Is it okay to discuss openly one's conflict about this? Or is the point that I am either "with" everyone or "against" them? Can a person be conflicted about what a comedian is actually trying to say or do they have to instantly know every person's thoughts and intents before they start to talk about that internal conflict? I think understanding transphobia and its role in the world and how it relates to what Dave is focusing on as opposed to embroiling oneself in the emotional energy it causes when the spectator is exposed to his jokes is important. I can understand the emotion and energy his stand up causes on this topic, and still reject that Dave's intent is what the majority of people say it is. Doesn't a person's statements and actions define intent? Or is it the community's interpretation of those statements and actions? I feel like, especially in historical context, it is way more the former than the latter. Intent is notoriously difficult to assume or accept. A good recent example is Stephen Colbert IMO. If you look at Stephen Colbert's show after 2016 and the election of Trump, he basically remade his name in Trump's shadow. Trump caused him to become the #1 late night comedian. Do we assume that Colbert rode those coattails from the start, though? Was that his intent? Because recently, he won't even say Trump's name live on air. I would firmly argue that perhaps Colbert rode that awfulness, but that there was a grey point somewhere where he didn't consciously decide to utilize Trump to elevate himself. And from day 1 of Trump's election I was literally curled in a ball in bed over the fact he was elected because I knew what it meant (and what it still means) for the future of the United States and the world. And I was furious at any and all media for the way they had (in my opinion) brought it about. And anyone that benefitted from it turned into some kind of evil for me. But at what point did Colbert turn from a lucky benefactor into an active benefactor into a regretful benefactor of what was happening? Did he have intent in it? Why did he stop saying Trump's name entirely finally? Should I burn him at the stake for not realizing sooner that his focus on Trump was elevating Trump and that he should stop? And that grey area, to me, is also present in what Dave is doing. Why did he try to go so hard on the LGBT community in this special? Was it really to threaten them? I am fine with this community's conclusion that his actions in some way harms others - but not that it only harms others. I think this forum has a very real problem with stating opinions as facts and trying to flame anyone that doesn't align. Please don't tell me that everything you and you believe is the truth in this world. That's as bad a take as any on a message board intended for discussion. Where's the statement from Dave himself on what he was trying to do here? Where is your objective source of truth on the matter? And please don't respond with another opinion. And please don't tell me that EVERYTHING a comedian does can be taken at face value. Their whole purpose is to constantly do things that face value. This is literally as bad as aligning with the people from whom you are trying to protect in the LGBTQ community, a community of which I am a part (although I am not transgender, for clarity purposes). This is similar to book burning in fahrenheit 451. I am literally communicating a struggle / opinion and you are burning me at the stake for it. Since when did drive by moderation become an acceptable thing on this forum? I am not trying to justify transphobia. I am trying to speak about the fact that Dave is quite literally addressing all the criticism of himself head on in this special. One can focus on the jokes and feel that emotional fire (I am not per se defending the jokes), or they can focus on his intent with the whole special. I do think the fact that basically his whole special focuses on the LGBTQ community is not a coincidence. I do actually think he is trying (even if one decides his execution is flawed) to say something a bit larger than the sum of the parts of his very targeted jokes. And I think this is where my disagreement with this community lies - to ignore that other part of this special and focus on the way he gets there , I think, is to miss a lot of important stuff that deserves conversation. Comedy is actually a panacea for fear, historically speaking. I am not saying this special or the way he went about it is justified. But isn't there perhaps that silver lining? I can understand the community's fear that what Dave did drives certain communities toward more problems with self. Can the community understand my fear that silencing comedy would also increase the danger to those same communities? You aren't entirely right or wrong. Though as I say above, I am not transgender but identify as a part of the LGBTQ community. Everyone has an opinion on everything, btw. All you have to do is ask them about it. In this case, a couple non LGBT friends asked me to watch the special and see how I felt about it, so I did. And then I saw this thread and was surprised I didn't feel the same exact way or as strongly as everyone here does. How is a post like this even allowed when people are calling for my ban for actually communicating my own conflict on the matter? Come on people. This is a message board. It is meant for the exchange of information and viewpoints. I am not an enemy, though I do recognize why my post, without communicating my opinion, was too brief originally. I've tried to rectify that above. All of this isn't to say that I am perfectly educated on all of this, and understand the nuance of why the era community has reacted the way it has. Part of the reason I posted was to open the door to further understanding and perhaps change my own perspective.