So disappointed to hear, and I couldn’t disagree with him more. Everyone has a line they don’t like crossed, but if you get offended at jokes, that should be your own problem. Still respect this man immensely, but I disagree with him on this 100%. Censoring and banning things people can say, and handcuffing comedians will never be the answer. Such a pathetic time we are living in. Boo hoo, you can’t take a joke.
The irony is the sites that are posting this article and then defending what he’s saying in their “opinion” blogs won’t allow comments, discussion, or dissenting viewpoints on their own sites and this article in particular.
These people hate the idea of free speech. They write that “he’s right” like it’s a fact. Absolute morons.
A tale as old as time…if you don’t like it and it offends your delicate little feelings, you are free to turn the channel.
Meanwhile, there are clueless parents across the country up in arms trying to censor and ban American history in schools because they're embarrassed about their ancestors being slave owners and committing genocide against the Indigenous people.
Such hypocrisy!
Censoring and banning things people can teach, and handcuffing teachers will never be the answer. Such a pathetic time we are living in. Boo hoo, you can’t handle your own history.
Obviously, the snowflake parents are embarrassed or they wouldn't be crying on TV about it.
The irony is your criticism of cancel culture when you're the ones doing it. An overpaid comedian isn't important. Refusing to teach children American history because you're embarrassed by it only allows your children to be as stupid as their knuckle-dragging parents.
Stop hating, get your act together, take some responsibility and stop blaming "the man" for everything. All the white people alive today had nothing to do with what happened 170 years ago.
Don't change the subject! Stop censoring and banning American history classes because you're embarrassed. All American history should be taught: the good, the bad and the ugly.
170 years ago? Obviously, you need to take an American history course, too! You just proved my point about your ignorance re: slavery.
FYI, history is about the past which is the reason it's called history. Once again, you prove your ignorance by suggesting that no history should ever be taught because it happened in the past.
Actually, a lot of people should be embarrassed. It's got nothing to do with hate, but decency. Something modern "conservatives" aren't to concerned with nowadays.
You're deflecting. Slavery is a part of American history, therefore it should be taught. Don't be a snowflake!
Are you aware that the Statue of Liberty was commissioned by a French abolitionist who raised money to free American slaves? He grieved over the assassination of Pres. Lincoln and decided to commission the statue as a celebration to the end of American slavery. The American Revolution and a strong pro-democracy message to the French government, which was moving away from democracy, were also included.
Originally, immigration had zip to do with the Statue of Liberty! The French agreed to pay for the statue, but Americans would pay for its base. After Congress balked, a poetry contest helped raise funds which yielded the winning poem, "Give me your tired, your poor...". The rest of the money was through many donations including from Black people and later strong efforts by John Pulitzer and eventually all Americans came aboard.
Most people don't know the true history because of snowflakes. I knew someone who worked there as a tour guide who told me they were forbidden to mention anything about its connection to slavery. Snowflakes!
I haven't been in school for many years, but I still go to the library to learn what my schools failed to teach me. I spent the summer learning about Jewish, African, my region, class struggles, and Indigenous history.
Learn history! Don't be afraid of it. Never embrace ignorance.
You don't have to own slaves to benefit from slavery. You don't run a sweat shop in a third-world country, but you benefit from the exploitation of their labor each time you buy something cheap made overseas.
Your denial, shame and guilt are obvious.
Who ran the Atlantic Slave Trade and were the main beneficiaries? Europeans including white Americans
Did all white people benefit from slavery? Yes
"Nevertheless, slavery was indispensable to European development of the New World. It is inconceivable that European colonists could have settled and developed North and South America and the Caribbean without slave labor. Moreover, slave labor did produce the major consumer goods that were the basis of world trade during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries: coffee, cotton, rum, sugar, and tobacco.
In the pre-Civil War United States, a stronger case can be made that slavery played a critical role in economic development. One crop, slave-grown cotton, provided over half of all US export earnings. By 1840, the South grew 60 percent of the world's cotton and provided some 70 percent of the cotton consumed by the British textile industry. Thus slavery paid for a substantial share of the capital, iron, and manufactured goods that laid the basis for American economic growth. In addition, precisely because the South specialized in cotton production, the North developed a variety of businesses that provided services for the slave South, including textile factories, a meat processing industry, insurance companies, shippers, and cotton brokers."
Hey Keeloid, why did you LIE and say I made racist posts? Where are they? Show us, you LYING reprobate. You won't though, because you're an unethical COWARD that won't even admit that you LIED!
I have nothing to be embarrassed about. My ancestors never participated in slavery in any way. As far as slavery is concerned, we were taught about it when I was in elementary school sixty years ago. Nobody was trying to censor it. The difference was that it was taught then with historical facts, as opposed to the inane CRT that is taught today, which is pure racist, made-up, fake "history".
