Wanda Sykes Booed off stage For Calling Trump a ‘Racist’

braindrain said:

And you are trying to suppress the free speech of the people that were booing. No one was suppressing her at all. She was 100% able to continue her skit. You have freedom of speech. That does not mean people have to sit and listen to what you say quietly. I think you need to research what the 1st amendment actually is.

Click to expand...

You are right, I am not a brain dead militant...at some point I say free speech should be restrained for the greater good.

But let me point out to you sir that I dont get there till all the ideas have had their chance to be circulated.

I am about the truth, I am about wisdom, I am about advancing civilization, the good life...

All that requires good communication, in the service of growing ideas.

Which means open and ongoing.

Not restrained or stopped.

Here I make my stand.

:stop:




EDIT: For those who dont know I call myself a Zen Socialist. I was always an observant outcast in this society, often bullied harshly. By 25 I had discovered Zen, and then I had the privileged to live 6 years in Germany where I tried to learn as much as I could from the Germans and other Europeans that I socialized and worked with. I am not normal. My ideas are often phrased unusually. Plus, even by the 80's I was finding the University to be alarmingly weak and toxic, which got worse over time...I am self taught...like Lincoln.:nails

And people paid for that? Jeez...

Grim17 said:

By all means, please do.... Consider it a double dare.

Click to expand...

Why don't you address everything you ignored that destroyed your argument?

Hawkeye10 said:

You are right, I am not a brain dead militant...at some point I say free speech should be restrained for the greater good.

But let me point out to you sir that I dont get there till all the ideas have had their chance to be circulated.

I am about the truth, I am about wisdom, I am about advancing civilization, the good life...

All that requires good communication, in the service of growing ideas.

Which means open and ongoing.

Not restrained or stopped.

Here I make my stand.

:stop:




EDIT: For those who dont know I call myself a Zen Socialist. I was always an observant outcast in this society, often bullied harshly. By 25 I had discovered Zen, and then I had the privileged to live 6 years in Germany where I tried to learn as much as I could from the Germans and other Europeans that I socialized and worked with. I am not normal. My ideas are often phrased unusually. Plus, even by the 80's I was finding the University to be alarmingly weak and toxic, which got worse over time...I am self taught...like Lincoln.:nails

Click to expand...

First you say you are for restricting speech and slightly later you say you think speech should be open and not restrained. Are you not sure where you stand on this.

And you don't see an issue with deciding who's free speech can be restricted and whose can't. Who do we give that authority to. What do we do when the people in charge of that decision decides any free speech that is not in line with their ideals is now needing to be restrained. Its either free speech for all or nothing.

braindrain said:

And you don't see an issue with deciding who's free speech can be restricted and whose can't. Who do we give that authority to. What do we do when the people in charge of that decision decides any free speech that is not in line with their ideals is now needing to be restrained. Its either free speech for all or nothing.

Click to expand...

No, when people set out to cause mayhem or other great harm to the collective them the collective must take decisive action.

This is NOT the voicing of unpopular ideas, just so we are clear on that.

But for instance when people set out to hurt just to hurt....

And then they do just that, effectively, and over time...

Ya, I will be up front calling for a shunning.

Just as one example.

Hawkeye10 said:

No, when people set out to cause mayhem or other great harm to the collective them the collective must take decisive action.

This is NOT the voicing of unpopular ideas, just so we are clear on that.

But for instance when people set out to hurt just to hurt....

And then they do just that, effectively, and over time...

Ya, I will be up front calling for a shunning.

Just as one example.

Click to expand...

Sorry but booing someone who is making political commentary of the sort she was is not great harm to anyone.

Even worse the moment we start deciding to ban speach that may harm the so called collective is the moment we no longer have any meaningful free speach.

Absentglare said:

Why don't you address everything you ignored that destroyed your argument?

Click to expand...

That's what I thought. LMAO. You insinuate that I have said things about Obama that contradict what I'm posting here, and when I call you on it, you pretend you never said anything.

And since nothing has destroyed my argument, there is nothing to respond to.

Grim17 said:

That's what I thought. LMAO. You insinuate that I have said things about Obama that contradict what I'm posting here, and when I call you on it, you pretend you never said anything.

And since nothing has destroyed my argument, there is nothing to respond to.

Click to expand...

I didn't claim that. I was wondering why you didn't create a bunch of threads criticizing the disrespect of President Obama. You decided to bluff, and i didn't think i should bother providing evidence when you're actively ignoring the reasoning that i provided you. If you are not amenable to reason, i would be wasting my time by filling in more details of my argument only for you to reject it on the basis of prejudgement.

Absentglare said:

I didn't claim that. I was wondering why you didn't create a bunch of threads criticizing the disrespect of President Obama.

Click to expand...

This thread isn't about disrespecting donald Trump... It's about the audience reaction to a comedian who not only attacked and insulted them because they booed her joke, but then proceeded to give a political speech, lecturing them on how evil the president elect was.... at a comedy benefit that those people payed to attend.

This was a post demonstrating the anger, intolerance and incivility of Wanda Sykes and other Hollywood liberals just like her... not for the joke itself mind you, but for how she exploded in anger at the audience for expressing their displeasure with one of her political jokes, and then proceeding to get on her political soapbox and preach the evils of Donald Trump to them. Those people came there to see stand-up comedy, not to put up with that crap like that.

