6 ms·

Trans Netflix employees will stage walkout to protest Chappelle special

21 points by hncurious 5y ago

metalliqaz 5y ago
It's good to see Netflix hold strong against the woke nonsense[1]. I hope they keep it together. Every time one of these big companies caves, the madness only grows. As Chappelle says in Closer, "I don't care about Twitter because Twitter isn't a real place." The media just loves the clickbait they get out of this drama but they are fickle and will move on shortly. [1] yes, nonsense. The the vast Netflix library contains some dark stuff, but none of it was an issue last week because it doesn't attract attention the way Dave does
- quotemstr 5y ago
  > It's good to see Netflix hold strong against the woke nonsense You spoke too soon: https://nypost.com/2021/10/12/netflix-reinstates-worker-terra-field-who-spoke-out-against-dave-chappelle/ https://nypost.com/2021/10/12/netflix-reinstates-worker-terr...
zaptheimpaler 5y ago
lol seems like a great excuse to take a day off. we don't need more woke censorship. if they don't like Chapelle, how about just not watching his show? Why do 800 people get to impose their idea of whats just on millions of Netflix users? If Netflix salaries are as high as I've heard they should have no trouble finding replacements for these clowns anyways.
- Traster 5y ago
  Is it really censorship to ask one of the most valuable companies in the world not to give enormous sums of money to one of the richest comedians in the world specifically for content that is transphobic? Are you worried Dave Chappelle is going to be silenced?
  - metalliqaz 5y ago
    Yes, it would be censorship. Doing comedy specials is his career. Just because he's successful doesn't change the basic facts.
  - Supermancho 5y ago
    > Is it really censorship to ask one of the most valuable companies in the world not to give enormous sums of money to one of the richest comedians in the world specifically for content that is transphobic? That's not what happened, but ok. You believe what you like.
  - shevis 5y ago
    Just out of curiosity, have you actually watched the special in question?
  - zaptheimpaler 5y ago
    I'm worried they think they have the god given right to bend any organization to their view of what's right. Its not about the money or how big the company is, its about the consumers. I like Dave Chapelle. I even like plenty of old school comedians who have made racist jokes about my race. I like having lots of good content in one place so i dont need to sign up on 100 different video streaming platforms all representing ONLY content that features 0 wrong think according to the views of whoever works there. I dont think you understand what censorship means if you believe that its somehow not censorship when a big company does it to a famous person. Yes, it is censorship. That's what the word means.
    - Traster 5y ago
      They clearly don't think they have a god given right, they have leverage.In the same way Chappelle uses his celebrity to spread hatred, they're using their leverage to disassociate with him. I actually do understand what censorship means. Which is why it's so hilarious to hear people insist that Netflix chosing to not contract with Dave Chappelle is censorship. By your definition of censorship almost everyone is being censored.
VirusNewbie 5y ago
I don't know about what Chappelle said, but can you imagine all the latino employees walked off if there was any show that dipected latinos in a negative light, or black employees were upset because of older movies with negative stereotypes, that would seem untenable.
- metalliqaz 5y ago
  That's is the gist of Chappelle's points in his specials. He comments on arguing discrimination from a place of privilege, etc. He "closes" in the recent special by saying "Anybody who has actually listened to what I've been saying would know I don't have a problem with trans people, my problem is with white people."
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
infamouscow 5y ago
Apparently the woke mob doesn't know about the Streisand effect.
unpopularopp 5y ago
Is there a study or report why all these social dramas are always coming from the FAANG companie? Are they simply because big? Or just the inner hierarchy is more young? Like I rarely hear things like this from IBM, or Intel, or Cisco etc. the list can go on. Maybe happens in those companies too but when I skim the headlines and I see LGBTQ / race / tech company it's always FB, Apple, Google, Netflix, Amazon
- brodouevencode 5y ago
  You might be on to something. It seems almost like they invite it. "Never let a good controversy go to waste."
- quotemstr 5y ago
  > Is there a study or report why all these social dramas are always coming from the FAANG companie? Because these companies have the highest status and social justice outrage is a form of intra-elite status competition. You'll find that this stuff becomes more intense in academia as you move up the university prestige ladder. Peter Turchin has written a lot about the general dynamics of intra-elite competition and elite overproduction: see https://www.amazon.com/Secular-Cycles-Peter-Turchin/dp/0691136963 https://www.amazon.com/Secular-Cycles-Peter-Turchin/dp/06911... for example
