Category: Uncategorized

Welcome to part two of our analysis of what Dave Chappelle gets wrong about trans people in comedy. We’re delving into the key points raised in the original article to understand its critiques from multiple perspectives.  It will be quite long.  Feel free to skip to the next article and video if you want just the conclusions.

First, a significant portion of the critique focuses on a specific joke Chappelle tells. The article claims that Chappelle blatantly misgenders Daphne and follows with, “As hard as it is to hear a joke like that, I’m telling you right now Daphne would have loved that joke.” Let’s look at the actual transcript for clarity:

Chappelle says: (Context—we’re talking about Daphne, who killed herself.) “I was very angry at her… She always said she identified as a woman. One day, she goes up to the roof of her building, jumps off, and kills herself. Clearly, only a man would do some gangster [__] like that. Hear me out—as hard as it is to hear a joke like that, I’m telling you right now Daphne would have loved that joke. That’s why she was my friend.”

What exactly is the issue with this joke?

First, it’s undeniably shocking. Chappelle’s style often uses shock value to make a point—that’s a defining aspect of his comedy. Here, however, the punchline involves misgendering Daphne in the context of her suicide. Supporters of transgender rights highlight that intentionally using the wrong pronouns is disrespectful because it disregards someone’s gender identity and requested pronouns.

The joke implies that Daphne’s action—jumping off a building—was masculine behavior. This frames a broader question Chappelle is exploring: Is there an inherent difference between trans and cisgender individuals? His comedy, in part, invites the audience to consider whether such distinctions are meaningful. He doesn’t offer a definitive answer, but he uses provocative humor to prompt reflection.

Now, is it acceptable to raise these questions using humor that involves misgendering? In everyday conversation, respecting pronouns is fundamental. However, comedy and art often challenge norms to make important points. Could Chappelle have made his point differently? Possibly. But removing the provocative nature of the joke might dilute its impact.

Next, the article states, “Trans people have expressed outrage at both Chappelle and Netflix for amplifying overtly transphobic and anti-scientific views about gender and trans identity.”

What do “anti-scientific” views mean in this context? Typically, it refers to denying the fluidity of gender identity and asserting that gender is solely determined by biological sex. Trans rights advocates argue that scientific understanding recognizes gender as more complex, involving both biology and personal identity.

The article does not present specific examples of transphobic rhetoric from Chappelle—it simply notes the outrage. While Netflix’s co-CEO, Ted Sarandos, initially defended the special by saying it wouldn’t cause real-world harm, he later retracted the statement. The critique conflates Sarandos’s position with Chappelle’s views, which isn’t entirely fair. Chappelle’s issues with Netflix are well-documented, so using Sarandos’s comments to criticize Chappelle’s intent is problematic.

The article further claims, “There’s no getting around the reality that transphobic rhetoric like Chappelle’s absolutely contributes to real-life harm.” However, there are logical gaps here:

1. The assumption that Chappelle’s rhetoric is transphobic remains unsubstantiated. The jokes may be offensive to some, but intent matters in determining whether something is phobic.
2. The assertion that his jokes cause harm lacks supporting evidence or a clear causal link.

Finally, the claim that Chappelle views trans people’s pain as an acceptable trade-off is based on inference rather than direct statements from him. The analysis here draws conclusions about Chappelle’s beliefs without adequate proof.

A deeper, more compassionate approach to this debate would benefit from clear definitions of harmful rhetoric, examples of respectful alternatives, and a dialogue about balancing free expression with sensitivity. Asking hard questions requires space to express ideas imperfectly before refining them into respectful discourse. While the need for kindness and respect is vital, the article falls short of clarifying exactly what rhetoric must change and why. Constructive engagement, rather than vague outrage, would better serve the discussion.

Here, the deeper level of listening—compassionate listening—involves trying to identify what the underlying needs are. If we can start discussing what these needs truly represent, we may find pathways to resolve the conflicts at hand.

I think, in the end, we’ll need to compile a list of all the questions and needs that we do understand, as well as those we do not, along with any unanswered questions that require further exploration. Perhaps someone will be able to help answer these questions.

Romano claims that Chappelle wants to turn classes of oppression into a zero-sum game. The concept of a zero-sum game is one in which one side gains only at the expense of another’s loss. In this context, it’s argued that Chappelle pits Black rights against trans rights, suggesting that supporting trans rights comes at the cost of Black rights, with an apparent implication that trans rights are gaining while Black rights are in decline.

However, the argument that identity works this way is flawed. Identity is not a competition; individual rights are not diminished by recognizing the rights of others. Even if one could question some of Chappelle’s framing, his actual position is more nuanced. He has stated, and I paraphrase, that he does not oppose trans people but rather envies their progress. He asks, with curiosity, how the Black community could emulate the gains made by the trans community.

This framing is far from a zero-sum perspective. If anything, it’s an aspiration for collective uplift, not a desire to diminish one group to elevate another.

Romano’s critique further claims that Chappelle’s hypocrisy is evident in his discussions about queer and trans individuals benefiting from white privilege. Hypocrisy implies advocating for a principle while failing to uphold it personally. However, nothing in Chappelle’s discourse suggests that he is guilty of such behavior. This accusation appears more as a rhetorical device to undermine credibility rather than a substantiated logical point.

It is fair to note, and in this case Romano does make a good point –  that Chappelle frequently discusses white privilege in relation to queer and trans individuals while not adequately acknowledging Black queer and trans voices. There is statistical data indicating that trans issues disproportionately affect Black Americans. In this sense, his omission does weaken his analysis, although it does not carry malicious intent.

Romano continues, accusing Chappelle of reducing the equality movement among sexual and gender minorities to “shrill window dressing.” The language here is hyperbolic. Chappelle does question certain aspects of gender politics, particularly their prominence in white progressive spaces, but he does not outright deny the validity of trans rights. His core argument is about maintaining focus on systemic racism affecting Black communities.

