Poll of the Day > The mods must really hate Dave Chappelle

(+) Yeah! (+)

Well, I think he's a comedy legend.

Justice for Juicy

Why?

NickMullen posted...

Why?

I assume they have no sense of humor. Thus they must have interpreted a clip of Dave Chappelle telling a joke to be sexually explicit.

X Doubt

Comedy GOAT

Dave Chappelle is evil. The world will be a better safer place for lgbtq when he passes away.

mharbenedict34 posted...

Dave Chappelle is evil. The world will be a better safer place for lgbtq when he passes away.

What about the other groups that he makes fun of even more? Will it be safer for black people as well?

Reminds me of how they tried to cancelled gallagher. Well without gallagher there is no Carrot Top.
https://youtube.com/shorts/wMlGc-KtCng?feature=share

Even with politics removed, I don't really find his comedy funny since his return to it. It's mostly complaining without punchlines.

teddy241 posted...

Reminds me of how they tried to cancelled gallagher. Well without gallagher there is no Carrot Top.
https://youtube.com/shorts/wMlGc-KtCng?feature=share

unknown if true, but I like to imagine this is what destroyed Gallagher's career:
https://youtu.be/c8Mov_Fgcz4

ReturnOfFa posted...

Even with politics removed, I don't really find his comedy funny since his return to it. It's mostly complaining without punchlines.

Yeah he really lost his edge. Now he just sits on stage explaining his politics.

jiffdiff posted...

Yeah he really lost his edge. Now he just sits on stage explaining his politics.

'so, my trans friend was bad at comedy, and then killed herself. and that is why I don't like Twitter!'

YO HAHAHA...wait where's the punchline, damn it!!!

chapelle came back like gootecks did, and it made me fuckin sad

ZangsBeard posted...

X Doubt

30 day suspension backs it up.

that proves nothing when it's you though, you tend to get modded

agesboy posted...

that proves nothing when it's you though, you tend to get modded

Specifically, while failing to understand which basic tenets of human interaction you violated to earn that moderation. In particular, you've demonstrated no shortage of transphobia in the past (whether ignorant or malicious), and given Chappelle's recent foray into that realm, I strongly suspect that's what actually brought down the hammer.

ReturnOfFa posted...

'so, my trans friend was bad at comedy, and then killed herself. and that is why I don't like Twitter!'

YO HAHAHA...wait where's the punchline, damn it!!!

Naw he's still funny

adjl posted...

In particular, you've demonstrated no shortage of transphobia in the past

I don't think I have but I'm willing to explore that possibility. I suspect that my understanding of what makes something transphobic is different than yours. As such I want to see how my positions correspond to your perception. Can you explain to me what transphobia means to you?

adjl posted...

given Chappelle's recent foray into that realm

That would still mean I was suspended for posting Dave Chappelle telling a joke. Regardless of what the joke was.
It also suggest that I am being targeted as only I am prohibited from posting Dave Chappelle telling a joke.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

It also suggest that I am being targeted as only I am prohibited

you aren't that special, you just don't understand the ToS

OhhhJa posted...

Naw he's still funny

quote me your favourite recent bit of his

I like asking people this about comedians. I can quote dozens of my favourite Norm jokes, or Stavros, Dice, etc.

agesboy posted...

you aren't that special, you just don't understand the ToS

I thought I did but I don't understand the way it has been enforced.
The moderations list a bunch of unrelated things. Of which I don't believe any apply to what I posted.
I see posts that I think are bigoted and arguing against that position gets me a moderation.

ReturnOfFa posted...

quote me your favourite recent bit of his

I like asking people this about comedians. I can quote dozens of my favourite Norm jokes, or Stavros, Dice, etc.

I would quote some but I would get modded.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I don't think I have but I'm willing to explore that possibility. I suspect that my understanding of what makes something transphobic is different than yours. As such I want to see how my positions correspond to your perception. Can you explain to me what transphobia means to you?