WHO EXACTLY IS TEACHING THIS "CRT"...I KEEP EXTREMELY CLOSE TABS ON MY DAUGHTER'S SCHOOLWORK AND I HAVEN'T SEEN A SINGLE SHRED OF THIS SUPPOSED SCOURGE.
CRT is fake, revisionist history. By the way, not one of my ancestors ever owned a slave or killed an American Indian. Maybe yours did, but I certainly wouldn't shame you for it, since you weren't even born then.
“There is enough range in humor where you don’t have to go scatological and you don’t have to go pulling any divisive cards to get a laugh. There is so much in the world to comment on that is outside the realm of offensiveness. As a writer, you can go to other areas and have successful creative endeavors. Scatological humor is fun. It’s easy laughs. But there is more intelligent writing that can happen if you stay away from the offensive material that should be rightly canceled for its hurtfulness. Who can be the subject of an impression today? That’s an area of discussion. Can I do my James Brown imitation? He was one of my best friends. I do his voice pretty good. But maybe I shouldn’t anymore.”
But isn't cancel culture just basically a consequence of free speech? Where is it said that freedom of speech is freedom from consequences? These comedians can say whatever they want, and if it's offensive enough for people to take notice, then these comedians face backlash. Losing freedom of speech would mean that these comedians couldn't get into trouble in the first place.
I fully understand what free speech is. Free speech does not mean that you can just say whatever you want, whenever you want, and not have to face any repercussions for that. Freedom of speech protects one from the government, not other people.
Once again, I encourage you to research it. If you understood, you wouldn't say things like, "Freedom of speech protects one from the government." (Hint: That would be the First Amendment.)
Seriously, though. What am I missing? Person A has the right to say what they want. No one is stopping them from doing that. What Person A might not understand is that their company might not look fondly on what they are saying, and they can let them because they aren't representing that company to the standards that company wants of their employees.
Perhaps Person A's company didn't really think much on what they said until a bunch of other people are using their free speech to disagree with person A, and then Person A's company decides that losing money over Person A isn't worth it to them. That's okay because it isn't the government who is silencing person A.
Social media platforms are privately owned. So maybe Person A's opinion is so unpopular that they are put in social media jail. That mostly happens when those ideas are considered to be harmful, or offensive, or simply not true. Censorship is tricky. I am not saying that the line is easy, but for the most part with these comedians, it's not so much that they are actually being censored, it's that people aren't willing to spend money on them, and so the companies don't want to support that.
Free speech is an idea. It's the idea that for a Democracy to function properly, there must be a free exchange of ideas. People should be able to speak their minds, no matter how offensive someone finds their words. The purpose of free speech is so ideas can be debated, and the People can decide which ones are more worthy. It's how Democracy should work.
If a bad (or offensive) idea is presented, the solution would be to present counter ideas, not prevent the offensive ideas from being presented. A true advocate of freedom of speech will defend the right of others to speak even if they disagree with them. Hence the famous quote from Voltaire: "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
This is the core principle of freedom of speech. Everyone gets to speak, even if their ideas they're presenting are reprehensible. If what they're saying is really that bad, it should be able to be easily defeated with counter ideas. Democracy in action.
The founding fathers understood that they were granting powers to their new government that could potentially be used to infringe upon the right of freedom of speech (along with other rights.) So they created the Bill of Rights that contains specific instructions on how the government should not infringe upon our rights.
But that doesn't mean the First Amendment IS freedom of speech. It's only a protection of it.
So once again, advocates of freedom of speech (and we should all be that) want all voices to be heard. You made the comment that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. It most certainly does. The only 'consequence' that should be advocated for someone exercising their freedom of speech should be more freedom of speech. They should be debated with, and their ideas should be defeated with other ideas.
Cancel culture is censorship. It's threatening people's livelihoods if they say the wrong thing. The purpose of cancel culture is to scare people into being silent. That idea is an anathema to the idea of free speech. No true advocate of free speech wants to silence those they disagree with. No true advocate of free speech wants 'consequences' for those they disagree with. It doesn't matter if those 'consequences' are coming from the government or anywhere else.
If you claim to believe in free speech, then you need to understand what it is, and follow its principles. It's okay to disagree with what someone is saying, but it's not okay to want their speech censored.
You are totally misunderstanding what I am saying. Cancel culture has more to do with capitalism than censorship. Perhaps I have not been explaining myself as well as I should be, but I'm really tired right now.
First off I was just trying to make the point that free speech is a concept accepted throughout the western world, but the first amendment is an American thing.