saos 5y ago
Huh just don't watch the show then? Netflix should not budge here. Sick and tired of this cancel culture.
neighbour 5y ago
While I don't find this surprising at all, I do find it interesting that a company like Netflix, a studio where most of their originals are overwhelmingly pro-LGBT, still has this issue when one of the biggest comedians in the world pisses off some tiny segment of their workforce. It seems that this segment of people are never going to be happy.
- gladgoodnotbad 5y ago
  You imply that doing good offsets doing bad. “Look at all the good we’ve done, surely we’ve racked up enough karma points to shit on some people?” Does that sound right?
anm89 5y ago
Interesting that this article uses the "latinx" terminology. Here in Colombia where I live, I have only ever met one person who supports the use of this terminology whereas many people I talk to find it explicitly offensive that a bunch of foreigners think they get to rewrite their language. It's ironically an incredibly culturally insensitive move wrapped in the veil of self congratulating cultural sensitivity.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Here in Colombia where I live, I have only ever met one person who supports the use of this terminology whereas many people I talk to find it explicitly offensive that a bunch of foreigners think they get to rewrite their language. Um, since when is American English (the language in which “Latinx”, as a neologism, has been introduced by that language’s speakers) “their” (Colombians’) language? Or are Colombians upset that English-speaking Americans of Latin American descent are rewriting American English? (That said, Latinx seems to be preferred as a self-label almost exclusively used by people who are part of the LGBTQ+ community, and used other than that almost exclusively by people to whom it does not apply as a label for others, so it is problematic as a general label linguistic and language ownership issues aside.)
markusde 5y ago
This thread is already full of people who didn't read or understand the critique of Netflix as presented in the article. It's not an issue of "Dave Chappelle thinks a bad thing and should be punished" it's "Netflix promotes an equivocation that actively harms people". > “This is not an argument with two sides. It is an argument with trans people who want to be alive and people who don’t want us to be,” Field added. “This all gets brushed off as offense though — because if we’re just ‘too sensitive’ then it is easy to ignore us.” Went into the special before it hit the news because I like some of Chappelle's other work. I liked a few parts, and I didn't like others. I think it's totally super neato that Dave Chappelle has his personal opinions on trans people, but publicly playing the "just asking questions" game costs putting giving both sides on equal footing beforehand. This is an irresponsible thing of Netflix to do, and silly to conflate with censorship. Yelling "I think there's a fire" in a crowded building causes as much harm as yelling "are we sure the building's really burning?" when it is. Absolutely think and say either if you want to, but know that when you amplify them it causes real social harm.
- VirusNewbie 5y ago
  Moving 'social harm' to mean something that might negatively affect anyone's mental health is such an unpractical (not to mention unethical in my view) standard to have leveled equally on any sort of media platform. Someone can choose not to watch Chappelle. So you're implying anything indirect like changing someone's opinion negatively is doing 'social harm', which could legitimately be used to argue just about anything. Don't just think about what you're saying for your pet cause or whatever is trendy at the time, think it through at a societal level for all possible uses of such rhetoric.
  - markusde 5y ago
    You're generalizing so that you can dismiss my argument, though it is probably my fault for being unclear. When you "just ask questions" on a public platform you implicitly give credence the side with less acceptance. This is fine with issues that are undecided or harmless, but trans personhood is neither. If you agree that trans rights are human rights, and are aware of the trans suicidality rates alongside the latest push of anti-trans legislation in the States and Europe, then it should be apparent that Netflix did not use their large platform responsibly here. I'm not worried about the trans kid who clicks off of a C-tier netflix special after 20 minutes. They'll be fine. I'm concerned about their uninformed schoolmates, or their school board, or their parents, who get the impression that the personhood of trans people is some disputed academic issue which they are fine to have a "trans-exclusionary" stance on. Tech companies are poorly positioned to engage in responsible platforming, and pressuring them when they misstep is important.
horns4lyfe 5y ago
They’re free to give up their ample salaries and walk away from the company. If their very lives are at stake, wouldn’t that be appropriate?