You explicitly said that you disagree with the fundamental concept of trans people, then fell back on the classic "that doesn't mean I'm afraid of them" deflection in an effort to pretend that wasn't transphobic. Because you're you, I can believe that's a matter of you genuinely not realizing what's wrong with that, but that's very much transphobia.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

That would still mean I was suspended for posting Dave Chappelle telling a joke. Regardless of what the joke was.

I think it's more likely that you missed the transphobic or otherwise offensive content of the joke in question.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

It also suggest that I am being targeted as only I am prohibited from posting Dave Chappelle telling a joke.

Moderations tend to be stricter for people with a recent history of violations. It's not so much you being targeted for personal reasons as it is that you've been identified as somebody who has difficulty behaving, which means you're going to get less leniency than somebody with no such history.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I see posts that I think are bigoted and arguing against that position gets me a moderation.

And instead of taking a step back and questioning if you are perhaps the bigoted one in such scenarios, you make topics saying "I guess the mods just hate comedy legends." Ergo, you are identified as somebody who has difficulty behaving.

adjl posted...

then fell back on the classic "that doesn't mean I'm afraid of them" deflection

I don't recall doing that.
Bigotry is prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
Transphobia, as a form of bigotry, is dislike of or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people.
None of that has anything to do with fear. And I don't dislike trans people.
I'm am entirely indifferent to their membership of a group.
There are positions I don't agree with but disagreement on a singular issue is a separate matter from how I feel toward those I disagree with.
Though, you, adjl, are known from previous discussions to assign malicious intent to those you disagree with. So I expect to you disagreement alone is seen as an indication of my feelings.

adjl posted...

Moderations tend to be stricter for people with a recent history of violations.

Past moderations which were equally unclear and I believe were frivolous. I believe a subject can be discussed without being offensive, abusive to other users, or hateful toward people effected by the subject. Disagreement alone is not a violation of the site rules. Yet when we disagree the mods pick a side and remove the arguments that didn't align with their particular political beliefs.

adjl posted...

you've been identified as somebody who has difficulty behaving

I don't think preventing discussion of my difficulty has helped any. I haven't gained a better understanding of what the offense was from the lack of communication I received about it. I would like to discuss things we don't agree on to gain more perspective on the subject and refine my own thoughts on it. But just by describing why I think a certain way about something; it gets a moderation for being offensive, or defending hate speech, or provoking others to respond negatively. Doesn't that go both ways? Am I not provoked to respond negatively when there are things I disagree with? Why is the response to finding something objectionable to remove it and not to discuss why it is? I'm starting to think the goal is to prevent people from understanding each other.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

And I don't dislike trans people.
I'm am entirely indifferent to their membership of a group.

if you disagree with their existence (you said "They just don't agree with the underlying premise behind it." in a topic about transphobes), you very much are not indifferent

agesboy posted...

if you disagree with their existence

People who identify as trans exist. I don't know in what way I claimed they didn't. That always seemed like a bizzare argument to me. I'm not aware of anyone claiming they aren't real people.

Skard is getting some really good calf exercise tonight.

teddy241 posted...

Well without gallagher there is no Carrot Top.

That sounds like a reward

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

People who identify as trans exist. I don't know in what way I claimed they didn't. That always seemed like a bizzare argument to me. I'm not aware of anyone claiming they aren't real people.

being trans- not claiming- is a defining part of their existence. nobody is saying you were saying they weren't real people you nincompoop

agesboy posted...

being trans- not claiming- is a defining part of their existence.

Not sure what point you're trying to make here. To use something else as an example: I disagree with what Democrats stand for. I think they are authoritarians who emotionally manipulate people into a state of panic. Clearly I believe that Democrats exist. Would you describe my position as disagreeing with their existence?

You 'disagree with what trans people stand for'? It's not a stance, it's their identity. Why does it bother you so much to see people being themselves?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I think they are authoritarians who emotionally manipulate people into a state of panic

Oh shit Fox News area bunch of Democrats it all makes sense now

GreenMario posted...

You 'disagree with what trans people stand for'?