Like I said above that I think that cancel culture is capitalism at work. Just because I think that that is the way it is, it doesn't mean that I think that it's right. But, regardless, there is no real free speech, just like no place is all about freedoms. The are consequences, good or bad, for everything that we do. Everything. Everything we say will have reaction. We live in a society that values profit over everything else. So, that reaction will often hit in the pocketbook. Again, I'm not saying that this is the way that I think it ought to be, this is just the way it is. Most of the West, especially the US, holds the dollar as the most important aspect of society.
I shared that ted talk on censorship, because I agree with most of what he was saying, and that I think that most of what is cancel culture isn't censorship in the traditional sense, it again is capitalism. Censorship is needed in some instances. In these cases, it's not the government who is silencing these voices, like in China or North Korea, it is large corporations. So these people aren't being killed for what they are saying, they are just having difficulty making a living. The way to fight this, in my opinion, is to fight with your own dollars.
No, it's not capitalism. The loud and vocal Left who screams for people to be cancelled are a very small minority. They couldn't affect large businesses' bottom lines. It's the companies buying into the ideas that's giving cancel culture its teeth.
And it doesn't matter if it's capitalism or not. Cancel culture IS censorship. It's threatening people with the purpose of shutting them up. It is the opposite of free speech.
"Censorship is needed in some instances."
If you believe that, then you're not an advocate for free speech. Like many liberals (and some conservatives), you pay it lip service, but you support censorship when it's censoring something you disagree with.
"it's not the government who is silencing these voices"
Doesn't matter.
"So these people aren't being killed for what they are saying, they are just having difficulty making a living."
Anyone faced with the choice of being able to support your family, or remaining quiet, is going to shut up. That's not democracy.
You thinking this option isn't so bad proves you're clueless about how important free speech is.
"I'm assuming you didn't watch the ted talk to know part of censorship I might agree with."
And I'm assuming you never researched free speech when I recommended doing so.
"I also haven't offered an opinion on this option, so you don't know how bad I think it is."
Of course you did. Right here:
"So these people aren't being killed for what they are saying, they are just having difficulty making a living."
That 'just' is saying it's not as bad as being killed.
And before you even go down that path, I'm not saying that getting someone fired is equivalent to killing them. My point is the effect on free speech is the same. People are being shut up.
Well, first of all, I really don't know what type of "research" you expect someone to do while having a conversation. Research implies in-depth study, which I'm not going to get searching Google. I can tell you what my country's charter says on the issue, but that is not what you are wanting to discuss.
Of course you did. Right here:
Ummmm. No. I made a statement on what I think is happening. One can make statements which are not of their opinion on the overall topic. I haven't said what I feel is right or wrong when it comes to cancel culture because when one debates with their emotions, that's when personal attacks occur.
As for the video, it is where I have offered my opinion on censorship. If you feel it's off topic, then I'm sorry, but that is really the only time that I have said what I feel on the topic. Sometimes it is necessary.
That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the suppression of political speech.
Again, I ask, who is being suppressed and who is doing the suppression? You don't think it's a product of capitalism. You are specifically blaming the "loud and vocal left" and saying that there aren't enough of them to impact a company, yet you failed to explain why companies will make such an effort for those who will not impact the bottom line? Disney will cut a scene for the Chinese market. Why, if not the almighty dollar?
Again, I will challenge you to find me a place where free speech actually exists. No opinion on whether this is right or wrong, just does it exist? I do not think so in the way you want it to. There are limitations on free speech that include hate speech and liable. There are reactions to all of our actions. Which is what I mean when I discuss consequences. In my country, I can say whatever I want, but that doesn't mean that I won't get fired, or even just lose friends. So, I do have the freedom to say what I want. What I don't have, is the luxury of saying what I want and not having to face any repercussions for it.
Again, that is what I feel is the truth of the matter. I am not implying in any way whether I think that is the way it should be, or that we should or shouldn't be fighting for change.
"I'm assuming you didn't watch the ted talk to know part of censorship I might agree with."
Skimmed through the video. That's a deflection away from the subject we're discussing.
Of course there are instances where censorship is necessary. We don't allow children to read or see certain materials. News media don't show raw footage or pictures of death and injury. Obscenity is restricted. There are decisions to be made in those areas.
That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the suppression of political speech.
Click baity title. I don’t see where he specifically said he supports “cancel culture” (as in cancelling the careers of comedians). All he said was that there’s better ways to do humour than just being offensive, and he’s not wrong.
All he said was that there’s better ways to do humour than just being offensive, and he’s not wrong.
From the article: “if you stay away from the offensive material that should be rightly canceled for its hurtfulness.”