21 points by hncurious 5y ago

It's good to see Netflix hold strong against the woke nonsense[1]. I hope they keep it together. Every time one of these big companies caves, the madness only grows. As Chappelle says in Closer, "I don't care about Twitter because Twitter isn't a real place." The media just loves the clickbait they get out of this drama but they are fickle and will move on shortly. [1] yes, nonsense. The the vast Netflix library contains some dark stuff, but none of it was an issue last week because it doesn't attract attention the way Dave does

quotemstr 5y ago
> It's good to see Netflix hold strong against the woke nonsense You spoke too soon: https://nypost.com/2021/10/12/netflix-reinstates-worker-terra-field-who-spoke-out-against-dave-chappelle/ https://nypost.com/2021/10/12/netflix-reinstates-worker-terr...

zaptheimpaler 5y ago

lol seems like a great excuse to take a day off. we don't need more woke censorship. if they don't like Chapelle, how about just not watching his show? Why do 800 people get to impose their idea of whats just on millions of Netflix users? If Netflix salaries are as high as I've heard they should have no trouble finding replacements for these clowns anyways.

Traster 5y ago
Is it really censorship to ask one of the most valuable companies in the world not to give enormous sums of money to one of the richest comedians in the world specifically for content that is transphobic? Are you worried Dave Chappelle is going to be silenced?
- metalliqaz 5y ago
  Yes, it would be censorship. Doing comedy specials is his career. Just because he's successful doesn't change the basic facts.
- Supermancho 5y ago
  > Is it really censorship to ask one of the most valuable companies in the world not to give enormous sums of money to one of the richest comedians in the world specifically for content that is transphobic? That's not what happened, but ok. You believe what you like.
- shevis 5y ago
  Just out of curiosity, have you actually watched the special in question?
- zaptheimpaler 5y ago
  I'm worried they think they have the god given right to bend any organization to their view of what's right. Its not about the money or how big the company is, its about the consumers. I like Dave Chapelle. I even like plenty of old school comedians who have made racist jokes about my race. I like having lots of good content in one place so i dont need to sign up on 100 different video streaming platforms all representing ONLY content that features 0 wrong think according to the views of whoever works there. I dont think you understand what censorship means if you believe that its somehow not censorship when a big company does it to a famous person. Yes, it is censorship. That's what the word means.
  - Traster 5y ago
    They clearly don't think they have a god given right, they have leverage.In the same way Chappelle uses his celebrity to spread hatred, they're using their leverage to disassociate with him. I actually do understand what censorship means. Which is why it's so hilarious to hear people insist that Netflix chosing to not contract with Dave Chappelle is censorship. By your definition of censorship almost everyone is being censored.

VirusNewbie 5y ago

I don't know about what Chappelle said, but can you imagine all the latino employees walked off if there was any show that dipected latinos in a negative light, or black employees were upset because of older movies with negative stereotypes, that would seem untenable.

metalliqaz 5y ago
That's is the gist of Chappelle's points in his specials. He comments on arguing discrimination from a place of privilege, etc. He "closes" in the recent special by saying "Anybody who has actually listened to what I've been saying would know I don't have a problem with trans people, my problem is with white people."
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

infamouscow 5y ago

Apparently the woke mob doesn't know about the Streisand effect.

unpopularopp 5y ago

Is there a study or report why all these social dramas are always coming from the FAANG companie? Are they simply because big? Or just the inner hierarchy is more young? Like I rarely hear things like this from IBM, or Intel, or Cisco etc. the list can go on. Maybe happens in those companies too but when I skim the headlines and I see LGBTQ / race / tech company it's always FB, Apple, Google, Netflix, Amazon

brodouevencode 5y ago
You might be on to something. It seems almost like they invite it. "Never let a good controversy go to waste."
quotemstr 5y ago
> Is there a study or report why all these social dramas are always coming from the FAANG companie? Because these companies have the highest status and social justice outrage is a form of intra-elite status competition. You'll find that this stuff becomes more intense in academia as you move up the university prestige ladder. Peter Turchin has written a lot about the general dynamics of intra-elite competition and elite overproduction: see https://www.amazon.com/Secular-Cycles-Peter-Turchin/dp/0691136963 https://www.amazon.com/Secular-Cycles-Peter-Turchin/dp/06911... for example

saos 5y ago

Huh just don't watch the show then? Netflix should not budge here. Sick and tired of this cancel culture.

