(RECORDED 1 SEPTEMBER 2019) Here's another overview of a seemingly 'controversial' visual work- 'Sticks and Stones'.  While most people have defended Chapelle's work wholesale (because you know...  It's comedy), there have been very few pieces (either critical or in defense) pointing to the nuances and consequences of 'controversial' comedy.  Most responses have been reactionary.  Jesse and jamilah dissect the full special (and its two epilogues- NOTE:  MASSIVE SPOILERS). 

Is it possible for comedy to be funny and not be at the expense of politically and socially marginalized groups of people?  Is something truly 'controversial' when it's a reflection of already socially-accepted/mainstream ideas?   In this context, is a view only valid when it's socially accepted by the majority?  In the 'marketplace of ideas' (if you will), why are those who scream about advocating for 'free speech' ready to shut down any critique of specials such as 'Sticks and Stones' with cries to 'be less sensitive', or supposed pejoratives such as 'SJW' or 'PC'?  Under a capitalistic framework, who truly has access to 'free speech'?

For questions, comments, etc.  you can reach us here:  https://twitter.com/musicandwejj

and here: [email protected]