The critique of Chappelle’s praise for Daphne Dorman also misses the mark. Romano claims that Chappelle only accepted Dorman on his terms. However, the discussion here hinges on the multiple meanings of the word “accept.” Chappelle’s acceptance was one of human connection—believing in her experience—rather than a philosophical agreement about pronoun usage. This distinction matters, as it reflects differing ways of navigating personal relationships and social identity.

Language and free speech, topics central to “cancel culture,” represent genuine needs for clarity and freedom of expression. The insistence on patience and respect when grappling with complex issues of identity is critical. Reactionary politics are often criticized pejoratively, but by definition, they are responses to cultural shifts rather than visionary frameworks. The use of “reactionary” to describe Chappelle’s material frames his work negatively without exploring its full intent.

True dialogue requires avoiding disrespect, demands, and aggression. These destroy relationships and preclude connection. In addressing societal divides, respecting the importance of every person’s expressed needs—whether or not they are fully understood—remains paramount. The ultimate goal should be reconciliation grounded in love, respect, and deeper understanding.

(Well this writing is really hard work – i am going to leave the rest as more a less a transcript of my video as I don’t have the time or energy to do a better job.  Hope you don’t mind…)

“Chappelle makes it clear that he needs Dorman to exist on his terms, not hers—not as a trans woman with autonomy, but as a trans woman who’s proven she deserves autonomy by way of having a chill, laid-back sense of humor. Furthermore, in repeatedly reducing Dorman’s existence to her body parts and her relationship to them, and the language surrounding them, Chappelle dehumanizes her and dehumanizes other trans people.”

Okay, terrible, bad, bad, bad. But logically, what’s going on here? The first thing is that Chappelle makes it clear that he needs Dorman to exist on his terms, not hers. This is based on the mistake in the word “accept.” He points out that he accepted her explicitly because she didn’t say anything about pronouns that would make him feel like he was about to be in trouble for saying something wrong, implying that he would not accept her as a person if she did say anything about pronouns or make him feel like he was in trouble for saying something wrong. But that is not at all what he says. Chappelle does not make it clear that Dorman needs to exist on his terms, not hers. He makes it clear that he loves her because she connected with him in a way that made him respect her.

“Furthermore, in repeatedly reducing Dorman’s existence to her body parts and her relationship to them, and the language surrounding them, Chappelle dehumanizes her and dehumanizes other trans people.”  Did you actually watch this Closer? Did you actually read the transcript? It doesn’t even make sense. “He reduces her to her body parts”—he barely talks about her body parts. Let’s see what he says.

Now I’ve lost where we are because I was looking for that other thing. By the way, there is one really shocking thing that he says in this. I looked through the transcript and tried to find anything that I thought was in bad taste, and it was his idea for a movie called “Space Jews.” It’s really funny, but it’s disrespectful to Jewish people, not to trans people. If the Jews started complaining, I would say that there was something worth listening to here. But he treats trans people with much more respect.

“Okay, moving on. One of the coolest people I ever met was a transgender woman. This was not a man that I knew who became a woman. This woman was trans when I met her. She lived in San Francisco. Dorman is the name—it’s written “Dwan” here, but I’m sure it’s not. I’m pretty sure it’s Dorman. Anyway, she would be there, a white trans woman, laughing loud and hard at everything I said, especially the trans jokes. Very puzzling, because she was obviously trans. It turns out she dreamed of being a comedian, and I was her hero. It was very moving. We became fast friends. Then, he invited her to do a show with him. He calls up, “Hey, Dey, this is Dave Chappelle. I’m in San Francisco,” and she starts saying a bunch of wild stuff. I was like, “Relax, now. I don’t want any pussy. I’m just calling ’cause I’m doing a show and I need an opening act. I was wondering if you’d open the show.” She was like, “[_] yeah.”

We’re not talking about her body parts. I mean, there was a little comment of pussy, but in the context of “that’s not what I’m looking for, I’m interested in you as a comedian.” He says here, “She was dressed to the nines.” I mean, I’m transphobic and even I was like, “You looked nice.” Not that when he says “I’m transphobic,” what he means is that he feels uncomfortable around trans people, not that he’s against them. Later on, she tries to hug him, and he pushes her away because he’s like, “This is awkward.” Phobic in the sense of a fear, not of anger—fear, an awkwardness. This just doesn’t make him comfortable. Then he talks about the way she heard comedy, how bad it was, and then how she came back and was actually really funny.

There is some comedy that she made about her body parts, but that was because of the audience making comments, and she managed to reduce the tension with a joke about it. He’s not talking about their body parts. There is no reality here; this is just going away from the truth to make something up in order to say that Chappelle did something bad.

Okay, can I be compassionate here? It’s a bit hard. You know, when you’re triggered, it’s hard to be compassionate. This triggers me because this is really disrespectful, offensive rhetoric. This is hurting people almost on purpose—lying about them. Maybe it’s not on purpose. Maybe there’s something that goes on in the mind that starts to twist the facts into your argument because you’re upset. And this is actually how people’s minds work. They’re not very logical. We’re actually not very good at logic. Much better at emotion and creative expression than we are at logic—unless we are able to be very, very calm and rational, and that’s not always a good thing, but it’s useful to be able to do it when we need to.

Okay, so what are the needs here? There’s a need to be treated with respect as a person, as a trans woman or trans man, with autonomy, without having to be something, without having to have a particular sense of humor, particular way of being, and also to treat them as people—not to dehumanize them and talk about their body parts as the important part of them. And so they’re wanting to be treated as people. It’s a request for trans people to be treated as people respectfully. This is a good, deserved request. It’s important to be treated respectfully as people.

