Sticks & Stones & the bullshit cancel culture

[SamSwimmer]

Anybody seen the new Chappelle special, "Sticks & Stones"?

The weak-handshake crowd is losing their minds over it telling people to just skip it. Rotten Tomatoes, up until a day or so ago, literally had it at 0%. It's now at 17% because ONE critic had the balls to go against the virtue signalers & give it a begrudgingly good review.

Frankly, I think it's one of his best. Comedy is subjective so I get that not everyone will like it, but the faux outrage to not only negatively review it, but demand others avoid it is pure bullshit. 0 effing percent? No way. 17% still not even close.

This is why no one takes their bullshit outrage seriously.

 

[Marine03]

More commentary on this subject. Begrudgingly I agree with SpermSwimmer here as I’ve seen it and I thought he was funny as hell.

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertai...s-new-netflix-special-sticks-and-stones.html/

 

[GoHerdMarshallYes]

I 100% agree with Sam on this one. Its one of his best.
Dave isn't afraid to speak what he thinks and much of what he says has truth to it, which is a dying thing these days.

Reminds me of how all the parents and people were outraged at Stranger Things having so much emphasis on smoking. Saying how it was "being glorified" by the show.
It was the 1980's...kids had access to literally anything.
EVERYONE smoked.
Of all things to take seriously (in a show emphasizing accuracy to the time period of said 80's), with otherworld monsters, Russian conspiracies, and telekenetic powers, they took the smoking to heart.

 

[SamSwimmer]

 

[Clean Your Bunghole]

Let's bring a little much needed logic into this discussion. I haven't watched it but downloaded it to watch on a flight tomorrow. Many of the negative reviews aren't because Chappelle lacked political correctness, but rather, that the things he said were half-truths.

But besides that, it is very common for experts and audience ratings to have big disparities. I went to see this movie yesterday, and before going, I noticed the wide margin in ratings:

And just as important, the crying over the Rotten Tomato rating is based on the review of just six critics. Nice sample size:

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Let's bring a little much needed logic into this discussion. I haven't watched it but downloaded it to watch on a flight tomorrow. Many of the negative reviews aren't because Chappelle lacked political correctness, but rather, that the things he said were half-truths.

But besides that, it is very common for experts and audience ratings to have big disparities. I went to see this movie yesterday, and before going, I noticed the wide margin in ratings:

And just as important, the crying over the Rotten Tomato rating is based on the review of just six critics. Nice sample size:

So how was Angel has Fallen? And not critically, I know it's not The Godfather. Did it deliver? Did motherfvckers get shot? That's all that matters in a silly action film.

 

[Clean Your Bunghole]

So how was Angel has Fallen? And not critically, I know it's not The Godfather. Did it deliver? Did motherfvckers get shot? That's all that matters in a silly action film.

It's what you'd expect. A bunch of violence, some explosions, and generally something that will keep you cheaply entertained for a couple of hours. It's a bad movie that is entertaining.

The Good Boys was severely disappointing tonight. I like Seth Rogen, but he has chased his initial success for far too long by trying to get dumber and dumber with his work.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

It's a bad movie that is entertaining.

This is why we watch Steven Segal movies. Before he got fat, that is.

 

[SamSwimmer]

Let's bring a little much needed logic into this discussion. I haven't watched it but downloaded it to watch on a flight tomorrow. Many of the negative reviews aren't because Chappelle lacked political correctness, but rather, that the things he said were half-truths.

But besides that, it is very common for experts and audience ratings to have big disparities. I went to see this movie yesterday, and before going, I noticed the wide margin in ratings:

And just as important, the crying over the Rotten Tomato rating is based on the review of just six critics. Nice sample size:

You haven't watched it but you're commenting that the outrage is because he's spouting half-truths? That's not logical. Watch it first. The faux outrage is all over the place but ironically I haven't seen anyone hit the "half-truths" angle yet.

And RT is a pretty widely accessed resource when it comes to movie reviews. I don't know why they chose such an insanely small sample, but they did (that's on them.) But given the popularity of the site, the number everyone focuses on is the RT score. On the flip side, do I think everyone in the audience score aggregate has seen it - nope. I'm sure some are just reviewing it to send a message to the weak-handshake crowd. I wouldn't put the special at 99% but it sure as hell deserves to be closer to 99% than 17%.

 

[Clean Your Bunghole]

You haven't watched it but you're commenting that the outrage is because he's spouting half-truths? That's not logical. Watch it first.

Reading is tough for you, huh?

I said that many of the negative reviews were because of the half-truths. I don't have to watch the routine to know what the reviews say about it. I can determine what the reviews think about it by reading the fvcking reviews. Christ. And you are claiming something isn't logical?

