Chappelle Cancels Cancel Culture

White liberals really don’t like Dave Chappelle’s latest Netflix special. Will the media cancel the groundbreaking comedian or did he just cancel them? Also, Greta Thunberg gets a hero’s welcome in New York City before speaking to the UN. Why are climate activists exploiting the 16-year-old and where are her parents?

The intro/outro song and Stephen’s song of the week is “Tonight I Have to Leave It” by the Shout Out Louds. Jon’s song of the week is “New Year’s Day” by HTRK. To listen to all the music featured on The Conservatarians, subscribe to our Spotify playlist!

Subscribe to The Conservatarians in iTunes (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in iTunes or by RSS feed.

Please Support Our Sponsor!

Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 26 comments.

  1. Henry Castaigne Member

    “High functioning” autism is actually pretty hard on a person. The suicide rates and unemployment rates are sky high. The suicide rates are about six times to eight times higher for high functioning autistics according to studies from both Scandinavian countries, the UK and America. 

    https://iancommunity.org/aic/link-between-autism-and-suicide-risk

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171023180114.htm

    • #1
    • August 30, 2019, at 4:53 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  2. filmklassik Member

    Great, entertaining Podcast as always. Love these guys.

    • #2
    • August 30, 2019, at 10:10 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  3. KarenZiminski Lincoln

    You don’t think Obama’s Martha’s Vineyard place has solar powered sump pumps?

    • #3
    • August 31, 2019, at 7:16 PM PDT
    • Like
  4. JuliaBlaschke Coolidge

    KarenZiminski (View Comment):

    You don’t think Obama’s Martha’s Vineyard place has solar powered sump pumps?

    No, but I bet they have plenty of plastic straws!

    • #4
    • September 1, 2019, at 10:15 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  5. kedavis Member

    Dave Chappelle is hardly new. Mel Feit, for one, was taking that path DECADES ago.

    • #5
    • September 1, 2019, at 10:32 PM PDT
    • Like
  6. RufusRJones Member

    Full disclosure I don’t want to put any effort into this.

    The Dallas Black Panthers did an open carry demonstration and all of the white people applauded it and this made Vice magazine really mad? 

    That’s beautiful if that’s what actually happened. lol

    • #6
    • September 2, 2019, at 3:33 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  7. RufusRJones Member

    Speaking of the environment, this is the best article I have ever read about the stupidity of recycling. Mike Munger is really smart. 

    Recycling requires substantial infrastructure for pickup, transportation, sorting, cleaning, and processing. I have sometimes suggested a test for whether something is garbage or a valuable commodity. Hold it in your hand, or hold a cup of it, or tank, or however you can handle it. Consider: Will someone pay me for this? If the answer is yes, it’s a commodity, a valuable resource. If the answer is no, meaning you have to pay them to take it, then it’s garbage. 

     

    A young woman piped up: “It’s okay to say that sort of thing here, because we are insiders. But it’s better not to talk about the economics of things to the general public. We need to help train them to care about the environment, and recycling is one of the best ways to do that.”

     

    • #7
    • September 2, 2019, at 5:36 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  8. JuliaBlaschke Coolidge

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Speaking of the environment, this is the best article I have ever read about the stupidity of recycling. Mike Munger is really smart.

    Recycling requires substantial infrastructure for pickup, transportation, sorting, cleaning, and processing. I have sometimes suggested a test for whether something is garbage or a valuable commodity. Hold it in your hand, or hold a cup of it, or tank, or however you can handle it. Consider: Will someone pay me for this? If the answer is yes, it’s a commodity, a valuable resource. If the answer is no, meaning you have to pay them to take it, then it’s garbage.

     

    A young woman piped up: “It’s okay to say that sort of thing here, because we are insiders. But it’s better not to talk about the economics of things to the general public. We need to help train them to care about the environment, and recycling is one of the best ways to do that.”

