Chapelle is mostly known for jokes about poor black people, while he himself is rich and famous. Why are his black jokes not punching down?

His last special The Dreamer was pretty bad though and I did feel like he only talked about trans people to get views. It worked though.

Ignoring instead of Streisanding them. I can't understand how all the young folks make the exactly same errors as boomers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

If the comedian bordered a line for most, then they will suffer in obscurity, except you shine a light on them by calling them out on big platforms. If they start to gain attention despite you ignoring them, then they may say something resonating with a lot of people. Which means you are probably the outlier.

I remember the documentation Bowling for Columbine making fun of the idea that some random stuff influenced these killings. And at some point we believed we had defeated these Boomers who believed media would make us bad people. But we didn't realize with the influence of Twitter and TikTok a new generation of Boomers was born that starts with this media bullshit all from the beginning.

Propaganda works with power and influence. You are daily under the influence of propaganda, take alone the media coverage of the Israel-Palestinian war. You hear the narrative pushed by powerful people (politician) and influental people (people owning big media with long reach) about the war. That happens in many regards, like capitalism is without alternative and so on.

But a standup comedians influence is dependant on their popularity. So ignoring stand up comedians is the best way to rob them of their influence and not giving them the power of propaganda.

Possible. I have yet to watch it and might dislike it. But the outrage happened on Stick&Stones and if there was any outrage on Dreamer I have missed it. Maybe it didn't get as much attention - which by the way is the best way to fight offensive stuff.

Thank you.  I love watching my points be validated.  I am interested in knowing why the redaction?

Then call it Trickle-Down-Propaganda. As for the compelling nature of successful propaganda, the popularity of an idea can be determined by the wording of the message, the elan of the speaker, history of the region, or association with related issues. Rarely is propaganda direct. 

I'm sure you won't discount the vast volume of vocal outrage from the right claiming that Hollywood, Disney, music, etc....is all in bed with the Democrats?  And that they repeatedly call it all propaganda? Does it only count if the right claims it so?

Pretty much.

The current left hegemony, whether you want to call it wokeness, neo-marxism, the alt left, whatever, is so regressive in so many ways, bringing back a lot of horrible trends I'd hoped we as a society had moved past like authoritarianism, bullying, reducing people to their skin colour or their sexuality, trying to censor and silence anything they don't agree with, etc.

fair point, but again - I leave it up to the market to decide. Money talks, bs walks. Etc (and look at the waning popularity of Disney and Hollywood lately. Tells me something). I certainly wouldn't support quelling the voices of writers/actors/directors or whoever else, or shutting down or "punishing" Hollywood, Disney, or whatever other mainstream form of entertainment b/c they lean heavily on agendas I don't often agree with or I think are overdone. Like some seem to be at least indirectly advocating for when it comes to certain comiedians/comedy. I simply don't watch (or rarely do at least). This was a simple concept that the left, funny enough, used to be the biggest advocates of.

I'm fine with (actually great with) certain artists/entertainers losing popularity if they continue peddling messages that are negative/poor/toxic, etc. but it should be organic. 

Exactly.  Speech should not be censored because it is a massive can of worms.