You would think that comedy would be the last bastion of free speech, but sadly nowadays that couldn't be further from the truth:
Seeing as how it's not political or otherwise breaking forum policy, I think it should be fineI watched and thought it very interesting and challenging as well.
Rather daring in the current PC environ.
In before the close...
Seeing as how it's not political or otherwise breaking forum policy, I think it should be fine
the onward march of Politically Correct Fascism and its effect on free speech everywhere.
I loved Nanette as a performance because I found it emotionally moving, but it stops being comedy and pretty much turns into a TED talk by about the ⅓ mark. I don't think I'd recommend it to anyone who just wants to laugh. It also requires your full attention and isn't something you will get much out of if you for example have it on in the background. Dave Chapelle by comparison will have me laughing from two rooms away while I'm cleaning the house or reorganizing my filing cabinet.I realized the reason I haven't seen this show is because I don't really enjoy Dave Chappelle. Never tickled my knickers, as it were.
That said, I'm reminded of a show I did really enjoy. Nanette, by Hannah Gadsby, is quite good. It's on Netflix. Heartfelt and very funny show about all sorts of things including her life as a lesbian.
Point is, I like it because the topics she speaks on she's actually lived. I probably wouldn't laugh very hard at Chappelle's stuff here.
I loved Nanette as a performance because I found it emotionally moving, but it stops being comedy and pretty much turns into a TED talk by about the ⅓ mark. I don't think I'd recommend it to anyone who just wants to laugh. It also requires your full attention and isn't something you will get much out of if you for example have it on in the background. Dave Chapelle by comparison will have me laughing from two rooms away while I'm cleaning the house or reorganizing my filing cabinet.
The stuff about Rotten Tomatoes is like a whole other issue, really, very much worth discussing.
Yeah, at first it was restricted to a small handful of approved critics who gave it a 0%, and then when it was finally opened to user reviews it received a whopping 99% positive reviews. Since then a few marginally positive reviews from approved critics have dribbled in, but apparently it's official score is still ridiculously low compared to the average Joe watching and reviewing.Is the show getting bombed on that platform?
Yeah, at first it was restricted to a small handful of approved critics who gave it a 0%, and then when it was finally opened to user reviews it received a whopping 99% positive reviews. Since then a few marginally positive reviews from approved critics have dribbled in, but apparently it's official score is still ridiculously low compared to the average Joe watching and reviewing.
I would say that enforcing the use of preferred gender pronouns through governmental force qualifies as the Government stepping in. Already a thing in Canada, and heading that way here.Interesting!
I don't trust the average Joe and I don't trust the approved critic either. The fight is amusing though.
Some more thoughts. When it comes to free speech, I think we're probably working as advertised because it's not like (I hope?) the government is stepping in and deciding what is and isn't acceptable speech and backing that up with force.
Comedian says something. Someone doesn't like it and speaks their mind. Folks speak their mind in return. Stuff gets sorted, hopefully, though it can uncomfortable.
That's OK, though.
I would say that enforcing the use of preferred gender pronouns through governmental force qualifies as the Government stepping in. Already a thing in Canada, and heading that way here.
That's the one.Are you talking about this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_Human_Rights_Act_and_the_Criminal_Code
That's the one.
Edit: scroll down to the Jordan Peterson section near the bottom of the page to understand what I mean.
The law amends the Canadian Human Rights Act by adding "gender identity or expression" as a prohibited ground of discrimination.[7]That makes it illegal to deny services, employment, accommodation and similar benefits to individuals based on their gender identity or gender expression to matters within federal jurisdiction, such as the federal government, federal services to the public, or a federally regulated industry.[8] A person who denies benefits because of the gender identity or gender expression of another person could be liable to provide monetary reimbursement.