“Dorman’s fate—she died by suicide shortly after the release of “Sticks and Stones” in 2019—directly undermines Chappelle’s logic because Dorman was trans. She was at an extremely high risk of dying by suicide or transphobic violence. Any way you look at it, trans people are among the most vulnerable populations in society. Goes on with all of this proof that trans people are vulnerable: 50% of trans people will experience sexual assault or abuse, 54% experience intimate partner violence, and trans people of color are six times more likely to experience police brutality than whites as gendered people.”

 Okay, blah, blah, blah… This is proof that it’s important to look after trans people because they’re very vulnerable, and she was at a high risk of dying by suicide or transphobic violence.

Anyway, okay, 

“this is what Chappelle’s critics mean when they discuss the real-world impact of Chappelle’s transphobia. His comedy, which involves continually insisting against science that gender is always tied to biology, isn’t just reactionary semantics; it’s dangerous rhetoric that has been shown in study after study to directly impact the levels of anti-trans violence and societal prejudice that trans people already face daily.”

There is an implication that maybe his comedy actually led to suicide because his rhetoric is so bad.

Wow, that’s terrible. 

Okay, logically, there are a lot of issues here, but I’m going to start by looking at what Dave Chappelle actually says about this topic. 

“When “Sticks and Stones” came out, a lot of people in the trans people community were furious with me, and apparently they dragged me on Twitter. I don’t give a [expletive] because Twitter’s not a real place. And the hardest thing for a person to do is to go against their tribe if they disagree with their tribe, but Daphne Dorman did that for me. She wrote a tweet that was very beautiful, and what she said was, and it is almost exactly what she said, “Punching down on someone requires you to think less of them, and I know him and he doesn’t punch up, he doesn’t punch down, he punches lines, and he is a master at his craft.” That’s what she said. Beautiful tweet, beautiful friend. It took a lot of heart to defend me like that.

When she did that, the trans community dragged that [expletive] all over Twitter for days. They were going in on her. She was holding her own because she’s funny, but six days after that wonderful night I described to you, my friend Dey killed herself. Oh yeah, this is a true story. My heart was broken. It wasn’t the jokes. I don’t know if it was them dragging her, or I don’t know what was going on in her life, but I bet dragging her didn’t help. I was very angry at them.”

Chappelle’s implying that the trans community’s argumentative rhetoric—attacking Chappelle and then attacking Dorman because she was defending Chappelle—may be what led to her suicide. He’s got some evidence. It’s not clear evidence, but there was something going on, and it wasn’t Chappelle’s rhetoric hurting her. It was her trying to defend Chappelle and standing in the way of the aggressive rhetoric of the trans community. That seemed to be what was going on wrong at the time, that seems actually to have more substance to it than what Aja is saying. Aja is saying that there was some rhetoric that maybe made things worse for her. The evidence is not that. The evidence is the other way around: that the rhetoric from the trans people is what was causing the problem. So Aja is just ignoring an important point that is actually made in this transcript.

So again I ask, have you actually read this or seen the show? Do you actually know what Chappelle is saying? If so, are you consciously ignoring his points, or are you forgetting them, or did you actually not know that he said these things? Either way, there’s something not quite right here.

Okay, now let’s keep going.. There are some accurate facts about how transphobic people have problems. They are vulnerable—not transphobic people, but trans people are vulnerable. 

“This is what Chappelle’s critics mean when they discuss the real-world impact of Chappelle’s transphobia.”

We have a whole series of things. Trans people are vulnerable, but how does Chappelle’s transphobia make that worse? It’s not clarified. Exactly what’s meant by his transphobia isn’t clarified either.

“His comedy, which involves continually insisting that gender is always tied to biology, isn’t just reactionary semantics; it’s dangerous rhetoric that’s been shown in study after study to directly impact the levels of trans violence and societal prejudice that trans people already face daily.”

 So, he insists against science that gender is always tied to biology. But he doesn’t insist that gender is always tied to biology; he says that gender is to some extent tied to biology. Now, there is a difference between a born woman (cisgender woman) and a transgender woman. The way he points that out is through sports. He says, “Is it fair that someone like Caitlyn Jenner, who used to be Bruce Jenner, was voted Woman of the Year after being a woman for only one year?” He then questions, “Does this count?” and wonders if we would get angry if someone like Eminem were named “Black Man of the Year.”

He says, “Gender is a fact. Every human being in this room, every human being on Earth, had to pass through the legs of a woman to be on Earth. That’s a fact.” Now, I’m not saying that trans women aren’t women. I’m just saying that those who grew up biologically male have differences, like not being able to give birth or having different hormone levels.

So, he’s pointing out that there’s a difference. Transgender women can’t have babies, and they grow up with certain different hormones that give them an advantage in sports. Are they really women? I don’t know, but it’s unfair to put them in women’s sports competitions. There should be a distinction in that case. In some areas, distinctions are necessary.

He’s not saying that gender is always tied to biology; he’s saying that there is some difference. So is there something anti-science here? Would scientists say that Caitlyn Jenner didn’t have a period or that there’s no distinction? Think about it—can you claim that anything here is against science?

As I understand it, science shows that there are overlapping bell curves for male and female bodies. Your psychological differences can be more masculine or feminine, and women are generally on one side, men on the other. However, there’s overlap. The extremes are defined, and the overlap shows that biology affects us, but so does something else. There’s a flexible relationship between biology and psychology. The science doesn’t claim there’s no relationship between physical gender and psychological gender; it shows that the relationship is flexible, not exact.

So, it’s also anti-science to say that gender is purely psychological and that there is no difference. There is a difference, but there are also some similarities. The question should be which things are different and which things are the same.

“His comedy involves continually insisting that gender is always tied to biology,” but that’s not accurate. He claims there’s a difference, and if there’s a problem with that, then you’re actually being anti-science because science says there is a difference. There are overlaps, some differences, and some similarities.

