4 ms·
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 th
by 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 agoMoving '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 agoYou'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.
- VirusNewbie 5y agoDid Dave Chappele actually say "trans people shouldn't have personhood"? Because otherwise you are making a huge leap to further my own argument. Just because someone might infer that is Dave's stance or have their own view influenced does not mean it causes harm. Otherwise we're back to my original point that if negative stereotypes are perpetuated by any media that might influence the general population's opinion, you can call that harm. That's ridiculous and I know you don't believe that should be applied equally.
- horns4lyfe 5y agoPretending that not wholesale embracing someone’s lifestyle is akin to violence is just an insane concept. If I think someone is weird that doesn’t mean I want to murder them.