Dave Chappelle: Stick & Stones on Netflix
 

Just finished his new comedy special. He goes all in on Michael Jackson, metoo movement, LBGTQ community just in the first 15 minutes. He doesn't have anyone to answer to and you can tell.

Great special.

I laughed my ass off the entire special, I feel like this one was a notch or two better than the previous special he had. This was classic Dave, and I know people are gonna hate on him lol.

Sounds like someone is sure to be offended.

Dave is a genius.

First of all the man was clearly trying to offend anyone and everyone who was a sensitive pussy. It worked. I read about 20 articles within a week about how problematic it was. The Twitterati had a little tantrum. He tried to offend everyone, but really only one group of people started the typical crying about jokes.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...cks-and-stones

https://thegrapevine.theroot.com/did...d-h-1837656015

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertai...stones/596947/

Just the usual suspects.

Just go to google and type "Dave Chappelle sticks and stones problematic" into your little computer machine and watch the tears flow.

I watched it less than 24 hours after it was released for free on one of my sites. Laughed pretty damn hard for nearly all of it.

He is probably today's best story-telling comic and his ability to hold off on the punch line until he thinks the audience is right at the edge of their seats in anticipation is incredible. He has such a great cadence to his joke telling. Trying to even think of anyone who does it better. He just runs at HIS pace and doesn't speed up or front run his jokes before the audience is ready.

https://www4.fusionmovies.to/film/da...u3NR1/Ze3FZaY5

Make sure to have your Adblock Plus extension in Google Chrome and your Anti-virus software running. It will launch a new tab the first 2-3 times you click on the play button and all you do is close that tab.

chappelle is the man! i audibly laughed on at least 1,000 occasions :D

Man, I was expecting much worse given the backlash, but I guess that highlights how sensitive the current environment is. I recently re-watched Delirious and the first couple minutes of that would explode the news cycle if released today.

S&S was highly enjoyable and I got some good laughs, but didn't think it was his best material. Seemed to come from a place of frustration rather than organic humor. I do appreciate how smart his jokes can be though, like the analogy of driving the car.

The Juicy Smolliet bit had me rolling though.

Yeah, I was expecting a lot worse. A lot of Dave's jokes typically fall flat for me, historically. But I recognize his creativity and how technically good he is.

This one was more universally funny to me than a lot of his other stuff.

The deal about the the comedy central censorship was an example of how ****ing good he is. If you read a transcript of the words it is really not funny. Fairly profound, but not funny.



But his execution was impeccable. Goddamned hilarious.

You do realize its on Netflix, right?

It's a good bit, but Mulaney did it even better, earlier.

<div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><iframe src="//media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:arc:video:comedycentral.com:f72ee235-f025-4ca6-a72d-18f2f70c01e3" width="512" height="288" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="true"></iframe></div></div>

Yeah, that's pretty damn funny.

He's brilliant. Makes ya laugh, and makes ya think

He's this generation's George Carlin...

And he's not as cynical and it doesn't look as though he's going to go in that direction

I hope not. Carlin stopped being funny years before he died.

Very true

Nah that wasnt as good

Watched it. Was pretty funny. 8/10. Would watch again.

Not as good as alot of today's comics though, but I do appreciate what he was trying to do.

I love offensive humor if it has a fun angle on it, and Chappelle again knocks it out of the park on this, except in a couple places.

The angle that Louis CK's abuse wasn't that bad is just misogynistic bullshit. And I expect misogyny in comedy but that's so damn ridiculous I'm shocked Dave was that lazy to argue it.

I'm also not interested in re-litigating Michael Jackson's accusers potentially lying, because the fact that Michael Jackson treated them well aside from sexual exploitation is a joke that's been made on SNL since Norm McDonald.

The LGBT sharing a car bit was inspired. Most of the special was, and it has the odd perspectives and hilarious angles that you expect from him.

But those are two lazy-ass jokes that are so asinine, I'm irked they even graced his special.

Man, I love Chapelle. He's the best at making you laugh and making you think just by telling stories. The best thing is that he does it without being judgmental. He makes you think about it while being able to laugh out loud at both sides of the issues. Hands down the best around in my book. Also love Norm McDonald.

I dunno on the CK thing. You are pressing a pretty fine edge when the narrative is that someone asks you to do something and you participate out of a vague sense of comparative power in your industry, particularly when it's as lone-wolf an industry as a travelling comic.

And the 'prosecution' of the matter is simply a change in the social currency of the individual in question.

This isn't a matter of coercion or quid pro quo, and we never got a forum where we actually delved into the specifics of what possible implicit or soft power CK may have exerted.

The whole thing stinks of excessive narrative construction after the fact.

Some see a powerful comic 'imposing' his good graces in order to engage in 'perverted' acts.

It is just as plausible to see a lonely schlub away from home reaching out to compatible colleagues for potential mutual release.

Think it was baby Lee who showed the rotten tomatoes critic rating vs general public. That tells you everything you need to know. the extreme outrage is generally a small but extremely vocal few. But overall most still have a good sense of humor. Thankfully. Even better twist that Chapelle is pretty liberal and yet has pissed off the triggered few.

Louis CKs stuff sounds creepy as hell and it sounds like it wasn't exactly a one time thing. The better example is aziz. How the **** that guy needs to apologize for anything is embarrassing. Even feminists are appalled. And true victims of sexual assault are extremely appalled because it marginalizes what they went through.

Creepy and One-Time aren't markers for violative conduct.

