each including subfields with their own rules and pecking orders)
This acknowledgement of subfields such as the political, cultural, corporate, academic, legal, medical and religious raises an interesting point of the complexities and subtleties of various fields. A layman, as compared to an expert, requires a different kind of knowledge. Moreover, within the world of experts, it is interesting to see how there is a particular pecking order.
Bourdieu’s interpretation was that tastes were serving as strategic tools.
This is an interesting paragraph since it introduces a new idea of how taste can be utilised and almost weaponised (in how it perpetuates class structure). It is also interesting to see how "taste" has been shaped to fit a social mould and how it has morphed from a sign of financial background into a sign of social status.
he Web has made it far easier to listen to a song or watch a movie or buy a book, and this arguably leads to a corresponding drop in the pleasure of listening, watching, or reading.
I've observed this phenomenon even when it comes to online school or reading on an electronic device (instead of a hard copy). Students have been feeling demoralised recently since the immediate effects of work cannot be seen and thus do not seem as fruitful. I believe this dependence on immediate results is also because of the instant gratification we receive from spending our days on the internet where the world moves much faster.
Charles Darwin’s sexual selection meets Veblen’s conspicuous consumption.
Since sexual selection involves choosing a mate for the best reproductive success, it is interesting to consider how our modern perception of the "best mate" has shifted from the more primitive definition. Miller's theory of human culture arising through purposeful selection instead of as a by-product of evolution is compelling but not very well elucidated by the author of this paper.
I know more than half the people in this room have been molested in their lives
As an influential public figure, Chappelle owes a certain responsibility to his audience. Normalizing a life-altering experience like sexual abuse just because "it happens to everyone" is a very dangerous sentiment. Just because it's something that happens often doesn't mean it should be ignored, dismissed or belittled. It is very dangerous considering that his thinking is obviously influencing his audience (who couldn't stop laughing); his lack of knowledge about power structures is very damaging.
folks ostensibly making their personal tragedies everyone’s problems by using them to perpetrate career death and reputation homicide upon celebrities.
According to the Atlantic, something like 0.0086% of the world is "famous" of which a certain percentage includes celebrities. These individuals often live in protected bubbles, idealised by the masses. While cancel culture is definitely the wrong path (one that seeks to dismiss instead of teach) there is a need to "call out" famous people too. They’re placed under a microscope of their own volition and thus owe a certain responsibility to their audiences. A celebrity evoking anti-black or anti-LGBTQ sentiments in their followers is definitively in the wrong.
t’s an opportunity to punch up, making light of the ridiculous powers that hold us down, whether they be through tiny social expectations (ever seenSeinfeld?) or huge, systemic forces.
Comedy is tool traditionally used for attacking power structures; once the comedian starts targeting the downtrodden, it ceases to be satire and becomes a form of bullying. His jokes (about women, sexual abuse, the LGBTQ community, marriage being a prison, the idea that not making enough money equates to being a failure, etc.) didn't land well with me for this very reason.
here are absolutely no jokes either: the offence is the joke
I felt this way while watching Chappelle's special as well. I didn't find his material funny and it felt as if he was trying to generate shock value instead of producing truly "comedic" material. Of course, I can't decided for everyone, comedy is subjective but I do think it can be said that Chappelle ventured into certain territories which were not for him to joke about. Although the special is a comedic act, it ultimately works to reveal how Chappelle perceives the world.
Andfunnyenough,thesearepeoplewhothemselvesatonetimeoranotherhavemadesomeofthemostraunchy,inappropriatejokesinthenameofbeingfunny,arenow,allofasudden,“woke?”
This comment doesn’t account for a growing and changing world. Plenty of hurtful slurs are being erased from our vocabularies because communities are speaking up about the terrible consequences now. Considering that both Chapelle and the author of this article look unkindly upon the perpetrators of cancel culture, this comment is counterintuitive. Cancel culture poses a problem because it is process which seeks to dismiss instead of teach; if people are waking up to their previous shortcomings, who are we to criticize them for changing for the better?
Butoverall,Ifoundthespecialfunny,entertaining,andyes...veryedgy.
The word "edgy", along with the phrase "dark humour" is used to excuse offensive language and usage of slurs. However, it often works to reveal the user’s bigotry and tendency to "punch down", as it has in Chapelle's case.
“Yeahbut,I’mnotan****reither!”
Similarly to the way a non-black POC or white person would be wrong in using the n-word, Dave Chapelle is wrong is using the word "f**got". Recently, people have been supporting the idea that one cannot decide if something is "offensive" if it does not directly apply to them. Chapelle, who is most likely aware that black people are reclaiming the n-word, should understand the LGBTQ community’s disdain for those who use slurs to define them.