“It isn’t just reactionary semantics; it’s dangerous rhetoric that’s been shown in study after study to directly impact the levels of anti-trans violence.” 

But it’s unclear which rhetoric this refers to. When we look at Chappelle’s rhetoric, we don’t see it leading to violence. I clicked on a study that talked about anti-trans violence but didn’t link rhetoric to violence. So, it’s dubious to make the claim that rhetoric creates violence when the study doesn’t support it.

The study mentioned issues like transgender passing and hate crimes in the San Francisco Bay Area, but it didn’t discuss how rhetoric causes violence. The claim that rhetoric is dangerous is not substantiated. If you want to make that point, do it properly.

Some people would like respectful rhetoric that doesn’t disrespect people’s gender choices, similar to what we’ve talked about. But Chappelle doesn’t treat Dorman as though she’s a comedian first and a trans woman second. That claim is completely false. Chappelle doesn’t say that all trans people should have the attitude of comedians like Dorman. He simply likes her attitude and connects with her.

Chappelle views comedians as their own tribe. He claims Dorman was part of his tribe, not the trans community. He says she was a comedian in her soul, and he felt connected to her. That’s all. He likes her style, but he doesn’t say everyone should behave like that.

“Chappelle isn’t just talking about comedy as a medium—he’s talking about comedy as a worldview. Comedy is a subculture with its own rules. One rule is that comedians should always be able to take a joke. Historically, this principle has led to the privileging of the comedian’s right to make rude or offensive jokes. The logic is that if a comedian can take a joke, the audience should be less sensitive. Some recent cultural conversations about comedy and free speech center on the idea that comedians should be able to discomfort their audiences, whether for laughs or for thought. If you can’t handle a joke, that’s your problem, not the joke maker’s.”

“Dorman was great at taking offensive jokes. When an audience member interrupted one of her shows with a transphobic question, she shot back with a joke about her own anatomy. Chappelle admires this kind of response, not anger or protest. He likes humor as deflection. But he doesn’t say everyone should behave that way.”

Chappelle doesn’t demand that all trans people be able to take a joke without getting offended. He simply likes it when people can handle jokes with humor, not anger. His point is that when you’re confronted with transphobia, a deflection with good humor works better than anger or protest.

Chappelle doesn’t say all trans people should be like Dorman. He likes Dorman’s style. His view is that comedy is a worldview, not a set of demands. It’s about how comedians connect with others. It’s not about requiring everyone to follow the same approach. If you want a respectful relationship with someone, you have to treat them respectfully. Arguing, shouting, and canceling people is disrespectful and won’t build a respectful relationship.

“This rule applies best in the comedy world, but not in the lived experiences of everyday people. Chappelle seems to expect all trans people to accept the rules of his comedy subculture. This request is baffling because most people aren’t comedians and aren’t accustomed to jokes meant to hurt them.”

“Chappelle’s idea that trans people should prove they can take a joke before earning respect is problematic. It’s akin to a journalist demanding trans people prove they can use AP style before they can discuss their own gender identity.”

While the example is a bit unusual, it highlights a point: the demand to conform to someone else’s standards before gaining respect is problematic. Respect should be given freely and without demands. If we want respect, we need to learn to give it.

So, I’m claiming he never said anything like this. Let’s read a little bit.

“she stunk when she was doing comedy. The crowd was happy to see me, I was killing it, but what impressed me was that any other comedian I’ve ever seen, if they had bombed as badly as she did, would have snuck out the back of the theater and gone home to cry or something. But she didn’t do that. Not only did she not leave, she found a seat right up front. And you know, when a new comedian watches an experienced comedian in comedy, we call this “taking class.” And this B—she took my whole class. She sat there and was laughing as hard as she always laughs, as if nothing bad had happened to her. And I saw her show, something bad had happened to her. She was drunk, so she starts talking to me while I’m on stage, but the way a person would talk to a television when they were alone, she was talking to me like that. That didn’t bother me because I knew her, but the crowd didn’t like that at all because she sucked. And the guy in the back of the room stood up, and D’s hair was dyed blonde at the time, and the guy screamed out. His energy felt wild as [ __ ] and he said, “Hey Daphne.” Everybody got tense. We didn’t know who was a heckler or an active shooter. He said, “Does the carpet match the drapes?” It was [ __ ] up. The whole crowd groaned because it was so mean, everyone groaned except for D, who kind of laughed, which was weird. She didn’t even look all the way back; she said, “Sir, I don’t have carpets, I have hardwood floors.” Just like that, man. When she said that [ __ ] it blew the roof off the place. It cut through all the tension with that one joke she’d made up after 45 minutes of a stinker of a show. After that, she could do no wrong. I kept on rocking, and she kept on talking to me, and the show became something cooler. It became a conversation between a black man and a white trans woman. We started getting to the bottom of all those questions that you think you’d be afraid to ask. I was just asking them, and she was answering them. And her answers were funny as [ __ ]. The crowd was falling out of their chairs. At the end of the show, I said, “Well, D,” I said, “Well, that was fun.” I go, “I love you to death, but I have no [ __ ] idea what you’re talking about.” The whole crowd laughed except for D. She looked at me like I’m not her friend anymore, like I’m something bigger than me, like I’m the whole world in a guy. She said, “I don’t need you to understand me.” I said, “What?” She said, “I just need you to believe.” Just like that. She goes, “I’m having a human experience.” And when she said it, the whole crowd gasped. I gave the “Fight Club” look and said, “I believe you, B.” Because she didn’t say anything about pronouns. She didn’t say anything about me being in trouble. She just said, “Believe I’m a person, and I’m going through it.” I said, “I believe you because it takes one to know one.” So, there was compassion there, okay? I told the crowd, “Goodnight,” and they started going crazy. Before the applause got too loud, Gendo said, “Don’t forget my opening act, Daphne.” The crowd stood up. I looked at her, tears came out of her eyes, and she couldn’t believe it was happening. I couldn’t believe it was happening because her show stunk, but it was a great night. I remember the late great Paul Mooney was there, a bunch of famous comics were there.” 

