Hey Emmanuel! Thanks for your thoughts. Have you read this article about free speech? It sums up my feelings perfectly:

https://juliaserano.medium.com/free-speech-and-the-paradox-of-tolerance-e0547aefe538

The gist of it, or at least as it applies here/to what you said, is that I don't think Dave Chappelle should be jailed, or that he shouldn't be allowed to tour and be seen by a group of people who want to go out of their way to pay to see him. I'm saying on a massive platform that influences society (including the normalization or stigmatization of certain norms or behaviors or ways of being, including destigmatizing the existence of trans people and directly feeding perceptions that inform legislation over their bodies) such as Netflix, not everyone *deserves a platform*

There is a difference between cancellation and accountability, and the latter means that not everyone who has spewed hateful rhetoric (that has harmful consequences) *deserves* to continue to be able to dominate society from one of these very limited, very in-demand spots at the top of a highly lucrative platform like Netflix. Media influences society and vice versa--maintaining people in the limited group of those fortunate enough to be at the top who get to promulgate messages inciting hatred in a way that normalizes that, in turn normalizes that behavior in society.

Not to say it isn't already normal, hence him being given the special despite having said vile things like this literally all the time throughout his career, but the difference is that now, when there's a critical mass of people calling for accountability through essays like this and petitions and tweets and articles across the web, then accountability can actually be met, and the point is not to get him "cancelled" in the sense of never being able to work again or be on social media or have any fans or friends or to be in jail like Harvey Weinstein, but to say he shouldn't be occupying new space on Netflix anymore when there's plenty of amazing new talent that isn't actively causing harm.

Also I really disagree about the use of the word "bigot." "Moron," perhaps--but I am honestly not bothered by someone thinking that my point loses credibility on the basis of me pointing out how poorly fleshed out Chappelle's logic is and how unfunny he is. The point I want to make, and in fact the reason I maintain the utility in invoking the word "bigot," is that there's a difference between attacking people on the basis of something they can't help, like their race or gender, versus something they have done intentionally, like being a bigot.

Here's the dictionary definition of a bigot:

a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

Prejudice and antagonism is the point here, and why it doesn't qualify as a discrediting ad hominem attack. If I mocked Chappelle for his Blackness, or even if I just used an empty swear word and called him a twat or a fuckwit or a useless piece of shit, that would be ad hominem. We need to call out bigotry as it is, because it is not an insult; it is an indication of prejudice, and there's no reason in the spirit of political correctness or some fallacious sense of moral superiority that we should omit calling something exactly what it is. Labeling things often does have some utility--not for the sake of rigidity (I'm not saying Dave Chappelle is *only* a bigot, and I wouldn't expect any of my readers to take that away from this), but the overarching point is that his comedy is supremely oriented to his bigotry and the shock factor of it, and that's precisely why he no longer deserves a platform on a major network like Netflix.

Let me know what you think!