You decided to bluff, and i didn't think i should bother providing evidence when you're actively ignoring the reasoning that i provided you. If you are not amenable to reason, i would be wasting my time by filling in more details of my argument only for you to reject it on the basis of prejudgement.

Click to expand...

There's nothing you can say that would convince me that Sykes behavior didn't earn her every bit of the displeasure that crowd dished out, or that the crowd's behavior was intolerant or out of line.

It was her reaction to the audience not liking her joke that got her booed off the stage, not the joke itself.

Mac77 said:

She is a liberal/progressive

And she pushed her liberal bias on stage and got angry when the public pushed back

Most entertainers in the media are liberals so she does represent her profession

Click to expand...

Which is completely irrelevant to what I posted.

Grim17 said:

I read the story about the incident. They said she had been taking shots at Trump throughout her routine, and been getting a moderate amount of laughs. Except for the extreme left, most people after the election came to terms with the fact Trump is our next president, so it was no longer a case of insulting Trump the candidate, but Trump the elected president of the United States. I think it was a case of overkill... She just took the Trump bashing a bit too far.

If you watch the video, the boos weren't that bad until she started attacking the audience. That's when the place really erupted.

.

Click to expand...

I agree she was acting like a jerk and an asshole... and pretty much agree with your post. Every entertainer must know their audience and having a meltdown like that is inappropriate whether one is liberal or conservative. Point is, this is not a party affiliation issue. It has to do with the individual.

braindrain said:

Sorry but booing someone who is making political commentary of the sort she was is not great harm to anyone.

Even worse the moment we start deciding to ban speach that may harm the so called collective is the moment we no longer have any meaningful free speach.

Click to expand...

Booing a comedian to the point of disrupting the performance is morally reprehensible. And it does indeed harm others, as you are depriving them of the right to enjoy a service/product that they have paid for. If we both went into the Walmart and bought the same model of television... and then I decided it wasn't what I wanted, would it be causing any harm to smash yours?

BTW... I'm not usually one to point out misspellings and grammatical errors, as everyone makes these mistakes. But seriously... how can you misspell "speech" twice in one post?

RickJames3000 said:

Booing a comedian to the point of disrupting the performance is morally reprehensible. And it does indeed harm others, as you are depriving them of the right to enjoy a service/product that they have paid for. If we both went into the Walmart and bought the same model of television... and then I decided it wasn't what I wanted, would it be causing any harm to smash yours?

BTW... I'm not usually one to point out misspellings and grammatical errors, as everyone makes these mistakes. But seriously... how can you misspell "speech" twice in one post?

Click to expand...

Because one doesn't know how to spell it, and one's autocorrect is off? Or maybe the poster did it on purpose to aggrevait people who don't know what "morally reprehensible" really means?

MaggieD said:

Because one doesn't know how to spell it, and one's autocorrect is off? Or maybe the poster did it on purpose to aggrevait people who don't know what "morally reprehensible" really means?

Click to expand...

Why don't you follow the unsolicited advice that you gave someone in another thread, and "let the poster I was addressing backup his post".

RickJames3000 said:

Why don't you follow the unsolicited advice that you gave someone in another thread, and "let the poster I was addressing backup his post".

Click to expand...

Sometimes I crack myself up.

MaggieD said:

Because one doesn't know how to spell it, and one's autocorrect is off? Or maybe the poster did it on purpose to aggrevait people who don't know what "morally reprehensible" really means?

Click to expand...

Aggrevait...... too funny. You ARE good!

I will go with the former. "because one doesn't know how to spell it."

RickJames3000 said:

Booing a comedian to the point of disrupting the performance is morally reprehensible. And it does indeed harm others, as you are depriving them of the right to enjoy a service/product that they have paid for. If we both went into the Walmart and bought the same model of television... and then I decided it wasn't what I wanted, would it be causing any harm to smash yours?

BTW... I'm not usually one to point out misspellings and grammatical errors, as everyone makes these mistakes. But seriously... how can you misspell "speech" twice in one post?

Click to expand...

If that is something you consider morally reprehensible that you should stay out of a lot of comedy clubs. At some it is dam near tradition to boo someone who sucks. I agree that it is impolite and it is a crappy thing to do to the people throng to watch but it's rather far down the list of actual things I consider poor behavior.

That said in this case she easily could have continued but chose to become all offended by some people not liking her political commentary. She is the one who stopped her entire show because the audience wasn't willing to sit there quietly and put up with her running down of a candidate they obviously supported. If you are going to say things like she did you really have to expect some folks are going to disagree and grow some thicker skin. Which she quite obviously is lacking. So really by not being able to put up with people disagreeing with her she cheated everyone out of there money.

MaggieD said:

Because one doesn't know how to spell it, and one's autocorrect is off? Or maybe the poster did it on purpose to aggrevait people who don't know what "morally reprehensible" really means?

Click to expand...

Actually it's what happens when one is trying to type on his phone faster then his brain is spelling because he only has a few minutes in between doing free fall jumps.