Dave Chappelle is back with another hugely controversial Netflix Special conveniently entitled “Sticks and Stones.”
It’s his fourth special in just two years and in it he openly mocks cancel culture, transgenders, Michael Jackson and many other things.
And now Michael Jackson’s accusers just blasted Dave Chappelle for his latest bit in “Sticks and Stones.”
On March 3rd and 4th of this year, HBO released a two-part harrowing documentary featuring two young men, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who went into great detail and specifics that ran the spectrum of inappropriate touching to sodomy while they were underage.
It was likely one of these things you’d watch about Michael Jackson and think to yourself that you always suspected some sexual misconduct was true but you couldn’t imagine it would’ve been that bad.
Chappelle flat-out says about Robson and James Safechuck, “I don’t believe those motherf—rs.”
One of the reasons Chappelle gave for not believing the two is pointing to Macaulay Culkin has said in the past that the King of Pop never touched him nor did he do anything inappropriate in his presence.
Chappelle controversially noted, “I’m not a pedophile… (pause) But if I was, Macaulay Culkin’s the first kid I’m f–king. I’ll tell you that right now.”
Both Robson and Safechuck spoke out against Chappelle’s comments.
The morning of the special’s release, Safechuck said, “I’m heartbroken for all those children who look to see how they will be received when they finally find the courage to speak out about their sexual abuse. I just want to reach out to other survivors and let them know that we can’t let this type of behavior silence us. Together we are strong.”
Robson had a different approach saying within minutes of each other’s statements, “He can say whatever he wants. It reveals him, not us.”
A lawyer for Robson, Vince Finaldi added, “Although Mr. Chappelle is entitled to his opinions, however misinformed they may be, it’s unfortunate that he has chosen to use his platform to shame sexual abuse victims, and spread his ignorance of sexual abuse and the way it is perpetrated upon children, in an attempt to resurrect his career. Mr. Chappelle should look to fellow comedian Hannibal Buress, who instead used his platform as a mode of social change, by addressing the injustice of Bill Cosby’s alleged sexual abuse of many women head on when no other comedian would, as an example of positive work done from a place of intestinal fortitude.”
To be fair, Chappelle did criticize his “hero,” Bill Cosby, in his special “The Age of Spin” several years ago.
Chappelle also jokes in the special that he’s a classic “victim-blamer” saying if he’d heard Michael Jackson molested some children, he’d ask “Well, what were those kids wearing at the time?”
This seemed like an obvious joke and not meant to be taken seriously.
But Chappelle does have a point about not totally believing Robson’s story because the timeline of his interaction with Michael Jackson’s estate over the years is suspicious.
- In 2011, Robson approached John Branca, co-executor of the Michael Jackson Estate, about directing the new Michael Jackson/Cirque du Soleil production, ONE. Robson admitted he wanted the job “badly,” but the Estate ultimately chose someone else for the position.
- In 2012, Robson had a nervous breakdown, triggered, he said, by an obsessive quest for success. His career, in his own words, began to “crumble.”
- That same year, with Robson’s career, finances, and marriage in peril, he began shopping a book that claimed he was sexually abused by Michael Jackson. No publisher picked it up.
- In 2013, Robson filed a $1.5 billion dollar civil lawsuit/creditor’s claim, along with James Safechuck, who also spent time with Jackson in the late ‘80s. Safechuck claimed he only realized he may have been abused when Robson filed his lawsuit. That lawsuit was dismissed by a probate court in 2017.
- In 2019, the Sundance Film Festival premiered a documentary based entirely on Robson and Safechuck’s allegations. While the documentary is obviously emotionally disturbing given the content, it presents no new evidence or witnesses. The film’s director, Dan Reed, acknowledged not wanting to interview other key figures because it might complicate or compromise the story he wanted to tell.
And that’s not to mention the documentary had zero objectivity and the filmmakers refused to offer any counter viewpoints to the accusers.