695
Tenacious D’s Newcastle show postponed after comment about Trump assassination attempt
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2024
695 points (97.2% liked)
World News
39165 readers
1954 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Is this the same angle you took when reacting to Dave Chapelle's recent controversies? For the record, I agree with you, I just don't see a lot of consistency on either side when it comes to stuff like this. Jokes are one issue where "both sides are the same" isn't too far off. People in general pick and choose what they're offended by and can't easily follow their own advice to let it go when the subject matter touches one of their pet issues.
I dont know if this is the same. I dont agree with Kyle Gas' joke that trump should be shot, but i do believe it was a joke and not a genuine wish for harm.
Chapelle, on the other hand, is taking a stance on gender which i disagree with. He's not telling jokes. He is taking a position. And since i disagree with him and i find his position to be dismissive and one of erasure which i wholeheartedly disagree with, i find it very difficult to continue to watch his comedy.
In short, kyle doesnt want to hurt trump, chapelle does want to pretend trans people dont exist. So i think its fundamentally different.
You said it better than I could.
Although I'd be lying if I said I think KG is 100% joking.
If he's anything like I want him to be (people never are) he's not even 50% joking.
But either way, it's a lot of BS for an off handed comment
I think your interpretation of the two situations has more to do with your political leanings than the content itself. At a basic level they are both comments made by people who get paid to make others laugh. You can assign motives to either of them that would make them more or less palatable to specific people, and it seems like you've chosen your path in that regard, but I don't think it makes sense to spin one in a negative way and dismiss the other as a harmless joke. In my opinion they're either both harmless or both intolerable. Anything less is just projection in one form or another.
But chapelle made none standup/comedy related statements about gender and trans people. Not everything is political. I dislike trump in a huge way. I think he is a horrible human being who doesn't deserve to run a country. He will cause so much damage if re-elected. But i do not wish him harm.
I dont believe kyle does either. I'm not sure how that's political. It's more of a moral stance and my view on kyles moral stance.
Chapelle is transphobic, also not a political issue, even if it's an issue that political commentators like to argue about. Gender is a social issue that has been heavily politicised, but my views on it are not related to politics.
So i dont put them both in the same camp. I dont agree with either of them, but there is clearly a difference between denying trans peoples existence outside of your comedy and making an off-hand joke on stage at a concert. Especially if you apologise for the joke instead of doubling down like dave did.
"Kyle does not wish Trump harm" and "Dave is transphobic" are both judgments that you've made. You're entitled to hold those opinions but it is important to recognize that you've used the same kind of evidence (jokes they made) to reach opposite conclusions about the two men. You dismissed one as a joke that does not reflect the character of the speaker and used the other as indisputable evidence of a character flaw.
The fact that these conclusions line up with your own political beliefs is absolutely relevant because it helps you understand why you are doing it. It's probably subconscious but you're viewing the world through a distorted lens when you make inconsistent value judgments like this. Correcting those distortions and becoming more consistent is part of what it means to mature as a human being.
My belief that kyle doesn't wish trump harm is 100% my opinion. It may be a belief i have formed through a "distorted lense", yes, that is very possible. But to call it a conclusion is not exactly correct. I will change my belief and draw a conclusion when the evidence is presented.
My conclusion about dave is one drawn from statements made by dave. Not his jokes, not his standup. Dave has continually reaffirmed this stance, he denies the existence of trans people and repeatedly states that there are 2 genders. A line he said comes to mind "gender is a fact" its not one incident, its many. I would say to draw a conclusion based of one incident would be "distorted" but to base it on years of anti trans rhetoric is quite a clear and clean cut conclusion to draw...
If Kyle Gass came out and said, "I meant what I said, I'd have been and would be very pleased if he was killed," would you consider the reaction justified?
If Chappelle came out and said, "I absolutely don't wish harm on any trans people. It's all just part of the act," would you find his jokes acceptable?
In order of your questions.
Yes, the reaction would be justified. If he genuinely meant he wanted trump dead, despite the fact that i think trump is a trash human being who will further destroy america and cause pain and suffering to millions, i do not wish him death and any celebrity in a position of influence should not be inciting violence like trump did.
Yes, absolutely. He would have to justify a lot of things he said, but if it became clear that he was joking the entire time and that it's just an act, then i would accept that.
So, is there any set of jokes a comedian could make that are filled with enough punching down or hateful rhetoric that you would condemn, even if the comedian was adamant they were just jokes and that he doesn't believe anything that's actually racist/sexist/transphobic/pro-genocide/etc?
Or is it a "no true Scotsman" thing where, if the jokes are bad enough, you just decide that he must actually mean them for real, and therefore you can condemn them out of hand?