     

    Typical. Caring is enough for them. Show you care by voting for Democrats and perform useless rituals like recycling or driving electric cars powered by coal burning power stations. Call for higher taxes for other people. Show you are a “good person” and politically correct.

    • #8
    • September 2, 2019, at 8:50 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  9. kedavis Member

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Speaking of the environment, this is the best article I have ever read about the stupidity of recycling. Mike Munger is really smart.

    Recycling requires substantial infrastructure for pickup, transportation, sorting, cleaning, and processing. I have sometimes suggested a test for whether something is garbage or a valuable commodity. Hold it in your hand, or hold a cup of it, or tank, or however you can handle it. Consider: Will someone pay me for this? If the answer is yes, it’s a commodity, a valuable resource. If the answer is no, meaning you have to pay them to take it, then it’s garbage.

     

    That’s a bit oversimplified. If someone won’t pay you for leftover prescription drugs or dangerous chemicals, then you should feel justified adding them to the trash?

    What about junk cars? Biohazard waste?

    Even if someone will buy used engine oil in bulk, that doesn’t make it cost-efficient for them to come to your house to get yours. But it’s still no excuse for dumping it down a storm drain rather than taking it someplace that may not pay YOU for it, but at least it doesn’t cause damage.

    • #9
    • September 2, 2019, at 1:17 PM PDT
    • Like
  10. RufusRJones Member

    kedavis (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Speaking of the environment, this is the best article I have ever read about the stupidity of recycling. Mike Munger is really smart.

    Recycling requires substantial infrastructure for pickup, transportation, sorting, cleaning, and processing. I have sometimes suggested a test for whether something is garbage or a valuable commodity. Hold it in your hand, or hold a cup of it, or tank, or however you can handle it. Consider: Will someone pay me for this? If the answer is yes, it’s a commodity, a valuable resource. If the answer is no, meaning you have to pay them to take it, then it’s garbage.

     

    That’s a bit oversimplified. If someone won’t pay you for leftover prescription drugs or dangerous chemicals, then you should feel justified adding them to the trash?

    What about junk cars? Biohazard waste?

    Even if someone will buy used engine oil in bulk, that doesn’t make it cost-efficient for them to come to your house to get yours. But it’s still no excuse for dumping it down a storm drain rather than taking it someplace that may not pay YOU for it, but at least it doesn’t cause damage.

    The cost of recycling is ridiculous.

    Commodity prices have to be much higher before recycling makes any sense. The only exception is aluminum. Just because you aren’t recycling that doesn’t mean you are creating pollution. The whole operation is destroying society’s precious capital. Mathematical stupidity.

     

     

    • #10
    • September 2, 2019, at 2:25 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  11. kedavis Member

    That kind of attitude strikes me as being one of the worst aspects of “pure” Libertarianism. And it makes an easy target for the loons on the left.

    • #11
    • September 2, 2019, at 5:10 PM PDT
    • Like
  12. RufusRJones Member

    kedavis (View Comment):

    That kind of attitude strikes me as being one of the worst aspects of “pure” Libertarianism. And it makes an easy target for the loons on the left.

    Unless it’s toxic put it in the landfill. 

    • #12
    • September 2, 2019, at 5:15 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  13. kedavis Member

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    That kind of attitude strikes me as being one of the worst aspects of “pure” Libertarianism. And it makes an easy target for the loons on the left.

    Unless it’s toxic put it in the landfill.

    But you pay the landfill, too. Why should you have to do that, for something that’s worthless?

    From a pure libertarian view, it might be argued that if you buy – for example – a quart of motor oil, you assume all responsibility for its ownership, which includes disposal. If that costs more than the oil itself, well, too bad. Live with it, or find a way to not use oil.

    The overall problem comes from shifting responsibility. The cost of purchasing the oil might be borne individually, but the issues of disposal get shifted to the collective, perhaps under force of law if otherwise people would tend to just dump it somewhere.

    • #13
    • September 2, 2019, at 8:32 PM PDT
    • Like
  14. RufusRJones Member

    kedavis (View Comment):
    But you pay the landfill, too. Why should you have to do that, for something that’s worthless?

