I have a weird relationship with Dave Chappelle ... I never found him very funny. I think us senior GenXers are just outside of the Chappelle window... we had SNL and SCTV, while the younger of my generation had Kids In The Hall, Almost Live, In Living Color, Up All Night, etc., and I never really liked that era of comedy. Which is where people like Chappelle and Chris Rock and the Wayans brothers came up. So I missed that boat. But Dave Letterman's new show, "My Next Guest Needs No Introduction" is a long-form interview format where Dave just sits and talks with someone he likes/respects very much. His interview with Dave Chappelle was fascinating and made me love Chappelle, and what he has done with his life. The little town he lives in. The way he lives with his family and friends, and the community he has created around him as he has matured and mellowed over time. ... then this trans-phobic dude comes out of Chappelle's skin, and starts saying really stupid, ill-informed shit about an entire class of people who are finally getting some liberty and recognition, and not being ground under the boot of white American culture-leaders... and Chappelle takes the ENTIRELY wrong position. And doubles-down on it. Again and again. I have a hard time squaring the quiet, respectful, community-building family-man I saw Dave Letterman interview, with the on-stage dipshittery of Dave Chappelle's "comedy" show?!? I'm not losing anything by tuning out Dave Chappelle, and I will happily continue to do so. But I wonder where the split is in his brain, where he fails to apply his worldview and generosity equally, and especially in the case of an abused minority, like trans people. It's weird that he doesn't see it.
Al Franken pointed out that Rush Limbaugh is a legendarily good tipper. He also pointed out that the difference between a liberal mindset and a conservative mindset is that conservatives will often be breathtakingly generous for causes and people they like without feeling any compunction to those they don't, while liberals hold that being generous only counts if you are generous towards everyone. "He loves his family and friends" is hardly something you say about an altruist.
I also think there is some 'hashtag populism' going on here, as well. The conservative will donate if you say the right buzz words, regardless of the overall message or who the messenger is. The liberal will be skeptical of your hashtags and your messenger, and will be looking for why NOT to give to your cause.
I think Al is right, and I actually think it's one of the things that's wrong with the Left. I know so many leftists who are shitty people up close but who work tirelessly for Causes. On the other hand most of my conservative friends are some of the best friends you could have in a moment of crisis, despite their shortcomings vis-a-vis humanity. My small anecdotal sample notwithstanding, I think this is clearly an area where we could learn from each other.
To tie it all back to the chicken-fucking book, conservatives demonstrate their tribal loyalty by showing preference towards those they have a cultural affinity to. Liberals demonstrate their tribal loyalty by showing no preference towards those they have a cultural affinity to. I think it's easier to be a misanthropic conservative because if you hate the right people, everyone who matters will put up with the fact that you hate them, too. It's tough being a misanthropic liberal because you're supposed to be above all that. I'd put it this way: you have a cultural bias towards non-shitty conservatives because they're putting up with you. Meanwhile you swim in a vast sea of liberals - you "know so many leftists" who are shitty but "most of your conservative friends" are great.
Oh. Dude. Say no more. Speaking as someone who paid for college mixing bands in clubs, from swing to death metal to punk to ska to disco, allow me to assert with no quaver in my voice that there is no shittier crowd on earth than a jam band crowd. That there is a hypocritical, self-satisfied set of smug-ass smarmy sociopaths.
I think it's that he made one joke in one comedy special that the internet freaked out about so he decided to make everything that came after about the people freaking out and not the material itself. The fact that no one can see that is itself sort of amusing. Ricky Gervais had a trans bit in his most recent special and the internet seemed to not notice, so there's been no need for him to address it, I guess. Or maybe it's because everyone already knows he's a nihilist and wouldn't care one way or the other was the critique is, whereas Chappelle very deliberately makes contrasts to the civil rights movement and the neo sexual revolutions, which I think rubs people the wrong way. Richard Pryor did the same thing back in the 70s...agreed to do a gay rights rally, then lambasted everyone for looking away during the Watts riots. It made the whites mad.
Gervais and Chappelle were saying different things. Chappelle denies that transgender is a valid thing to be. Gervais said he doesn't fucking care if you are trans or not. One denied your existence, the other doesn't care. I think that's an important distinction. (Of course, Gervais being a straight white middle aged man from a western country has the privilege of not having to care about others. Which is problematic, as well. But we know he knows that, too.)
I didn't notice that the internet noticed, which says something, because I'm not on the internet other than here and major news sites. I sure as fuck noticed that the internet noticed Chappelle, because even the NYT has run a gajillion op-eds about what we should all think about it.
It's fair to say that the normies noticed the Internet noticing Chappelle because the people looking to dunk on Chappelle are better connected than the people looking to dunk on Gervais. The NY Times can't concern-troll Gervais because he has targeted everyone. They can concern-troll the shit out of Chappelle because they get to do their performative "we're liberal trust us but because we love you we will only single out liberal targets as if we were conservatives."