Why does it need to go to the extreme? Are you telling me you have this all figured out theres no room for improvement in your view on morality? Im navigating this as it comes. Anything i say or have said is and should always be subject to change. And im also not willing to be the one who sets the bar here. Im not the one who decides whats ok and whats not. That is a collective thing that must be decided by society. You are too adamant in your beliefs for me to take you seriously. Its not on the individual to decide. Its up to everyone.
I would say, yes there must be a point where i would condemn a comedian based on jokes they are telling. But im still working that out.
I think intent matters. I think it is a strong factor in deciding if a joke is ok or not. To me the joke was more about kyles political leanings. I dont think he was advocating for murder. I think he was using that attempted assasination as a vehicle to state he doesn't want trump to be president. Sure, there are better ways of saying that but if you truely belive there is no room for nuance here then i belive it is a failing on your part to understand the joke as opposed to a failure on my part to have a divine sense of morality.
Of course there's nuance. Of course every set of jokes fall on a spectrum from universal to heinous.
And obviously a lot of factors go in to deciding if something is truly unacceptable, up to and including if the person truly believes what they're joking about.
I'm not really arguing against any of that, and I think we're in fact largely in agreement on that score.
The point I'm actually fighting is one of introspection. To what degree is your opinion on whether a joke is okay or not dependant on your personal political leanings?
How much are you using things like "whether they meant it or not" as a post-justification to make you feel less biased about why you took the position you did? If I provided a hundred different jokes by a hundred different comedians, would your "this is acceptable" vs "this is not" graph more align with a graph of how much they meant what they said, or with how left or right leaning the joke was?
And maybe for you, it wouldn't be politically skewed at all. Maybe you truly hold an objective metric that can be applied across the board, without a bias towards accepting more things that align to your own beliefs. But you must admit, if so, that it would make you an overwhelming outnumbered minority.
And furthermore, surely you would admit, that most people who do have the "it was a joke against my candidate, and therefore it's unacceptable, but it's fine if the joke was about the enemy," mindset, are quick to argue that they are in fact the most objective person on earth and only make decisions about acceptability based on cool hard logic and rules, not partisanship.
Many political leanings are based on morality, so when making a judgement on morality, saying they shouldn't be involved is nonsense. It's not hypocritical to say joking about Klansmen dying is cool and good, but joking about BLM protesters dying is fucked up. There's no enlightened objective viewpoint where you just pretend that there's no moral difference in the targets because believing racism is evil is "political".
Sure, but it's equally as unenlightened to say that politics hasn't devolved into tribalism.
And let it not be missed that your example has one group actively participating in illegal and violent activity and one group that isn't. The two groups aren't equivalent on their face.
A more apples to apples comparison would be joking about people at a Trump rally getting killed vs BLM protestors getting killed.
And it absolutely would be hypocritical to joke about the one and not the other, and justifying it to yourself as being fine because people who go to Trump rallies are racist is in fact just tribalism.
To phrase it another way, it sounds like you are saying, to some greater or lesser degree, that, "it's fine because my morality is perfect, and therefore anyone not on team 'me' is obviously pure evil and therefore anything said about them or done to them is clearly and perfectly justified as they aren't people deserving of moral consideration."
Sure, if you change the morality of a question, it changes the morality of the question. And it's not illegal to be in the Klan. And BLM protesters did break laws. But the point was not that it's ok specifically to joke about the Klan getting killed, it's to illustrate that morality is clearly relevant and intertwined with political belief. People are joking about Trump simply because he's a Republican. No one's saying Susan Collins is fair game. It's because he's done serious harm and will continue to do serious harm.
Moral relativism is not morality. It's not "enlightened" to think that because some other people have terrible morality that your own morality shouldn't guide your beliefs and actions.
I think you'd be surprised at the number of people who would in fact say that Susan Collins is fair game, but that's neither here nor there.
I think we're largely on the same page honestly. I think our difference, if there is one, is the degree to which we think morality vs tribalism is the true influencer.
And this is a bit of a tangent, but I think this is exacerbated by the fact that morals are held to varying degrees of closeness. As an example, everyone agrees that cheating on your SO is wrong. Everyone also agrees that punching someone in the face is wrong. But if a husband cheats on his wife, and she slaps him, you will have people take (often very vehement) different sides on the issue, depending on which "sin" they consider to be worse.
And so, expanding that to the tribalism issues at hand, the majority of people on both sides are attempting to stand for and push for virtues that they believe are most important. Sometimes that's inclusivity and caring for the poor. Sometimes it's family unity and economic security.
And don't hear me wrong, while any of that can be turned towards hate by malicious actors, it is clear that that is occuring on one side more than the other. But that doesn't make the virtues themselves invalid.
I just dont think that morality and politics are the same thing. I can judge a joke for its morality without it being skewed by political bias.