Some people like creepy. And FTR if there are more accounts out there I haven't heard them, but he; jacked off while on the phone and jacked off while someone watched. Not my cup of tea, but different strokes [npi] for different folks.

And repeated conduct, if anything, obviates evidence of a violation.

For instance, CK has done similar stuff with Sarah Silverman. Sometimes she indulged him, sometimes she told him to cut it out. No evidence he balked at either situation. the only differences there are, again this nebulous concept of relative power in the industry, and personal assertiveness. Neither of which has anyone established was on CK's mind at the time of the interactions.

It's not an official marker, but it just seems where there's smoke there's fire But this feels like a cosby thing... When lots of strangers tell a LOT of the same stories, there's something going on there. I don't think his career should end over it. But I get if some people wouldn't want to support him. Aziz, on the other hand... Classic example of SJW outrage (and I use that word sparingly)

What's the 'smoke'

With Cosby, it was multiple reporting LOSING CONSCIOUSNESS after consuming something Cosby supplied, and waking having been violated.

With CK, it was multiple people where he ASKED THEM 'hey, you mind if I do this?'

Whatever your personal proclivities, 'hey, mind if I do this' is part of how IT'S SUPPOSED to happen, not 'smoke.'

Again, didn't say it was illegal or that he should be banned. Just creepy. Hollywood is a place where consent is sometimes people afraid to say no. It's not sex where you can debate about which party wanted it and how much. This feels pretty one sided about who wanted it. Many women have said it happened and they agreed but didn't want it to happen. That sounds plenty believable

'feels like a Cosby thing' is pretty strong language for debateable conduct that shouldn't be illegal or banworthy.

I'm using that example only to say when multiple people corroborate the same story, where there's smoke there's fire. Again, I don't think he should be banned let alone arrested. But do I get why people boycott him for being a total creep? Should his reputation be smeared? In this case, I get it.

I agree, but it's another example of how 'critics' are completely out of touch.

There's this tiny group of twitterati clowns who are hyper offended in their wokeness, but the media (including critics) are just dominated by ideology. They can't set it aside and just enjoy something. Instead of treating them like the tiny hyper sensitive minority they are, the media constantly puts these ridiculous narratives front and center.

I don't personally KNOW anyone, including my many progressive friends, who disliked this special. The outrage is entirely created by media and the usual suspects on twitter. It's fake news. The truth is that it was pretty much universally enjoyed. Yet there were dozens of articles condemning it for 'woke' reasons within a day of it's release.

The joke police can go **** themselves. XD

I don't want to derail a thread on Chappelle's excellent special over the Louis CK joke, but Dave is practically begging us to do so, so...

Anyway, whatever your interpretation of CK's events, here's what at least two female comedians admitted to doing, and what CK himself has admitted to happening:

He invited a female comedic duo into his place after a show, and they said yes because they admire his work and thought there was nothing suggestive about the suggestion. That it would in fact be socializing with a famous peer.

At some point, he whips out his penis without anything close to consent and masturbates in front of them. This was not invited in any way beforehand, and not welcomed in any way during the experience. They were disturbed and potentially scared -- the scared part is unclear, I don't remember if they said that. I believe they said they dropped out of comedy because of that experience.

So there's an argument I saw a lot on here on ChiefsPlanet that, unbelievably, pops up in Dave Chappelle's routine: "so, what, CK whips out his penis and masturbates and they didn't run to the door?"

That just shows an epic ignorance that dumb men have who have never been sexually assaulted.

If you are a woman, and a man whips his penis out without welcome, it is terrifying. It is completely unclear what the man intends or what he is capable of doing. But he's bigger than you, and he's stronger than you.

And there is no right response to that. Running to the door and potentially risking him chasing you is an option. So is staying calm and waiting the experience out, which is what they did. Now Dave ****ing Chappelle is making their experience even more horrific by saying "c'mon, they didn't run, we didn't have to make their harassment sound worse than it was?"

Just a lazy, ignorant argument that you don't expect from Chappelle. You expect it from clueless male misogynists on an internet message board.

So you admit there is a double standard then? If a chick brought dudes back to her room, and started banging herself. Nobody would give a shit.

Louey CK is apparently a very weird and creepy dude. But I agree with the poster who said if we place what Louey CK did in the same box as other sexual assaults it marginalizes those experiences. Huge difference between a rape and some guy jerking it.

Uhhhh no. If the woman did that and the man did not invite her to and did not welcome her and is offended by it, yeah. It's wrong. Less people would probably be upset about it, because there's not a millenia-old precedent of women ensnaring men and subjecting them to abuse against their will, but if that's what happened, then that's totally wrong. Who would even argue that?

I don't quite agree. There IS a double standard. And I'm okay with that. If gender roles were reversed, nobody would care. In fact, guys would brag to their friends about it. Some chick they didn't like tried to bang themselves in front of them. They would think it was the coolest thing ever. But if you heard your daughter encountered a creepy dude like Louey CK, you would feel completely different. I don't know why we shy away from there being a double standard. There absolutely is.

What Louey CK did was wrong, but how egregious something is is very important. Everything in life is not black or white, even though we try to make it out to be like that. There are shades and degrees of good and bad. Some things are much worse than others.

I think Joe Rogan had a bit that summed it up pretty well quite a bit in his "Dude, You're going to be Batman" part on Triggered.

Duckman nailed it, almost 25 years ago.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/knIroVvPZU4" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Shut the **** up you erroneously self-righteous giz mop.

True.

Modern marriage is only a few hundred years old. :D