    It’s not even close to the same cost.

    • #14
    • September 3, 2019, at 12:45 AM PDT
    • Like
  15. kedavis Member

    The point is, there are very good reasons to recycle other than expecting to make a(nother) profit.

    • #15
    • September 3, 2019, at 1:32 AM PDT
    • Like
  16. RufusRJones Member

    kedavis (View Comment):

    The point is, there are very good reasons to recycle other than expecting to make a(nother) profit.

    If it’s not toxic, you are going backwards. There is plenty of straight reporting about this. 

    • #16
    • September 3, 2019, at 1:34 AM PDT
    • Like
  17. kedavis Member

    That the left might argue in favor of going to the moon because of all the green cheese to be mined that could feed the hungry, doesn’t prove that going to the moon isn’t a good idea for other reasons.

    For one thing, we don’t always know right away if something is dangerous. It was the left that demanded MTBE be added to gasoline to reduce pollution. It was the left that demanded plastic bags be used instead of paper, to save trees, and now they argue the opposite because “plastic is bad.”

    Secondly, once you get into “utilitarian” arguments the economic lines get hazy. If it costs less to kill X number of people by pollution than to clean up the pollution, how do you argue that the specific pollution should be cleaned up anyway, while still denying that other pollution is bad enough to also “deserve” being cleaned up? X degree of pollution/toxicity is acceptable but Y degree is not? Why? How? Who decides? The present-day ability to make a profit – or not – doesn’t seem all that useful, especially when the values of “commodities” – as you call them – can fluctuate a lot. Does it really make sense to just throw aluminum cans into the landfill if the recycle price happens to drop below X dollars per pound for a few days or something? Just the cost of changing things around must be considered too. Plus the value of habits, etc.

     

    • #17
    • September 3, 2019, at 2:18 AM PDT
    • Like
  18. RufusRJones Member

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Plus the value of habits, etc.

    I love this. 

    • #18
    • September 3, 2019, at 2:28 AM PDT
    • Like
  19. RufusRJones Member

    kedavis (View Comment):
    The present-day ability to make a profit – or not – doesn’t seem all that useful, especially when the values of “commodities” – as you call them – can fluctuate a lot.

    Private capital is the only thing that should be risked on this type of decision. 

    Does it really make sense to just throw aluminum cans into the landfill if the recycle price happens to drop below X dollars per pound for a few days or something?

    No. Aluminum has a long track record. There is plenty of data on this.

    Just the cost of changing things around must be considered too. 

    Private capital is the only thing that should be risked on this type of decision. 

     

    • #19
    • September 3, 2019, at 2:32 AM PDT
    • Like
  20. Miffed White Male Member

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Does it really make sense to just throw aluminum cans into the landfill if the recycle price happens to drop below X dollars per pound for a few days or something?

    No. Aluminum has a long track record. There is plenty of data on this.

    We should be putting as much potentially valuable stuff into the landfills as possible. Someday we’ll be mining them for resources, and the more good stuff that’s in there, the sooner it will be economically viable.

     

    • #20
    • September 3, 2019, at 4:59 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  21. RufusRJones Member

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Does it really make sense to just throw aluminum cans into the landfill if the recycle price happens to drop below X dollars per pound for a few days or something?

    No. Aluminum has a long track record. There is plenty of data on this.

    We should be putting as much potentially valuable stuff into the landfills as possible. Someday we’ll be mining them for resources, and the more good stuff that’s in there, the sooner it will be economically viable.

     

    That’s basically what happens with electronics. It’s too expensive right now to leach out the precious metals etc. that are inside. 

    • #21
    • September 3, 2019, at 5:08 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  22. Texmoor Coolidge

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Speaking of the environment, this is the best article I have ever read about the stupidity of recycling. Mike Munger is really smart.