I think that when a former president makes jokes about nancy pelosi's husband being attacked with a hammer, and people are laughing it up and joining in, that when someone attacks donald trump, and someone makes a joke about it, those same people should be either joining in on the joke or apologising for making their jokes in the first place.
They can't have it both ways.
This is not a political stance because i could argue that from any side of the street. It is a moral argument that happens to be about politicians.
Replace the two subjects with anyone else, and the argument would be the same.
The thing is that i despise donald trump so much that his jokes just added to how much i dislike him. But its exactly what i expected of him and didnt lead me to despise him. No his actions as a president and as a human over the course of his career and life have lead me to that.
Kyle gas has only ever inspired me to like him. He has been a nice guy and very funny his whole career. So im inclined to think that he didnt actually wish death on the former president. Whereas if tump made the same joke i would be very inclined to think that he meant it, because he has given me very little proof to the contrary.
My view on morality is what's skewing my opinion here, not my political bias.
The first set of Dave's trans jokes included him basically saying that while he doesn't understand trans people, he ultimately accepts them for who they are. In that era I defended the jokes because I felt it was valid to joke about stuff as long as you ultimately aren't trying to hurt, belittle, or delegitimize ordinary people. The follow-up jokes weren't nearly as understanding and I no longer felt like Dave cared about much beyond being a dick. He seemed to double down on the punching down without bothering to build them back up again.
Anyway, there is a fundamental difference with Trump, in that he's downright a fascist, so joking about his death isn't exactly punching down. It's more like wishful thinking.
Dave Chappelle was punching way down while Kyle was punching about high up as you possibly can.
You say that like "no punching down" is an unbreakable rule of comedy. Maybe in your opinion it should be but I don't think that's ever been true in reality, certainly not for big name comedians as a collective.
Besides, that's only your interpretation of the situation and it requires that you assume Dave actually believes everything he says in his comedy shows which is demonstrably untrue for other subject matter he covers. You don't assume he rapes kids even though he made a joke in that same special where that was the premise. Without that assumption there is no controversy so maybe we should stop assuming the worst about people's intentions. That way we don't have to concern ourselves with pointless conjecture.
Don't get me wrong, I didn't think much of his trans material was very funny, but that doesn't mean I have to jump to the conclusion that he's a piece of shit like the internet wants me to. He's a comedian with an incendiary style which makes it quite literally his job to say stuff like that.
I don't care if Dave believes it or not, he's attacking people from a position of power who are at danger in our society. It's not an unbreakable rule, but it's the core context used when trying to decide whether it's productive. You can say a lot of terrible things about people who are hurting and elicit a chuckle from at least some subset of the population, that doesn't make it good (in the good for society sense) comedy.
That's why there's a world of difference between KG and Chapelle, and no lack of consistency in people that think KG made a harmless joke and Chapelle is contributing to a trans panic that both oppresses and endangers lives. And it's not a mistake. There have been other comics that have had off-color sets that when confronted about them thought about it and realized it could be harmful and wasn't really that important to keep. It's not his job to make trans jokes and that's a very different comedy than simply being "incendiary".
OK, let's assume for the sake of the argument that everything you just said is 100% correct. Why aren't you also saying Dave Chapelle is a pedophile, or a racist, or a homophobe? Children, racial minorities, and gay men are all other groups he made jokes about and they all fit your criteria of "people at danger in our society".
The fact that transphobic is the only descriptor I hear about that show suggests to me that this is not really the criteria you're using to evaluate the situation, it's merely convenient cover to give when pressed that will pacify most people. At minimum it means you're giving those other comments a pass as jokes and choosing not to do so with his trans jokes and that is absolutely inconsistent no matter how you try and spin it.
I haven't listened to his recent comedy to hear the context of the other horrible topics he feels are integral to his "comedy". What were the pedophilic jokes? What were the racist jokes? What were the homophobic jokes? Was he saying the kids were asking for it? Or black people are the cause of their own discrimination? And like transphobic jokes, there's really not much reason for him to have any material about gay people in his sets. It's not his lived experience, so what could he possibly have to add as an insightful observation? All he has is that they make him feel weird and put upon. I'm perfectly willing to believe Dave Chapelle is bad on multiple levels, but I don't feel any need to give him money to investigate his other work to see if I should expand my understanding of his badness.
And I didn't mention transphobia. You did. Presumably because it's become a news story and was the controversy you were referencing when you asked for a comparison. Which is the same reason most people know about that particular issue and don't run down a laundry list of other critiques. It was highlighted as particularly bad.
