Question - is any viewpoint you don't agree with mean that whoever wrote it must be pissed off? Frankly, I don't give a crap about Chapelle, he has more money than I ever will for better or for worse, he exists and has his fans and detractors, that's absolutely fine by me. He was a useful example though that seems to rustle peoples' jimmies though.
What do you think he was "a useful example" of? Context would imply you think he's an example of a comedian who was cancelled for being offensive...but most of the replies (mine included) seem to be saying "but he wasn't actually cancelled", which really calls into question whether or not that makes him "a useful example"...
He was cancelled for about two weeks before his money got him through it. Seems like a relevant example to me. Also to this day people call a black man white supremacist so...
I don't think that "cancelled for two weeks" is the bullet point you're looking for. From here that just looks like "was discussed ad nauseam on the Internet for two weeks then resumed normal life". I also don't think that calling someone mean names is "cancelling" them or really relevant to this convo at all. Pretty weak stuff all around here.