neighbour 5y ago

While I don't find this surprising at all, I do find it interesting that a company like Netflix, a studio where most of their originals are overwhelmingly pro-LGBT, still has this issue when one of the biggest comedians in the world pisses off some tiny segment of their workforce. It seems that this segment of people are never going to be happy.

gladgoodnotbad 5y ago
You imply that doing good offsets doing bad. “Look at all the good we’ve done, surely we’ve racked up enough karma points to shit on some people?” Does that sound right?

anm89 5y ago

Interesting that this article uses the "latinx" terminology. Here in Colombia where I live, I have only ever met one person who supports the use of this terminology whereas many people I talk to find it explicitly offensive that a bunch of foreigners think they get to rewrite their language. It's ironically an incredibly culturally insensitive move wrapped in the veil of self congratulating cultural sensitivity.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Here in Colombia where I live, I have only ever met one person who supports the use of this terminology whereas many people I talk to find it explicitly offensive that a bunch of foreigners think they get to rewrite their language. Um, since when is American English (the language in which “Latinx”, as a neologism, has been introduced by that language’s speakers) “their” (Colombians’) language? Or are Colombians upset that English-speaking Americans of Latin American descent are rewriting American English? (That said, Latinx seems to be preferred as a self-label almost exclusively used by people who are part of the LGBTQ+ community, and used other than that almost exclusively by people to whom it does not apply as a label for others, so it is problematic as a general label linguistic and language ownership issues aside.)

markusde 5y ago

This thread is already full of people who didn't read or understand the critique of Netflix as presented in the article. It's not an issue of "Dave Chappelle thinks a bad thing and should be punished" it's "Netflix promotes an equivocation that actively harms people". > “This is not an argument with two sides. It is an argument with trans people who want to be alive and people who don’t want us to be,” Field added. “This all gets brushed off as offense though — because if we’re just ‘too sensitive’ then it is easy to ignore us.” Went into the special before it hit the news because I like some of Chappelle's other work. I liked a few parts, and I didn't like others. I think it's totally super neato that Dave Chappelle has his personal opinions on trans people, but publicly playing the "just asking questions" game costs putting giving both sides on equal footing beforehand. This is an irresponsible thing of Netflix to do, and silly to conflate with censorship. Yelling "I think there's a fire" in a crowded building causes as much harm as yelling "are we sure the building's really burning?" when it is. Absolutely think and say either if you want to, but know that when you amplify them it causes real social harm.

VirusNewbie 5y ago
Moving 'social harm' to mean something that might negatively affect anyone's mental health is such an unpractical (not to mention unethical in my view) standard to have leveled equally on any sort of media platform. Someone can choose not to watch Chappelle. So you're implying anything indirect like changing someone's opinion negatively is doing 'social harm', which could legitimately be used to argue just about anything. Don't just think about what you're saying for your pet cause or whatever is trendy at the time, think it through at a societal level for all possible uses of such rhetoric.
- markusde 5y ago
  You're generalizing so that you can dismiss my argument, though it is probably my fault for being unclear. When you "just ask questions" on a public platform you implicitly give credence the side with less acceptance. This is fine with issues that are undecided or harmless, but trans personhood is neither. If you agree that trans rights are human rights, and are aware of the trans suicidality rates alongside the latest push of anti-trans legislation in the States and Europe, then it should be apparent that Netflix did not use their large platform responsibly here. I'm not worried about the trans kid who clicks off of a C-tier netflix special after 20 minutes. They'll be fine. I'm concerned about their uninformed schoolmates, or their school board, or their parents, who get the impression that the personhood of trans people is some disputed academic issue which they are fine to have a "trans-exclusionary" stance on. Tech companies are poorly positioned to engage in responsible platforming, and pressuring them when they misstep is important.

horns4lyfe 5y ago

They’re free to give up their ample salaries and walk away from the company. If their very lives are at stake, wouldn’t that be appropriate?