Quoting a comedian as a means of reflecting what's popular or at least socially acceptable is an appropriate and accurate way to say "at one point in recent history, it was socially acceptable to say demeaning things about gay people."

Michael Richards is a comedian, and made anti-Semitic remarks that resulted in a significant backlash. Again, looking back this is a good indication of someone saying something that was NOT popularly acceptable.

I think it all depends on the context. A comedy show is a comedy show. People are always looking for ways to feel offended.

In this case, the quote omitted the context of archetypes and specific people, namely George W. Bush, that Chapelle was very obviously satirizing. I say very obviously, because it wasn't a nuanced depiction: the skit was literally described as him being black Bush, and he was in a suit behind the POTUS podium, addressing the media.

Removing the context from that and hitting Chapelle for it is just a convenient target.

It's still acceptable for a comedia to say to say demeaning things about gay, black, indians, asians, jews, whites, WASPs etc -- including rape victims, terrorism survivors, heroes, politicans, babies, etc.

That's what comedians do. Listen to Louis C.K (or anyone, really).

>Michael Richards is a comedian, and made anti-Semitic remarks that resulted in a significant backlash

Depends if he made them as part of a comedic routine or not. And actually even when part of a routine, depends if they were told as genuine preaching / ranting, or just for the comedic effect / exaggeration / black humor of it.

OT: It wasn't anti Semitic remarks that got Michael Richards in trouble. Michael Richards went on a massive tirade saying the N-word repeatedly after he felt that a black patron was being disrespectful.

I think the difference is that many people laughed with and applauded Dave Chappelle at the time while few (if anyone?) applauded Michael Richards.

Chappelle was commenting on a widely held belief. Richards, not so much.

Those lines were part of Chapelle's skits, they were clearly a part of a joke. Michael Richard's rants weren't a part of a show or routine, it was just him shouting at a patron. It's not because he made comments about blacks, jews, or any other race. It's because there wasn't any satire to his statements, and they seemed genuine (or it appeared that way at least).

I was just pointing out that it wasn't anti-semetic remarks that got Richards in trouble, it was disparaging remarks against blacks.

Edited the above to make that clearer.

And, in fairness, sex - gay or straight - is fundamentally pretty gross. Fun, but gross.

I did think about that a bit. That's part of why I added the disclaimer. I included it more because I was watching it this weekend, saw that bit, and thought, "That would be a really unacceptable thing to say today, but back then it was considered funny." Edit: And you're right, comedians are on a different standard. Sorry, forgot to include that.

If you think that would be an unacceptable joke for a comedian to say today, you should watch the comedian Daniel Tosh's show Tosh.0 on Comedy Central for essentially 30 minutes of unacceptable humor.