Clearly we disagree about how to evaluate comedy, which is perfectly fine, but I think we're running into a wall at this point. I think most of what you're saying is reasonable, we just have different perspectives. I think this quote highlights that best:
I don't think you need to experience something firsthand to make jokes about it. I also don't think comedy needs to involve insightful observations. That might be the kind of thing you find to be the most funny but that doesn't make it a rule that needs to be followed at all times. Something you find unfunny, or even offensive, can be a genuine attempt at making people laugh. The fact that you find it offensive doesn't necessarily mean they've done something wrong. In many cases it just means that you don't like that style of comedy. A comedian telling a joke during a comedy show is not the same as a politician or other public figure justifying a bigoted statement by calling it a joke. Choosing to interpret comments that are clearly and obviously presented as jokes as some sort of expression of a deeply held belief does not seem like a logical approach to me.
Oh, there's plenty of inconsistency, and I'm definitely biased, no doubt about it.
(rant ahead, feel free to skip)
Of course, I agree with KG, and it's not really a "joke" for me.
So any answer I give you will be pretty heavily skewed.
That said, I do kind of think the DC thing was a bit overblown, but I also think he turned into a piece of shit who thinks he's allowed to punch down on others, but you aren't allowed to punch down on any group he's part of. "can dish it, can't take it" crowd.
But especially given how successful his career has been (and I fully recognize his struggle in getting started), and continued to be, his complaints fall on deaf ears.
But yeah, I don't claim to be consistent with how I judge people's "in the moment" things, and since the people I oppose have no concept of "consistency" (as well as them actively trying to make people like me and those I love cease to exist) I don't really see a problem with that.
There's no point in fighting fair when you're facing oblivion.
And krashmo this isn't directed at you, if anyone wants to try and tell me that "that's not what they want", I grew up in a pretty republican heavy area, that also attracted a lot of progressive young families, so I've seen more violence directed at other than I care to recount. It's not a "maybe eventually" scenario in my head. It's "now".
Sorry this turned into a bit of a rant.
I get what you're saying. I've got a similar background and it sounds like we have a lot in common in terms of perspective as well.
You're right, consistency is clearly not important to the more conservative among us. That ship sailed long ago. However, that's one of the things that I strive to be as much as possible. If one of my beliefs can't be defended in all circumstances then I do my best to let it go, or at least recognize the fact that it's situational and therefore not deserving of being presented as unassailable. The subject at hand is pretty inconsequential, all things considered, but I feel pretty confident in making the blanket statement that all jokes should be interpreted as such and not subject to the same scrutiny that the same statement would warrant in a different context.
Of course there are still such things as jokes in poor taste, racist jokes, mean jokes, etc. but at the end of the day a joke is what they are. It's not a life motto or a campaign slogan it's just something that's supposed to make people laugh. Whether or not they accomplish that goal is largely irrelevant as long as that was the primary intent of the person who said it.
Well said.
The only point I mildly disagree with is that all jokes should be on the same level, as some things are just.... Not jokes. They simply masquerade as jokes because the person telling you their views doesn't want the potential backlash if you disagree with them.
Chapelle's stuff strikes me as more of that.
He's just telling us how he feels and tries to layer it with "jokes" so he can act like he's somehow in the right and we're the ones who just "can't take a joke".
That's pretty case dependent though, and someone who knows Chapelle better than I, or even someone with a different upbringing clearly can think differently.
There's just so much that you could actually have a comedy routine about that's not divisive.
So, people can make the whole like, oh, this is a different context, kyle is joking, whatever whatever, right, and that's both true and a fine argument to make. But I also think when we make this like, freedom as a principle argument, right, free speech as a principle, argument, it isn't necessarily hypocritical.
We're just not prioritizing freedom, prioritizing free speech, as the highest possible value that trumps all other values. I think kind of by necessity, it can't be. The idea of free speech is logically incoherent if you take it to the extreme, because you could just define speech as being anything. Harmful acts, smearing poop on the bathroom walls, whatever. So you have to put a limit on it, and then those external values are going to be what places the limit on it.
Those external values of "I agree with kyle gass" vs "I agree with dave chapelle". Agreeing with either argument, beyond that, thinking either argument, had in the public sphere, is worthwhile, that's what has to define the limits of speech and freedom and what has to drive the outlook on it. I might oppose the poop swastika in the rec center bathroom, but I might think the ACAB poop smear in the nazi bar bathroom is maybe okay, even if it's a little misguided or kind of just stupid or whatever.
There has to be a core value there. It's not necessarily hypocritical to believe that political violence can be called for, or justified against your foes necessarily, and then think that the same thing shouldn't be done to you on the nature of your ideology strictly being better. If my foes are basically just evil, straight up, yeah, probably at the very least stop them from like, having undue economic influence, which depending on who you ask, is gonna be some form of economic violence by nature of stripping away their agency or property or whatever. That doesn't necessarily strike me as hypocritical, or not believing in equal rights or anything, it just strikes me as pragmatic.