    Recycling requires substantial infrastructure for pickup, transportation, sorting, cleaning, and processing. I have sometimes suggested a test for whether something is garbage or a valuable commodity. Hold it in your hand, or hold a cup of it, or tank, or however you can handle it. Consider: Will someone pay me for this? If the answer is yes, it’s a commodity, a valuable resource. If the answer is no, meaning you have to pay them to take it, then it’s garbage.

     

    A young woman piped up: “It’s okay to say that sort of thing here, because we are insiders. But it’s better not to talk about the economics of things to the general public. We need to help train them to care about the environment, and recycling is one of the best ways to do that.”

     

    Best guest on EconTalk!

    • #22
    • September 3, 2019, at 9:21 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  23. RufusRJones Member

    Texmoor (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Speaking of the environment, this is the best article I have ever read about the stupidity of recycling. Mike Munger is really smart.

    Recycling requires substantial infrastructure for pickup, transportation, sorting, cleaning, and processing. I have sometimes suggested a test for whether something is garbage or a valuable commodity. Hold it in your hand, or hold a cup of it, or tank, or however you can handle it. Consider: Will someone pay me for this? If the answer is yes, it’s a commodity, a valuable resource. If the answer is no, meaning you have to pay them to take it, then it’s garbage.

     

    A young woman piped up: “It’s okay to say that sort of thing here, because we are insiders. But it’s better not to talk about the economics of things to the general public. We need to help train them to care about the environment, and recycling is one of the best ways to do that.”

     

    Best guest on EconTalk!

    I need to hear that. His Dave Rubin interview was excellent, too. 

    • #23
    • September 3, 2019, at 9:44 AM PDT
    • Like
  24. Taras Coolidge

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Does it really make sense to just throw aluminum cans into the landfill if the recycle price happens to drop below X dollars per pound for a few days or something?

    No. Aluminum has a long track record. There is plenty of data on this.

    We should be putting as much potentially valuable stuff into the landfills as possible. Someday we’ll be mining them for resources, and the more good stuff that’s in there, the sooner it will be economically viable.

    That’s basically what happens with electronics. It’s too expensive right now to leach out the precious metals etc. that are inside.

    Recycling is an example of what I call the “Cleveland Fallacy”.

    Imagine you’re driving from New York to L.A. with friends. As you pass Cleveland, they start screaming at you to hit the brakes: “or we’ll fall into the Pacific Ocean!”

    True, we will have to recycle eventually; but until then bury the stuff and, 20 years from now, mini-robots will mine it for us.

    Instead of the entire population put to involuntary servitude as unpaid sanitation engineers, washing and sorting garbage.

    • #24
    • September 3, 2019, at 4:22 PM PDT
    • Like
  25. RufusRJones Member

    Taras (View Comment):

    True, we will have to recycle eventually; but until then bury the stuff and, 20 years from now, mini-robots will mine it for us.

    Instead of the entire population put to involuntary servitude as unpaid sanitation engineers, washing and sorting garbage.

    That’s the thing. Wealth (capital, intellectual capital etc.) solves a lot of problems. Recycling, except for aluminum, just destroys capital. It’s a waste of people’s time.

    • #25
    • September 3, 2019, at 5:14 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  26. RufusRJones Member

    RufusRJones (View Comment):
    Wealth (capital, intellectual capital etc.) solves a lot of problems.

     

    Yet capital is distinct from money, it is a largely irreversible, definite structure, composed of heterogeneous elements which can be (loosely) described as goods, knowledge, context, human beings, talents and experience.

     

    Through capital formation, one creates the potential means to boost productivity.

     

    Once a stock of capital has been accumulated, it is not destined to be eternal. Capital is thoroughly transitory, it wears out, it is used up in the production process, or becomes entirely obsolete. Existing capital requires regularly recurring reinvestment, which can usually be funded directly out of the return capital generates. If reinvestment is neglected because the entire output or more is consumed, the result is capital consumption.

    link

    • #26
    • September 4, 2019, at 4:53 AM PDT
    • Like