So, so far, there’s no comment that everybody should be like Daphne, no. 

“We all went backstage, drinking, talking, laughing, and B stole the room. She had everyone cracking up, spinning the arm, telling us crazy stories about [ __ ] she’d been into, ……….. Oh my God, I said, “Oh my God, she’s funny.” I pulled her aside and said, “You’re hilarious. I didn’t know that when you were on stage you were doing something wrong, but I can help you.” I said, “Anytime I’m in San Francisco, why don’t you open the show for me, and I’ll just try and give you some pointers and see if you can work this thing out.” She said, “Are you serious?” I said, “Yeah.” And she grabbed me real tight, H me, squeezed me, and I pushed her off violently because I’m transphobic. I said, “Boundaries bitch”

okay, cool. “Sticks and Stones came out” We read this before. “Trans—she was dragged by the trans community over Twitter.” She was, and then she kills herself. And then he says, “I was angry with her. I felt like D and E lied to me. She always said she identified as a woman, and she jumps and kills herself. Clearly only a man would do some gangster [ __ ] like that.”

Okay, we’ve done this one before. “Hear me out, as hard as it is to hear a joke like that, I’m telling you right now, D would have L’d that joke. That’s why she was my friend”, okay? Cool. This is the bit where he’s saying that everybody should be like Daphne. I don’t hear it.

Then he talks about how he found out she has a daughter and he started a trust fund for the daughter, and “I don’t know what the trans community did for her, but I don’t care because I feel like she wasn’t their tribe, she was mine. She was a comedian in her soul. The daughter is very young. I hope to be alive when she turns 21 because I’m going to give her this money myself, and by then, I’ll be ready to have the conversation that I’m not ready to have today. But I’ll tell that little girl, ‘Young lady, I knew your father, and he was a wonderful woman.’ “ Another case of misgendering, but necessary in context. He says “empathy is not gay, empathy is not black, empathy is bisexual. It must go both ways. It must, must go both ways.”

Then a couple of things at the end about Dababy and Kevin Hart, which I don’t even know the context of and I don’t care because they’re not relevant to what we’re talking about today.

He doesn’t say, in order to get respect, you have to behave like Daphne. It’s not there, okay?

Next: 

“There’s another rule that comedy holds just as dear—the one about never punching down. Punching down refers to humor that targets vulnerable groups of people who don’t hold much power in society. It exists in opposition to the kind of punch up that aims to critique people and institutions with power. On stage, punching down is generally considered a huge no—the kind of thing that can immediately alienate an audience if you’re not doing it to make a deeper point. Chappelle talks about this concept in “The Closer,” asking the larger LGBTQIA community not to punch down on his people using Kevin Hart and DaBaby as examples. “

He talks about how other people keep claiming that he punches down on people, but he doesn’t think it’s true. He thinks it’s taken out of context, and it’s one line that somebody came up with at one stage earlier in his career when he was actually being a lot more disrespectful in his use of language, not understanding the right ways to say things. He admits that. But then he’s saying people keep saying he’s punching down on people, but it’s not true. Have they actually heard what he’s saying?

So he claims that he’s not punching down.

“Chappelle’s deeper point seems to return again and again to the idea that trans people are too sensitive, and that this sensitivity is somehow bolstered by white fragility. He seems to feel that his prioritization of the pain of Black communities over those of trans communities—as if again, they are entirely separate—justifies an evening devoted to homophobic and transphobic jokes.”

Okay, you’re claiming that he’s punching down because he’s making jokes about…he’s making homophobic and transphobic jokes, but he’s not making homophobic and transphobic jokes. This is a claim that is not justified. He’s making jokes about his experiences with homosexual people and transsexual people, about the relationship difficulty he has with them. He’s not saying terrible things about them, ever.

And then 

“Chappelle, of all people, should know better. He’s hyper-aware as a comedian who frequently uses humor to make points about racial and social justice that comedy impacts the real world. In fact, in 2005, he completely killed his own hit comedy show, “The Chappelle Show,” because of one joke that made him realize, according to an interview at the time, that rather than critiquing racist comedy, he might be reinforcing racist stereotypes of a white audience who were enjoying the joke ironically. So he knows that you have to be sensitive with the jokes you use.”

Apparently, he’s using jokes that are insensitive. It’s not clear which jokes they are, because most of your claims above about what has been said are actually false. So we can’t really understand which jokes are problematic or why they are.

“At the very least, then, Chappelle should know that there’s a possibility his jokes about trans people could be taken the wrong way and used to hurt trans people. There’s even an echo of the 2005 moment in the new special when Chappelle has to stop and gently reprimand an audience member who starts to applaud a transphobic law, as Vulture’s Craig J. Jenkins puts it, “You talk enough, you’ll draw [Music].” Yes, so clearly Chappelle is actually trying to be positive with the trans people and not support transphobic laws, and not allow his audience to support him. He should recognize his possibility for harm.”

Okay, yes, so compassionately what’s going on here? There’s a request to be more sensitive in the jokes—not make hurtful jokes about trans people. And this, I guess, is a fair request. It’s just that it’s not clear exactly what would be okay and what would not be okay, and how one could navigate this territory. As most of the actual detailed critique is not correct, we can’t really understand exactly what it would take to do inoffensive comedy about the topic. Perhaps the idea is that he should not talk about trans people at all, but that would be very much against the other side’s needs for open speech, freedom of speech, and being able to deal with social issues and raise them.