He gave his opinion, and I disagree with it. Jokes are about making fun of things. What is offensive to one person may not be to another. If you want to get sucked into the vortex of what should and shouldn’t be said in comedy, or what can and can’t be considered “offensive” in comedy, you’re never going to find your way out.
Like I said, I respect the hell out of Dan Aykroyd, but when he says “you shouldn’t do this” in regards to comedy, he’s lost me.
reply share
Yeah Nah, if there’s a crowd of black people I’m not going to suddenly start making racist jokes in an attempt to be “funny.” There’s a limit to what is appropriate.
And your limit is different than everyone else’s limit. Who says you or anyone else gets to decide what’s offensive and what’s allowed to be said? How about Blazing Saddles…do you want that banned?
reply share
I agree with you 100%, but Joe Blow over there wants it banned because it says the “N” word a lot, which is a racist term. He demands it be banned immediately. If it offends or hurts even one person, it’s got to go, right?
True. Posters are criticizing Aykroyd for criticizing Chapelle. They're doing the same thing Aykroyd is doing - trying to censor and ban someone. Hypocrites can't see the irony.
They're doing the same thing Aykroyd is doing - trying to censor and ban someone. Hypocrites can't see the irony.
What a moronic comment. Nobody is even coming close to trying to ban or censor Aykroyd. They just disagree with him. HE wants what HE considers offensive comedy to be banned. And I know I’ve said this to you before, but you calling anyone else a hypocrite is beyond hysterical.
reply share
Your comment is moronic. Aykroyd isn't coming close to trying to ban or censor Chappelle. He just disagrees with him. HE is only expressing HIS opinion which has zero effect on what Chappelle does on stage.
You're overreacting to Aykroyd's OPINION which he's entitled to. His OPINION doesn't impact Chappelle one iota.
Meanwhile, YOU want to disagree with Aykroyd's OPINION because it upsets YOU while you refuse to accept that Aykroyd can also disagree with Chappelle's act.
His opinion is that he wants comedy he considers offensive to be banned. Dan Aykroyd said that. I do not want Aykroyd banned or anything he says banned. THAT’S the difference…are you following? I can slow it down a little bit more for you if you’d like.
I forgot how much you swim in circles when trying to sound like you have an ounce of logic in your tiny little brain.
"Who can be the subject of an impression today? That’s an area of discussion. Can I do my James Brown imitation? He was one of my best friends. I do his voice pretty good. But maybe I shouldn’t anymore.”
1. I'm not sure that doing an impersonation is necessarily "making fun of" someone. But it can be.
2. You can never get granular enough to account for every category of everything to make a match for acceptability.
Yes, they're both black, but he's tall and he's short. Unacceptable!
Yes, they're both gay, but he's fat and he's skinny. Unacceptable!
At the movies, in America at least(as made by American studios), "cancel culture" simply means that movies are reverting to the highly censored days of what was called "the Hays Code" which lasted roughly from 1935 to 1967.
You can watch comedies from the 30s, 40s, and 50's and see comedians like WC Fields, The Marx Brothers, Bob Hope, Danny Kaye, and Jerry Lewis get their laughs without cussing or sex jokes or racial humor. America liked that just fine.
But came the 60's, there was pushback. Lenny Bruce as a comic, followed eventually by George Carlin and Richard Pryor. "Dr. Strangelove" in 1964 made nuclear war "funny" and had a lot of sex jokes. In 1968, Mel Brooks' The Producers pushed a lot of envelopes -- sex(hetero and homosexual), bad taste.
But of course the 70's is when the lid on comedy REALLY came off. The young comedians of Second City and the writers of National Lampoon led the charge (with Monty Python in England), and individual comic minds gave us the uncomfortable comedy of Little Murders, Harold and Maude, and Where's Poppa?
With the aid of Richard Pryor as a writer, Mel Brooks gave us the humorously offensive Blazing Saddles(and then backed off to some gentle Borscht Belt comedy and eventually got run out of comedy Dodge by SNL.) Woody Allen's movies chose sex for the big jokes -- particularly in "Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex."
What was REALLY being defied with all these comedies was the power of the CHURCH upon American movie studios. A lot of people went to church and listened to what their elders told them. American moviemakers in the 40s and 50s didn't want to go against the Church.
Fast forward to today: it itsn't "the Church" cutting back on the content of movies, but the same idea is behind it: some things CANNOT be said, or shown , or advocated on the movie screens.
CONT
Its funny the extent to which it has sort of been a "bell curve" low in the 30s, 40s, 50s, then going UP in the 60s, 70's, 80s and even the 90's (though Jim Carrey and Will Ferrell gave comedy back to a new generation of Jerry Lewis-type kid fans.)
But not today. Congratulations. You have been taken "back to the future" of the 50's as far as movie content goes.