identifying people belies the accepted concept that this is a normal state of affairs that is no longer in the DSM. One would never treat someone diagnosed with body dysmorphic disorder with radical surgeries and hormone treatments.
Why do none of the “hard” conversations in my DEAI training look anything like this comment section?
Hundreds of thousands of dollars are being spent by well to do suburbs across America to have bullshit conversations.
Was having similar thoughts. This thread is an excellent conversation, the kind we should be having throughout the US. People need to air these things out, and I still believe that we find better solutions thereby.
Shutting people up has unfortunately been very effective on the surface. But it’s actually making a huge population hate activists on the left, even people who agree with them almost entirely.
This conversation has harmed no one, will certainly not lead to murder or whatever other dire consequences some have come to dread. It’s a shame for people to fear speaking this way. It’s unhealthy for our country, I’m certain of it.
Well done, everyone. At the risk of sounding cheesy, this thread has largely made me feel proud of us (or all of you, rather, I won’t praise my own pedestrian contributions).
We will know we’ve achieved an authentic and good place in the diversity and equity discussions when we no longer have to accept or are encouraged to engage in “noble” lying.
Trans debate on the Left: 2+ 2 = 5.
What, you don't believe me? That's because you are a transphobe.
I don't know if you are a transphobe, but I promise you that support for trans rights is not at all like false math expressions.
Oh you know.
There is a middle ground here where you point out that Chapelle probably knows what he is doing here and its bad, but most people who like his show or agree with his views aren't as bad as he is.
Also the executives at Netflix definitely know what they are doing here and pressuring them to make different choices can be effective. Part of what is happening here is that Netflix doesn't have an advertising business so they have more freedom to ignore activists.
“…Netflix definitely know what they are doing here and pressuring them to make different choices can be effective.”
Guess how many people will cancel their Netflix memberships over this versus how many members Netflix gains from having exclusive Dave Chapelle specials.
Why should Netflix pull it, though? They have tons and tons of content, some of which is quite transphobic — apparently they have Ace Ventura, Pet Detective. They have content that could deeply offend other groups, and they have pro-trans content. Targeting this one special feels very arbitrary to me.
Ace Ventura is transphobic?
When a character appears to be trans, all of the characters on the scene barf. It's such a paradigmatic example of a transphobic movie scene that Joe Rogan and Bari Weiss agreed it was transphobic on his podcast.
You do realize, don't you, that Ace Ventura was a farce?
Yes Ken, I do realise that.
Substack can’t get a mute button fast enough.
What I want to know is- what are the total number of people in any given year who give birth, carry a fetus to term, yet do not identify as 'women'? Like the US has a population of 330ish million folks, I believe around 200 million adults- can we quantify how many non-women are giving birth in any one year? Because to me it seems like the absolute most niche issue on planet Earth- if you asked me to guess I would say maybe 5 or 6 people?
I know there's a lot of social pressure to be on the right side of issues that will look differently in a decade or two, but I'd take the bold bet that using the term 'birthing person' is not going to be the right side of history
“…can we quantify how many non-women are giving birth in any one year?”
Yes. Zero.
Seems like most commentators don’t agree, but yes there should be a social cost to expressing flagrantly bigoted views. This is how social norms change.
I think Matt's point is you can only exact a social cost if the public agrees with you that the person is a bigot. Otherwise, you cause a backlash that makes people rally around them, and instead of changing the norm you reinforce it. The savvy thing to do is wait for the exact right moment when there's a tipping point, but people who spend too much time on twitter think the public agrees with them more than it does, so they act prematurely.
Right--ostracism is a tool when (picking a number) 90% of the public agrees with you, but it's counterproductive if 90% agrees with the guy you're trying to penalize.
I actually think most commentators would agree. What's being debated is what's "flagrantly bigoted".