RC Editorial: Dave Chappelle is a clever guy who can be really wrong sometimes: an article. (Patreon)

So, Dave chappelle put out a new special on netflix.

And by nature of him being a controversial comic, not soon after came the articles written by your politically predetermined algorithm to tell you whether or not you should watch/like it.

One article says, "Look at THIS thing he said! Doesn’t pass the woke test, so let’s get em outta here, because he hates gay people and is the worst person EVAR!"

The other says, "WHAT'S A MATTER libruls!? Offended much!?!?!" 

My problem is, after watching it myself, I came away with progressive *and* regressive ideas that ultimately don’t fit him into either role, and when that happens, both sides of this issue end up taking what they want from the specials and not engaging with the messy nature of his comedy.

Because I bet that “stickin’ it to the lgbt/feminists!” site wouldn’t quote the part where Dave says abortion should absolutely be a woman’s decision, and men shouldn’t have a say in what’s happening to a woman’s body.

(Or, if they did, they’d play up the, “but I shouldn’t have to pay child support, amirite fellas!?” part, which is funny, until you realize that a… *looot* of men already don’t pay child support; I mean, the phrase “Deadbeat dad” exists for a reason, so this joke isn’t really controversial as much as it’s… kinda just what happens sometimes anyways…)

From my end, it seems like he believes progressive ideas, but still wants to make you laugh by being controversial, but in doing so, isn't taking care to make sure the message isn't mixed up.

Seems to me like he wants to be supportive of the marginalized groups he brings up, but because he doesn't know those groups well enough to be sensitive to their concerns, the punchlines of jokes can be tailored to look like the ONLY thing he's doing is hating on marginalized groups.

For example, there’s a bit about him talking about being censored on his show in a skit where he wanted to say, “f*gg*t”.

And he asks the censor, “but I say nigga all the time, why can’t I say f*g?”

The censor says, “because you’re not gay”.

His response? “Oh-Ho! But I’m not a *nigger* EITHER!”

*applause break*

...but hold up though.

Okay, so HIS point is that, “why do you not see the humanity in me as a person, to the point where you don’t have a problem with ME saying a word that’s degrading to me as a person, but I can’t dehumanize a GAY person, HUH?!?!?!”

Check mate! Exposed your racism!

As soon as I heard that, though, I immediately thought, “dude, stop playing dumb.”

You KNOW the reason why this person won’t confront you on nigga is because you KNOW there is a segment of the black population that has, in essence, reclaimed the word as a term of endearment, in the same way that gay people, an ALSO persecuted community, have reclaimed their word for them.

So no, dude, you shouldn’t say it; or if you do, just don’t be surprised if a cishet dude using language offensive to people who AREN’T YOU gets you some pushback.

As well, I hated his “car trip” analogy about the experiences of lgbtq folk, mainly because it starts with the observation, “lots of gay men are also white, so the stigma against gay men is gonna be the first to be confronted/accepted, since they historically have more power in the world!”

I noticed a similar observation in another special he did last year, where his point was essentially, “well, if black and mexican men had first said, “we feel like girls!” people would’ve said, “SO?! Nobody gives a fuck about your feelings, nigger”

With the point being, “society only cares about people’s internal struggles when they’re white”.

But… Dave… there… there *are* black/latinx trans people.

And they *have* been told no one gives a shit about their feelings for their entire lives, so how exactly are *you*, the supposed thinking man, changing or challenging the status quo in that regard?

The fact is, he isn’t, he’s just using the idea of trans black/latinx people as a theoretical shield for why he shouldn’t have to care when the person telling him about lgbtq issues is white.

Which… feels like a side-step of the idea that lgbtq people *of all colors* should be treated with more respect.

See what I’m saying by the whole analogy being wrong-headed? The reason why is because he thinks he has something funny/clever to say about a current event, thinking he’s getting a one-up on white gay/trans people, by saying, “people only care about lgbtq issues since it’s rich  WHITE people talking about it”.

But not everyone is caitlyn Jenner, so by that framework, all he’s doing is trivializing the struggles of trans people of color and everyone else who DIDN’T get to have a sex change after decades of being super rich/above the societal/financial pressures that make that journey so painful in the first place.

Silly analogies about lgbtq folks’ road to acceptance being a cutesy car trip kinda fall apart when you learn about stuff like there needing to be more homeless shelters for lgbtq kids who get kicked out of their parents houses for being queer.

This still absolutely happens, all the time.

(In fact, if you or anyone you know needs help with a situation like that, here’s a shelter’s website you can check out: https://casaruby.org/ )

But hey, it can’t be *too* bad, because a rich white guy who happens to be gay is driving the car! Duh-ho, what a romp!

As well, in this cross-country “Journey of Acceptance” for queer folk, there’s a joke about how “they could get there quicker if the… “T” people weren’t dragging everything back, cause they wanna pull over to a rest stop to… *snicker* use the bathroom...

GET IT?!?! THEY WANNA USE THE BATHROOAAAHAHAHAHA!”

...but look at the wrong-headed assumptions this analogy implies:

“Trans people *could* be accepted, if it weren’t for trans people making a big fuss about goin’ to a bathroom, cause I mean, why does it REALLY matter, right?!”

But... it wasn’t trans people that tried to pass bathroom laws in north carolina, Dave...

It was old white republican men in seats of power that did that.

So, quite literally, if old rich law makers had left them alone, THIS. WOULD. NOT. BE. AN. ISSUE.

But the angle at which he handles this topic reinforces the idea that it’s marginalized queer people that are causing the initial ruckus, instead of an ignorant society that doesn’t realize that hey maybe if there are 7 billion people in the world, there just might end up being more than two gender/sexual identities (fancy that).

Unfortunately, Bradley in middle America never had to think about the plight of gay people seriously before, so all these ideas just come off as heady theories about tolerance, and the joke-man has come to make it all plain, demystifying this situation he knows nothing about by only hearing the parts of Dave’s special that tells him he doesn’t have to think.

But see, I can understand how a person could make the mistakes he’s making: we can’t act like we don’t live in a society that reinforces the ideas he’s putting out, that inspired him to analyze things in such an incomplete way in the first place.

But despite that, he didn’t come off as hating queer folk, to me. He came off as someone trying to be funny by way of edgy modern controversies, but by nature of him not exploring them in a deeper way outside of his own perspective, it sounds like he’s not realize realizing how these jokes reinforce a toxic mentality.

But instead of engaging with that, one side says, “didn’t present queer folk in the best way possible? No need to analyze it, it’s just absolute trash with absolutely nothing relevant to consider!”

And the other side says, “well, he did make *some* progressive points… but what I’m gonna focus on is only the stuff that reaffirms *my* preconceived notions, cause we’re gettin’ one over on the libs, amirite!? Famous person’s on our side, hi five!”

And if Dave was some sort of obvious rightwing troll saying this stuff, I’d say yeah, to hell with em.

But this special isn’t some grand political statement, it’s a flawed human being trying to make you laugh with his observation of the world, who could probably stand to take a little more time to deconstruct his material to make sharper points.

At least, that’s my interpretation of the situation. Either way, if you’re gonna talk about the special, please don’t just look at edited clips and soundbites: if you feel so inclined to comment on an event, check it out in it’s full context before posting about it, cause there might just be words or ideas those articles left out, for a reason.

This Message Brought to you by Your Friendly Neighborhood Rap Critic,

Peace