“Rather than acknowledging the possibility and its potential for harm, Chappelle not only justifies his comedy using white privilege, which is inaccurate, but he also goes a step further. He suggests that being hurt is good for trans and non-binary people. When he says, “As hard as it is to hear a joke like that,” and then defends it, he’s telling the audience that he knows the joke is painful, hurtful, and transphobic, but that it’s somehow productive for trans people to be confronted by it. This is as though trans people aren’t already confronted with gender policing in every other moment of their lives.”

So, is this joke painful, hurtful, and transphobic? And does he admit that it’s painful? Well, I’m going to try and answer that, even though I already have my own answer.

He says, “Only a man would do some gangster [__] like that. Hear me out, as hard as it is to hear a joke like that, I’m telling you right now, D would have loved that joke.”

Is it painful? Yes, because it talks about death in a sensitive context. Is it hurtful? I don’t think so. Chappelle isn’t claiming that only a man would behave that way; he’s asking a question. It seems to him that only men would act like that, but he’s not presenting it as an absolute truth. So, is it hurtful? I don’t believe it is. If someone wants to explain why it’s hurtful, then maybe we can continue the discussion in a deeper, more compassionate way.

Is it transphobic? No, it’s about trans issues. He’s admitting that it’s painful but not that it’s hurtful or transphobic. If someone wants to argue further, I’m happy to discuss it. We could look at the issue in more depth and try to resolve it.

Regarding the idea that it’s somehow productive for trans people to be confronted by this joke, no, he’s not claiming that. That’s your interpretation. When people are upset, they often read more into what’s being said than what is actually said.

As for Chappelle’s point about trans people being confronted with transphobia on stage, he’s talking about the discomfort people feel around trans people, not promoting transphobia. He’s not saying that it’s okay to objectify or degrade transgender people, but rather addressing the issue of discomfort around them.

Chappelle’s idea that trans people can be good-humored about others’ continual objectification and degrading of their identity is not about tolerating disrespect. It’s about having a respectful conversation where both sides treat each other with respect, stay good-humored, and don’t objectify or degrade each other.

I didn’t find exactly what Chappelle said, and I’m not giving a perfect defense of it because I’m tired. But let’s get to the end of this article, and we can revisit the discussion in more depth later.

“This isn’t about equality. Chappelle, who has spent his career commenting on racism and injustice through humor, should know that trans people shouldn’t just have to “live with it” or “get over it” when faced with dehumanizing rhetoric. The man who speaks about the fear Black Americans experience daily should understand that telling trans people to accept and embrace transphobic rhetoric isn’t tolerance or the love and good humor he’s known for.”

The critique of Chappelle is claiming things that aren’t true and missing key points. What’s needed is a more respectful discussion on both sides, so we can really address the needs and issues. We should be able to engage with Chappelle’s questions in a respectful way, and if we want him to speak more respectfully, we can express that to him. But as it stands, the critique is inaccurate. The only things that are true are minor mistakes that really aren’t worth getting upset about.

Chappelle is just trying to make a point, and some people find it offensive. If we can clarify why it’s offensive and figure out what would make his rhetoric more respectful, that would be helpful. I’ll follow up with more discussion about how we can create the respect for trans people that’s being asked for. If you disagree, I invite you to join me in an interview, and we can have a serious conversation about this.

To unite science and spirituality would be a wonderful thing — if we could have an approach to spirituality that truly was based in deep understanding, and therefore we can be guided in the best and deepest possible ways of practicing our spirituality, and in understanding about the spiritual worlds. Imagine if instead of a plethora of unconnected gurus each teaching their own things we had united thought where each was developing on the work of the other, and building a more and more cohesive and effective system of understanding and practice of spirituality. Imagine the power and effectiveness of spiritual healing, and other spiritual technologies when dealt with in such a rational, effective way. You can imagine in the same way that we had a flourishing development of the physical quality of life under the development of rationality and the physical sciences we would have a flourishing of the inner life through the development of the inner, subtle sciences.

The difficulty is how can we do this? How is it possible to study in a scientific way such subtle things as spirituality and subtle energies? Although this seems at first glance to be near impossible — how can we even measure such extremely subjective qualities such as states of consciousness, and vital force? With a deeper look we can see that although we need to use very different methodologies, the basic principles of science can still be applied.

The Principles of Science

Science is (mistakenly) often seen as at its core about laboratory equipment and experiments, but this is only one way of doing science — a part of the field. Science is the careful pursuit of knowledge and understanding, and it at its heart consists of a few simple steps that people have been doing for thousands if not millions of years. 

The first step is observation — we see things happening in the world for example we notice that things fall down to the earth. If i drop a rock or an apple or a feather it falls down. These are observations. The more observations I make that get similar results the more it seems to tell me something, and that leads me to the second step — Hypothesis — hypothesis is the development of theories, of ideas about why things do what they do. What is the invisible action behind what we can observe. For example — why do things fall down? Is it because there is a love affair between the apple and the earth? Is it because there are invisible rays pulling things together? Is it because there are a whole lot of little fairy like creatures whose job it is to make sure the apple doesn’t fly away? You can come up with all kinds of theories, and we should and do come up with a great variety of theories some of them reasonable, some of them seem kind of crazy, but at this point in the process we really have no way of knowing which theory to listen to, which one to believe in.

The next step is experiment — can we design experiments that test our theories? Can we design ways of looking carefully at these theories and seeing how likely they are to be correct. It is worth noting here that the focus in testing theories is not on proving them true, but on proving them false. It is very difficult to prove anything to be true. Edward de Bono says “Truth is only a lack of imagination”. It is not really possible to even prove the existence of the tree outside your window, that everyone considers absolute fact, so what we look for is edges that can be tested — areas where there is the possibility to show a theory to be invalid, or to reinforce the theory by giving yet another example that seems to fit the theory. 

