this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2025
579 points (96.8% liked)

Not The Onion

18262 readers
1730 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AceTKen@lemmy.ca 66 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Bad title. He's criticizing the state of free speech in America citing the Jimmy Kimmel cancellation and people fired / cancelled over Charlie Kirk speech.

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 108 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I don’t think anyone thought he was criticizing free speech. Yes, it’s a bad title, but it’s still hilarious to go to Saudi Arabia and pretend like they have more free speech rights

[–] OpenStars@piefed.social 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Reading the comments here, a LOT of people seemed to think that he was criticizing free speech. Like, no curiosity whatsoever, just jump straight into judgement. 🙃

[–] XTL@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

a LOT of people seemed to think that he was criticizing free speech

The headline literally says "Dave Chappelle Criticizes Free Speech", so that's quite understandable.

[–] OpenStars@piefed.social 1 points 6 hours ago

Bean soup phenomenon: the comment I replied to, with >100 upvotes, said:

I don’t think anyone thought he was criticizing free speech

Also, curiosity might involve digging deeper beyond merely reading a title, particularly since those are well-known these days for being click bait (titles I mean, even in cases where the articles themselves are not).

Think a little more about what you are trying to say here... that people are curious, that they did not simply judge upon merely reading the title, trusting others to get something right but then feeling the need to add onto that regardless?

Of course it is understandable. This is how right-wing polities are being enacted all across the globe currently: using well-established methodologies that offer tried and true results. I "understand" that all too well.