I disagree with what Democrats stand for. Are you saying trans people are authoritarians who emotionally manipulate people into a state of panic?

no, noone is saying that except you, that's the weird strawman you internalized to cover up for your transphobia

https://twitter.com/RUNYOMONEY/status/1432343466869207044

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I disagree with what Democrats stand for. Are you saying trans people are authoritarians who emotionally manipulate people into a state of panic?

Are you saying that's what the Democrats stand for? Sounds a little more Republican to me.

Oftentimes I find that folks that say 'I know trans people exist but...' will often suggest that trans people and their allies have disproportionate influence on society. Do you find that to be the case @skardavnelnate ? I personally don't.

ReturnOfFa posted...

Are you saying that's what the Democrats stand for?

Yes. I very clearly stated that in regard to Democrats.

ReturnOfFa posted...

Oftentimes I find that folks that say 'I know trans people exist but...'

I never said 'but...' I saw no need to say 'but...' I have nothing to add after 'trans people exist' aside from what I've already said about how bizzare that argument is.

ReturnOfFa posted...

Do you find that to be the case @skardavnelnate ? I personally don't.

Let do as you will be whole of the law.

I don't understand that last sentence. That was a response to a yes or no question...

Also, re: the original topic, perhaps you just got modded because the Chapelle bit was sexually explicit. that isn't hard to believe.

ReturnOfFa posted...

perhaps you just got modded because the Chapelle bit was sexually explicit. that isn't hard to believe.

It was the routine were he mocks the Sunny Delight commercial. People have some weird kinks.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

30 day suspension backs it up.

I never said you didn't get moderated.

I went and found the post... are you sure you weren't moderated for quoting the overtly racist commentary?

was it that post from like a month ago where skard outright quoted something that got someone else banned

i posted the post that got kodykier banned, which he then quoted completely, but i was the one who got modded, i don't think he did

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I don't recall doing that.

I recall some definite pedantry over whether or not it was "phobic," but it seems like you've got the right of it now, so I'm fine to call that irrelevant. I could also have conflated somebody else making such a comment with you. Either way, it's a moot point.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

And I don't dislike trans people.

You just don't think their existence is legitimate.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I'm am entirely indifferent to their membership of a group.

This frames being trans as a matter of arbitrarily choosing to join some kind of "trans club" and not of taking the necessary steps to solve a very serious and dangerous health problem in a matter consistent with the best available medical science. The idea that people "choose to be trans" fundamentally misunderstands and downplays the issue at hand, and is a common element of transphobic rhetoric.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

There are positions I don't agree with but disagreement on a singular issue is a separate matter from how I feel toward those I disagree with.

The problem being that what you're calling simple disagreement and considering to be nothing more than an academic exercise is an opinion that kills people. Gender dysphoria has an extremely high suicide rate associated with it, a suicide rate which can be dramatically reduced by simply accepting trans people for who they are. As such, not accepting them for who they are (which is inherent in disagreeing with the fundamental concept of being trans) has significant potential to be fatal.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Though, you, adjl, are known from previous discussions to assign malicious intent to those you disagree with. So I expect to you disagreement alone is seen as an indication of my feelings.

As I said earlier, I'm willing to believe you're doing this out of ignorance and not malice. The fact of the matter, though, is that whether it's because you don't understand the situation or because you actually want to hurt trans people, the kind of rhetoric you've espoused is harmful to trans people. That means you're now into the territory of culpable ignorance: you know that you should know better, so you are still responsible for any harm arising from your ignorance. Try to avoid that. If you don't, that's no better than acting in malice from the outset.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Past moderations which were equally unclear and I believe were frivolous.

A significant number have been associated with suggesting that nothing should be done to curb the pandemic, which is 100% fair game no matter what you want to believe.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I'm starting to think the goal is to prevent people from understanding each other.

Except you're the only one who has trouble understanding anything. Everyone else understands each other just fine without having to ask questions that implicitly grant legitimacy to some genuinely abhorrent positions.

To invoke Godwin's law, asking "Was there really anything wrong with what Hitler did?" is an example of "simply asking a question to get a better understanding of the situation" that would get you kicked out of pretty much any conversation that doesn't involve heiling anything. By asking the question, you're implying that the alternative to the accepted position (that Hitler was a turbodink) is legitimate enough that you and everyone else should be considering it. People are going to take issue with that, and quite reasonably so.