It is worth noting here a few points about our choice of theory to explore. Firstly we try to choose the theory that most simply explains all the observable facts in the simplest possible way. A theory that says that apples fall down for a different reason to feathers is awkward and complicated to one that simply says all things fall down due to one key principle — gravity. And this is at its essence why gravity is an accepted fact in the modern world. We also try to choose theories that we have some ability to test. The theory that things fall down because God tells them to has great explaining power, but as it is so difficult to test, that theory is generally left aside as not within scientific thinking. This is not to say that science says it is wrong, just that it we do not and cannot know at this point. There is always the possibility that our methods and understanding will develop and we will be able to come to a point of being able to consider this theory. So we are left with some theories that seem most likely and most productive to explore. We explore these and gradually narrow down our options until we are reasonably sure of one theory or other. After observation, hypothesis and experiment we repeat the process with more observations, more hypotheses and more experiments and move forward one step at a time in our clarity and certainty. 

Spiritual Science Methodology

Now this basic approach is the universal approach of all science whether physics, or chemistry, psychology or sociology, but you can see that the methods differ extremely between the “hard” sciences like physics and the “soft” sciences like Sociology. Spiritual science is even more subtle and “soft” than the so called “soft sciences”, and so it requires even subtler methods of enquiry. The main differences lie in the different types of measurement that are possible. A physicist may be able to measure the velocity of a particle with their advanced equipment. A psychologist may be able to observe patterns in people’s experience through controlled situations (often involving rats!), or questionnaires. The subtle spiritual sciences require us to observe our own inner experience and how that is affected by different stimuli, and to compare that with other people’s experiences. A possible objection here is that our inner experience is subjective and that this means it cannot be studied — now of course it is much more difficult to make measurements in a subjective study than in an objective study, but this doesn’t mean it cannot be done. Let us explore a few of the methods that have been used, are being used and could be used in the future to study these subjective, spiritual experiences.

Homeopathic Provings

Homeopathy, despite its reputation as a “pseudo-science” very strictly follows this basic scientific approach, and though they have little understanding of the mechanisms behind the effects of the remedies, they have a very simple scientific methodology that can be applied not just in the field of homeopathics, but can also be extended to explore other spiritual and subtle energy technologies including spiritual practices, meditations and other healing methods. Truly with some of these it may be difficult to apply the “double blind” methodology, and yet still some observations can be made.

The way a homeopathic proving is done is that a homeopathic remedy is prepared from a particular substance and then put into a series of bottles labeled with code numbers. There are also a series of bottles with plain water — placebos as a control to be able to see the difference between the placebo effect and the homeopathic remedy. (For those who claim that homeopathy is just the placebo effect, this does not explain the differences noted between the remedies and the controls.) The person who has prepared the bottles then provides them to a homeopath who will supervise the trial, and they take no further part in the trial. Those involved in the trial have no way of knowing which bottles contain placebos, which contain the remedy, and they also do not even know what remedy they are testing.

A group of people then each take a dose of the remedy and observe the results in themselves. First they observe their current state of being, any emotional or physical issues, and then after taking the remedy observe any changes. This observation is done in great depth and for some time to try to get as much information as possible. At the end of the trial it is revealed which bottles contained placebo and the different experiences are tabulated. Any experiences that are common to the placebo and the remedy are discarded as not relevant, and experiences that are common to those taking only the remedy are treated as important results that demonstrate the effect of the remedy. 

It is nice to be able to do such a sofisticated double blind test, but sometimes we do not have the time or resources to do such a test, or it is difficult to create a protocol for the particular thing you are studying. For example it would be very interesting to observe the results of practicing a particular meditation with a particular mantra, but it is hard to imagine doing this experiment without people knowing which mantra they are using. It is still worth doing the experiment, there are still observations that can be made. Only it must be remembered to put the observations in context. When an experiment has been done with a large number of people in a double blind test, the results are much more certain than a test with only a few people and they were aware of exactly what they are testing. Every observation is valid — it is important to observe and use all information available to us even if it is not entirely clear or certain — all the more in a field such as spiritual science where we are plagued with a lack of clear data.

Self Observation

Observing the effects on ourselves is one of the most important and core practices of spiritual science, and it can and should be done by anyone who is interested in spirituality even if it is just for exploring and finding their own spiritual path and what works for them, and it is also the method that all the great spiritual masters have used to create effective spiritual practices. Any meditation practice you have learnt, or any yoga exercise, qigong, etc. was most likely developed in this way by someone observing the effect on themselves and developing methods that therefore are good for others. When buddha sat under the bodhi tree he observed himself and observed the result of his practices on himself. He then taught others based on that experience. The same with most spiritual teachers that you have heard of — at essence these spiritual masters are spiritual scientists exploring the power of their practices on consciousness. The only thing lacking from a true expression of spiritual science is the collaboration and discussion between them. 

Intuitive Abilities

When people do practice and develop theselves spiritually they often develop some kind of intuitive abilities. Some learn to perceive energies as colours and auras, some learn to feel and become very empathic, some learn to hear messages from angels and spirits, some simply have a sense of direct knowledge. All of these though difficult to test and prove are valid observations. In the same way that seeing something with our own eyes is an observation, experiencing it intuitively is as well, and this observation needs to be taken very seriously. One should not immediately jump to the conclusion that this is absolute truth — it should be retested and checked by others, but the more one develops this ability the more reliable it is, and hence spiritual masters are able to say with some certainty a lot about the subtle worlds that the rest of us are completely unaware of. This becomes another way to observe and therefore another way to do spiritual science. The masters may begin by observing themselves, but often they can also observe the results of different exercises in the people they work with, and can be even more certain, not only of the effect on themselves, but also of the effect on others.