On the flip side, do I think everyone in the audience score aggregate has seen it - nope. I'm sure some are just reviewing it to send a message to the weak-handshake crowd. I wouldn't put the special at 99% but it sure as hell deserves to be closer to 99% than 17%.

You seem confused by the RT score. The score is not an average or calculation of scores given by critics/audience. The score is simply the percentage of critics/audience who either recommend or don't recommend the movie.

In other words, if 1 out of 6 critics recommend the flick, like is currently the case for Chappelle's latest, it would garner a 16%. It isn't an average of scores out of 100 people give it.

So your claim that you "wouldn't put the special at 99" doesn't make sense. It's not a score out of 100 being a perfect movie. It's a score showing how many people recommend or don't recommend the movie.

 

[SamSwimmer]

Reading is tough for you, huh?

I said that many of the negative reviews were because of the half-truths. I don't have to watch the routine to know what the reviews say about it. I can determine what the reviews think about it by reading the fvcking reviews. Christ. And you are claiming something isn't logical?



You seem confused by the RT score. The score is not an average or calculation of scores given by critics/audience. The score is simply the percentage of critics/audience who either recommend or don't recommend the movie.

In other words, if 1 out of 6 critics recommend the flick, like is currently the case for Chappelle's latest, it would garner a 16%. It isn't an average of scores out of 100 people give it.

So your claim that you "wouldn't put the special at 99" doesn't make sense. It's not a score out of 100 being a perfect movie. It's a score showing how many people recommend or don't recommend the movie.

Or I guess don't watch it & offer a vague explanation on an angle seemingly no one is really pushing. Be logical. When/if you watch it, you'll know right away the joke that pisses off the crowd that have made internet outrage culture their niche.
I clearly noted how the RT score works in the OP. It was at a 0% & one reviewer gave it a positive review, hence the tiny percentage (.1666666667).
I'll break this down so it's easier to understand for you. Do I think everyone who had given it a positive review has seen it? Nope. But do I think the same people are given it a thumbs up to send a message - thereby pushing/keeping the percentage of positive reviews up? Clearly. Do I think the soft handshake crowd is purposely giving it negative reviews regardless if it's any good, of course. But it's a great special. The RT score/indication of 17% - that only one trusted reviewer found it funny is ridiculous but it's the number their site is going with based on their choices. The score of 99% isn't accurate but do I think more people actually like it than the low percentage of critics who seem to be panning it simply they virtue signal how woke they are? Clearly.

 

[Stinky Junk]

Or I guess don't watch it & offer a vague explanation on an angle seemingly no one is really pushing. Be logical. .

Again, you just aren’t good at this. “An angle seemingly no one is really pushing”? Out of the five bad reviews on RT, at least three of them noted what I said:

Would you like any more attempts to continue failing?

 

[SamSwimmer]

Again, you just aren’t good at this. “An angle seemingly no one is really pushing”? Out of the five bad reviews on RT, at least three of them noted what I said:

Would you like any more attempts to continue failing?

Kudos, you found some. Once the weak handshake virtue signalers jump on, I guess the parroting starts. Would you like to see the majority that are slamming it for nothing to do with that?

Have you watched it yet?

Also, why all the screen names?

 

[Stinky Junk]

Kudos, you found some. Once the weak handshake virtue signalers jump on, I guess the parroting starts. Would you like to see the majority that are slamming it for nothing to do with that?

Have you watched it yet?

Also, why all the screen names?

I found some? Those are some of the six critic reviews on RT, the damn thing we’ve been talking about this entire time. Christ.

 

[Chevy1]

This was in today's Tribune:


https://www.chicagotribune.com/colu...0190903-gfug4vn5abendb4cgppjerzcoi-story.html
Dave Chappelle pushes the same boundaries that once got Lenny Bruce arrested
"...notoriously edgy comic Dave Chappelle takes the prize with his latest — and fifth — Netflix stand-up comedy special, “Sticks & Stones,” judging by the volume of complaints buzzing online in news and social media.

But, as longtime Chappelle fans — like me — know, that’s not unusual. What is unusual is how much the blowback against Chappelle’s special has come mostly from the liberals and progressives and how much praise he is receiving from conservatives and the far right."

"On abortion rights, for example, he sets us up with a disclaimer about how he supports “the right to choose,” and that “If you’re a man, you should stay out of the abortion debate altogether."

But then he whips around to say, “And ladies, to be fair to us, I also believe that if you decide to have the baby, a man should not have to pay,” he said. “That’s fair.”

The audience quiets down for a moment as if waiting for a punchline, but that was the punchline. Does Dave really believe that’s a fair equivalence? He smiles, says it’s something worth thinking about, then he moves on to his next targets.

 

[Marine03]

Found this interesting