I hate to blow you off entirely from such discussions because I believe that you genuinely don't realize what's wrong with a lot of the things you say and shutting you out of discussions just leads to ridiculously radicalized viewpoints like "the democrats are authoritarians who emotionally manipulate people into a state of panic" because you'll find yourself more accepted in communities that do entertain the alternatives you present. At the same time, though, you have some responsibility to learn for yourself how people actually work and why people take issue with your behaviour. You can't expect everyone here to hold your hand through everything and just smile and nod when you break out talking points that would be more at home in a Hitler's Youth convention. Nobody wants that here, so you'll be moderated accordingly.

ZangsBeard posted...

I went and found the post... are you sure you weren't moderated for quoting the overtly racist commentary?

Yes, I'm sure I wasn't moderated for quoting someone. Considering that it would be extremely unfair to suspend me for a) another users post, and b) using a feature of the forums as it was intended. It makes much more sense that the mods hate Dave Chappelle.

Hard_Light posted...

i posted the post that got kodykier banned, which he then quoted completely, but i was the one who got modded, i don't think he did

I commented that an image that was linked to was a reference to Dave Chappelle, then I linked to Dave Chappelle's Sunny Delight stand up routine. It was a 30 day suspension.

well, idk, I've had some pretty inconsistent moderations. I also don't really care because this is a waste of time nerd site for nerds being moderated by nerds.

you say 'the mods' when it would be more accurate to at least postulate 'a mod'

adjl posted...

You just don't think their existence is legitimate.

I still don't know what that means. Like I already posted, I haven't heard an argument that they don't exist. And as you, adgl, have said to me many times before; you're arguing against a position which no one holds.

adjl posted...

This frames being trans as a matter of arbitrarily choosing to join some kind of "trans club"

Did you know that (at least in the US) aspects of a person such as race, sexuality, and gender are considered protected classes? This is because they are considered immutable characteristics. The individual doesn't choose to have the aspect and nothing can change that aspect. But it's not just some races. Not just a certain sexuality. Not just specific genders. They are all equally protected. Having "membership of a group" is just as protected as not having membership of that group. Now since no one had a say in being part of that group nor do have the ability do disassociate from it; I think it's best to just ignore it and treat everyone the same.

adjl posted...

The idea that people "choose to be trans" fundamentally misunderstands and downplays the issue at hand, and is a common element of transphobic rhetoric.

That was never my argument so once again, you're arguing against a position which no one holds.

adjl posted...

As such, not accepting them for who they are (which is inherent in disagreeing with the fundamental concept of being trans) has significant potential to be fatal.

Fine, explain my position to me. What fundamental concept of being trans do I disagree with?

adjl posted...

you have some responsibility to learn for yourself how people actually work and why people take issue with your behaviour

In your post you brought up the kind of rhetoric. I think you've been associating my arguments with arguments you have heard before, therefore my position must be the same that past position. Right?
The sentence I quoted sounds like when someone says "it's not my responsibility to educate you". So when people do make the effort to educate themselves it shouldn't be surprising when they draw their own conclusions that are different than yours. Right?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Yes, I'm sure I wasn't moderated for quoting someone. Considering that it would be extremely unfair to suspend me for a) another users post, and b) using a feature of the forums as it was

lol this is all just bullshit. People get moderated for what they quoted all the damned time. You dont even have to add anything to the conversation, if the quoted part was moddable, and seeing as how its what got someone banned it sure as fuck was moddable.

Youre just ridiculous to think the rules dont apply to quoted messages. Lol

Also, reposting moderations has always been against the rules you silly pile of well cooked, delicious breakfast potatoes.

ZangsBeard posted...

Also, reposting moderations has always been against the rules

Here's the problem with that, I didn't repost anything. The link was enclosed within a quote just as your message is now and my message when you quoted me. If my post which you quoted gets moderated do you expect to also get moderated for quoting it?