Netflix to Employees: If you don't like our content, you can quit

I've heard it quipped that there's no such thing as anti-war movie. No matter how searing the criticism, no matter how horrifying the violence: war simply looks good on the screen, and the spikes of adrenaline we get during a war film excite us. The same could be said of films with any form of taboo sexuality, even when done in the spirit of satire or social criticism.

> I'm sure there are some snuff films with interesting character development too.

The criticism is absolutely worth considering, regarding the ethics of production. But it's worth contrasting like-with-like (not to shut down the argument, but to try to define the boundaries):

- Was the production of "The Professional" or "Taxi Driver" ethical? Both films sexualized young girls; and in the former case, Natalie Portman found the experience (particular the response and aftermath) moderately traumatic, and explicitly avoided roles with any sexuality until her late twenties.

- Was Kubrick's directorial process ethical, particularly in regard to The Shining, where he was blatantly abusive to Shelley Duvall (charitably, to elicit the best performance)? If that instance is over the line, exactly how hard are directors allowed to be on actors, and how much explicit prior consent should be necessary for "method directing"?

- To what extent is child labor in film-making ethical to begin with? We've converged on 14 as the minimum age for W-2 employment (notwithstanding family businesses, kids with apps, kids with YouTube channels, and "off-books" tasks for pocket money). If hiring a kid for a movie is fine, why can't that same kid sweep floors at a gas station? We could say "because there's no other way to make realistic movies"; but that's not that different from "there's no other way to tell a story about coming-of-age in a hyper-sexualized world".

- To what extent should such limitations be a product of individual ethical choices, vs social norms / taboos, vs "market ethics" (boycotts), vs public law and policy (either in the sense of labor laws, or indecency constraints on expression)?

Again, not saying that criticizing the production of Cuties isn't valid, or appealing to the status quo, and definitely not making some backdoor argument against child labor laws or age-of-consent; just that these questions are larger in scope, and don't have obvious answers.

I mean, fair enough, we can set the law aside.

Again, my point is that trans people are not complaining about "people saying negative things" in a vacuum. They are complaining about a specific situation that is happening which goes beyond just the context of the Chapelle special. I don't believe you are actually responding to the most common trans critique of Chapelle and, in not doing that, you dismiss the actual critiques they are making.

Let me put it this way: we don't have to agree about if the Chapelle special is a problem (I don't happen to worry too much about it but I understand why people are angry). But, I want you to imagine that the loudest and most alarmist trans folks are correct - Chapelle is helping a trend of violence against trans people. If that were the case (which again, is not exactly my belief tho things are pretty bad out there) disagreeing with them would be supporting violence against them. The best way, in my view, to avoid accidentally supporting that kind of thing is to start your personal thoughts (and public arguments) from the POV of the vulnerable community. That's how we can all avoid accidentally erasing an important critique.

For folks without 1:19:51 to spare, can you summarize the points of that video?

I'm not familiar with Chappelle's other work, but I watched the special (The Closer) and I didn't see what you seem to claim. I noticed:

* The heroine/protagonist is a trans woman.

* Chappelle was meticulous about using feminine pronouns (with one deliberate exception, I'm not going to spoil it, but it was respectful).

* He argued for trans people using their choice of gendered bathrooms.

* He ridiculed folks that are afraid of trans people.

* He directed vitriol at the "militant woke" that harassed and bullied his trans friend.

I'm a left-leaning bay area resident with trans friends. I thought the special was funny and personal and touching and pro-trans. In fact, if someone were to deliberately craft propaganda designed to make middle america comfortable with trans people, I think it would look a lot like this.

I can't help but think that most of the vitriol over The Closer is presented by people who haven't watched it. There's a guy elsewhere on this HN thread who is (still!) irate at Netflix because "Cuties" promotes the sexualization of children. Anyone who actually watched that movie knows that it's quite the opposite. But wow you will not convince him - and he's proud that he's never watched the movie. This seems like the same thing.

Maybe there's some broader context that I'm not aware of (again, this is my only exposure to Chappelle). But The Closer sure doesn't seem to warrant the hate.

I agree that expansion is reasonable.

OP very clearly writes that they "don't think it's transphobic to push back on trans activists" who, unlike him, "demand the world accommodate".

Again, the only 'accommodation' that is asked is to just let them live. Seems like not a hard thing to do, and not something one would have to go out of their way of to 'push back against'.

If you don't like the thought of buttfucking, don't. If you don't like the thought of people who identify differently from their biological sex, don't. If you don't like the thought of eating kale, don't. It's simple, it costs you nothing. Nothing at all.