Netflix is about to lose us as subscribers due to their terrible handling on the ongoing Chapelle controversy. I freely admit I would have stayed a subscriber if they’d acknowledge the issues, but refused to remove or censor the content. I can’t accept this “The content is fine actually!” approach.
In supporting their idea that transphobia in media doesn’t translate to real world harm, co-CEO Ted Sarandos states that “transphobic jokes do not ‘directly translate to real-world harm.’” because first person shooting games hasn’t lead to rampaging teen gunmen:
The strongest evidence to support this is that violence on screens has grown hugely over the last thirty years, especially with first party shooter games, and yet violent crime has fallen significantly in many countries. Adults can watch violence, assault and abuse – or enjoy shocking stand-up comedy – without it causing them to harm others. Netflix CEO adds gas to transphobia fire with another unrepentant memo
Yeah, enjoying an action movie or a video game with violence in it is exactly like enjoying mocking vulnerable segments of society …
Netflix has a few days to show this is not the company philosophy moving forward, or they lose us as customers.
Scrolling down on that site, I noticed that the next story is about Netflix securing the rights to Roald Dahl’s stories.
I wonder if the Netflix version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory will include the original version of the Oompa Loompas? By Sarandos’ reasoning (the OG OLs were intended to be funny, and didn’t incite hatred or violence) they should be just fine, right?
So there is no content on Netflix that you can otherwise enjoy because they happen to stream a single title that you don’t approve of but can otherwise avoid?
Can I ask, have you even seen the Chapelle special in question prior to objecting to its content and leaving in protest, or is this only based on how it’s being handled by Netflix? I have not. I’m not particularly interested in seeing it to be honest (not a Chapelle fan) except to satisfy my rising curiosity on what all the bruhaha is about.
Does familiarity require agreement? OP stated a position and I’m stating my disagreement with that position. I suppose I could boycott the topic based on my disagreement. I’m sure that would elicit a round of cheers from some, but it would make for very dull message board.
“But there’s other stuff you could watch!” isn’t really an argument against a boycott. I think it’s safe to assume that, yes, naita gets some value out of subscribing to Netflix, presumably in the form of “shows they like to watch.” The actual question raised by this thread, which you haven’t engaged in, is “Does the enjoyment derived from subscribing to Netflix justify subsidizing objectionable behavior?”
I think you overestimate how much entertainment value you bring to this board.
I guess we all have to draw our own lines. I assume most media will include things I find objectionable. That’s part of living in a free society. On the other hand, a company promoting a “Donald Trump’s My Struggle” documentary might be enough to motivate me to boycott. But maybe not.
Chapelle’s jokes are “offensive” but funny. That’s traditional standup comedy strategy.
Fair enough. naita is free to do as he/she pleases. I’m responding to a larger common social trend implied by this topic in which people overreact to things causing unnecessary social reaction and counter-reaction. Netflix hosts lots of content that is objectionable to various segments of the audience. Is it reasonable to say that Netflix is party to misogyny, homophobia and anti-semitism because it has a bunch of titles in which Mel Gibson acts and directs? No more so, in my opinion, than for hosting Chapelle titles, IMO.
Don’t misunderstand. I meant entertaining for me. Else why would I be here. Though, as I stated earlier, the returns are diminishing. I know you don’t care and it’s truly not my expectation that you should.
Well, you are not responding to the OP then, as the OP specifically said it was not the hosting of the content that they found objectionable, but the statements of the CEO, claiming that transphobia does not translate to real world harm.
I’ve never been a fan of Chapelle, so I don’t know what his jokes were, nor whether they would be considered to be harmful. However, the CEO of a major media outlet claiming that transphobia in the media is not harmful is something that we should certainly take note of.
Possibly. Is Mel Gibson actively being misognyistic/homophobic/anti-semitic in the films in question? Were the films made before Gibson was known to be a bigot? Did Netflix have a hand in directly financing the films? And (actually pertinent to the thread, which is specifically about the CEO’s response to controversy over the special) what’s Netflix’s defense of keeping the films? Because I think a significant difference between this new Chapelle special on Netflix, and any given Mel Gibson film on Netflix, is that the Chapelle special was 1) funded by Netflix, after 2) previous Netflix-funded Chapelle specials caused this exact controversy, and 3) the Netflix CEO’s response was, “transphobia in popular media doesn’t matter.”
@Miller and @k9bfriender have already eloquently pointed out how fundamentally you failed to understand my OP, so I’ll just suggest you re-read their responses if it hasn’t sunk in yet.
Yes, I saw that after I posted. I didn’t know the extent of Netflix’s involvement. Personally, I’m not going to boycott over these jokes, but I’m fine if others wish to.
You missed the part where he pointed out I’m not boycotting Netflix over these jokes. If I end up boycotting it will be over Netflix’s CEO, and thereby the company, not walking back the absurd argument that this and similar types of offensive media “do not ‘directly translate to real-world harm.”
Looked for a good relevant review, haven’t been finding much, here’s a thumbnail summary from memory.
Oswald discovers the ultimate aphrodisiac. Minutes after taking it, men have an absolutely uncontrollable need for sex. So he comes up with the idea for a sperm bank (this was written before there were real sperm banks.) Oswald would manage to get a beautiful woman working with him near rich and famous and powerful men. She would slip them the drug. She would “resist”, but they would inevitability rape her. Then she would collect their sperm from herself to store it and sell to people wanting children from the rich and famous and powerful. Meanwhile, they would blackmail the men for as much as they could get away with in order to cover up the rapes (which they were horrified over after the drug wore off) so, two sources of income.