Kinesiology

Kinesiology is another method that has been developed to create more detailed, systematic observations of oneself. The idea is that the muscles of the body engage and become stronger as do something that empowers and is beneficial for our energy body. This includes telling truths, and substances and practices that are good for us, allowing us to tell what is true for us, and what is good for us. For many this is a more accessible way to begin to do spiritual science experiments, and also it gives data in a way that is easier to compare and record, so it is very valuable in the spiritual science method. Kinesiologists have already developed a lot of understandings about the workings of the human energy system that are testable and repeatable. One very interesting development of kinesiology is the Hawkins scale of consciousness which allows us to put a numerical figure on the level of upliftment that a person, or object, or practice has or creates. This can give some very clear results in exploring spirituality and subtle energies and our inner worlds.

Difficulties

All of these methods have their difficulties, and each of them take some skill to apply well. Observation takes practice, and the more we do it the more we notice, and the more information we are able to gain, and all of the different techniques of observation depend on our skill of observation — of observing ourselves and our own experiences, of observing others, of observing our subtle intuitive feelings, and all of this develops over time as we practice. Science takes training and experience. I love physics but I could not understand the mathematics and concepts of modern cutting edge research into physics with a lot of education and training, in the same way spiritual science takes training and practice and develops over time. This is a development that any of us interested in the field can do as we learn and practice, and it is also a development that the whole field will take over the coming years. We need to study the methods of spiritual science itself and how to teach and create effective ways of understanding the world. It is exciting to be at this early stage in the development of such an important endeavour that could have such a positive influence in the future of society. I do my best to my little bit of spiritual science research myself, and to encourage others to develop the field, and I look forward to seeing the development of the field over my lifetime. Already in the last 47 years of my life i have seen great leaps and bounds in the field moving from something barely even acknowledged to now a well known (if controversial) part of modern society. Let’s see what happens next.

To continue our discussion about schools my daughter has now started at her new school and she has some complaints about it, and it doesn\’t seem to be very forward thinking or creative, but what is really interesting is the things that she says are good. They are not about what they are taught in the class, how difficult it is or how interesting it is – they are about connection. If the Teacher connects with the students then it is a wonderful teacher even if she hates the subject, and she is really happy to be there anyway. If the teacher does not connect then no matter how much else might be good about the subject she hates it and wants nothing to do with that teacher. On some levels this is not surprising. Of course connection is the most important thing – it is always the most important thing. In all of life connection is the key, but somehow I was not expecting it – I was expecting that it was more important the actually content and teaching style, and not this outcome that the human connection between the humans can overpower all other issues.

But doesn\’t this really make sense of our lives? We are not given a perfect wonderful peaceful existence, but we are always given the opportunity to connect, and that connection makes existence meaningful. I pity materialists and religious folk equally because each of them has trouble seeing what makes life truly meaningful and positive. If we are focused entirely on God we tend to lose track of the opportunities to connect in our daily lives, and create an existence that is somehow grey and dreary (but how can that be truly focused on God – God is Goodness and Love and Joy – God is connection). The materialists in denying the existence of energies and spirits and souls make it very difficult to understand and focus on connection. Of course this is not necessarily the case. It would be perfectly possible to create a materialistic explanation for the experience of connection – something to do with brain chemicals no doubt – and to encourage connection without necessarily believing in any higher powers. Some atheists seem to manage to do it. Terry Pratchett once impressed me with a talk about the mystery of street lights in which he seemed to demonstrate very deep connection.

But this is mostly beside the point. The point is connection – we need connection, we thrive on connection, and connection is powerful. It transforms ourselves, the people around us and the world. Connect up people – It\’s good stuff.

Today I took my daughter to her new school. It was not a very encouraging experience. We spent a long time listening to speeches and explanations that we could not understand (our portuguese is still not that good) and then she was taken away to do activities that were supposed to be fun, but she didn\’t find fun at all. I would hope that there might be some corner where she will find herself there, but I am not at all confident that will happen. I find myself full of demands that I wish to make to the school to make it better, and yet I can understand the school\’s point of view too. They have to deal with the needs of all the students, and the restrictions of the national curriculum and education system. How can they have the time and energy to give one child everything that they need?

But I have an answer – one that I have never seen put into practice, but is born out of my experiences teaching music over many years. (and some other knowledge from my spiritual education work.) The answer is a kind of streaming. And this at first might seem a strange thing for me to promote. Streaming tends to be a highly competitive system that rewards those with certain talents and is not so supportive of others who are not able to do as well. The idea tends to be that if some people are good at maths they go in a class together and get to do more maths, faster, and others who are not as good do maths in a slower more careful way so they can understand it – or similarly with other subjects. This kind of streaming can be very damaging to some people\’s self esteem, and even to those who excel it does not really help them with their life skills. They do not come out of school particularly better prepared for life or career, and I who am so against the current competitive system – how could I promote something like this?

But it is very different if Streaming is applied in another way. Instead of thinking about it as different abilities better or worse why don\’t we put people of similar learning styles and personality types together. Someone who loves to talk and discuss can be in a group that learn together through discussion – the interesting ideas of mathematics can be explored, and they can in the process learn more about themselves in a deeper way as well as about mathematics. Similarly someone who loves a more rigorous learning style can be with a group of others who also enjoy this. Mathematics will be more rigorous – may be it will be applied a little bit more and become something closer to engineering, and those who like to learn like that will love it, and again learn things that can be very useful in their lives.

Of course what I am talking about is the different centrings, the 8 personality types that I find really important in all aspects of life. Each one centring in a different chakra, and each one finding their flow in a very different way of looking at the world. If we are surrounded by people similar to us we learn so much about ourselves and who we are – things that can never be taught directly, but are crucially important to a good life and career.

It seems quite simple to apply this idea to our education system. Do you think we can begin to do it?