Skip to main content

View Diary: Out-of-context joke sparks Twitter campaign to cancel Colbert (713 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  And the evidence of her recognition of satire is ? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    420 forever, Johnny Q
    •  For one, (0+ / 0-)

      the number of retweets she's made of people who expressly note the intended satire and how it fell flat.

      Either way, you're still begging the question.

      "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

      by raptavio on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 11:09:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not begging anything (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        420 forever, VirginiaJeff

        You just seem to be looking to find a way to lump intelligent, discerning (and might I add handsome) people here with Limbaugh, for reasons unknown.

        If we're going to lump anyone with that windbag, I hereby nominate Ms. Park.

        •  Thus demonstrating my original point (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poco

          about the despicable nature of the backlash against Ms. Park, noted feminist.

          I'm not in the slightest for the cancellation of the Colbert Report over this incident. That doesn't mean that I'm not for examining the incident, and listening to what people say when they say they feel denigrated by the attempted satire, and actually considering what they have to say instead of the reflexive defense of a man who is an undeniable force for progressivism.

          That, by the way, is the question you're begging: Do Ms. Park and others have a legitimate grievance? Did Colbert's satire cross a line that Colbert did not intend to cross?

          When the privileged class tries to shut up the unprivileged class it always makes me twitch. No. You, Mr. Privileged -- shut up and listen. It costs you nothing to do so; Mr. Colbert will survive without your full-throated defense or counterattack.

          "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

          by raptavio on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 11:25:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Or you could be a little less presumptuous (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Noisy Democrat

            And accept that people have considered Ms. Park's point and found it to be totally lacking in merit.

            •  Presumptuous? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poco

              Have you seen the commentary?

              People are personally denigrating her, calling her a right-winger (even you scoffed at my mentioning she wasn't), calling her stupid, claiming she's unable to recognize satire (and yes, saying she can't take a joke) despite proof to the contrary, and even accusing her of "political correctness" and "playing the race card."

              And that's not the Twitter blowback. That's in the threads to this diary.

              And in aggregate, it demonstrates the pushback is neither reasoned nor considered. Ms. Park is not just wrong, she's evil/stupid.

              No, it's not presumptuous. It's proven.

              Because change two names -- change Suey Park to Margaret Cho and Stephen Colbert to Rush Limbaugh -- and you'd have an entirely different reaction from Kossacks. In fact, you could put this comment thread on RedState and it'd be right at home.

              "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

              by raptavio on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 01:22:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes, I've read all the comments here (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                AmazingBlaise, Noisy Democrat

                And I tend to agree that if Ms. Park set out to be the right-wing's version of the stereotypically humorless progressive prig, she was insanely successful.

                And anyone who is going to put themselves out in the public sphere as the Town Scold rightly deserves some blowback.  I'd also note that she set the tone and maybe the responses she gets will make her think about how she might approach this next time around.

                •  Yes, of course. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  poco

                  How dare she be offended by Colbert's use of language that denigrates her and her people in order to make a point about another group of people being denigrated.

                  fhs

                  "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                  by raptavio on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 01:43:18 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  She can feel offended if she wants (0+ / 0-)

                    But I think she should also look up "useful idiot" - she'll probably find her picture next to the definition.

                    •  And there you go. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      poco

                      She's not just wrong - she's stupid.

                      It's amazing you're not giving her the benefit of the doubt which you're excoriating her for not giving Colbert, and being apparently unaware of the irony.

                      "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                      by raptavio on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 02:29:26 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  She got people talking about her feelings (0+ / 0-)

                        And the validity of them instead of the truly offensive football club name that was the subject of this all.  Maybe she's otherwise brilliant but in this case, it's apparently all about Suey Park in her world.

                        So, yeah, I think someone is a "useful idiot" for successfully deflecting the discussion from something meaningful to something utterly ridiculous.

                        •  Did you ever stop to consider (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          moviemeister76, Lexicon, poco

                          that the legitimacy of the offense of the name of the Washington football team, or Dan Snyder's ludicrous foundation, in no way makes Ms. Park's grievance illegitimate?

                          Maybe they BOTH can be wrong.

                          And maybe -- JUST maybe -- the hyperbolic, vicious, racist and sexist blowback directed from the hordes of Colbert's fans toward a 23-year-old Asian-American activist -- of which you are a participant -- is doing as much or more to deflect the discussion from the issue of the Washington team and its owner as anything Suey Park has done?

                          And her point is simple. As Ms. Park said: "Satire is supposed to punch up. And [Colbert is] not doing that when he draws parallels to orientalism to make a point about native American mascots."

                          It's so simple and basic that if the person who offended her was not a liberal icon that nobody here would argue it.

                          But unfortunately, many liberals are no better than conservatives when it comes to issues of race. Sure, they like to say they support equality, but the minute it's someone on their own team under fire, well... the long knives come out.

                          "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                          by raptavio on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 02:46:46 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Blah blah blah (0+ / 0-)

                            Yes, we're just hyperbolic, vicious racist sexists; that's sure to keep the discussion going in a meaningful direction.

                            Righteous indignation is all well and good when it's righteous.  Otherwise?  Not so much.

                            Catch you on the next, and hopefully legitimate, issue.

                          •  Truth is truth. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            poco

                            And when, if confronted on your pushback against her by ignoring all the actually-racist stuff said to her, and then escalate by personally denigrating her as a human being, well, expect to get called on it.

                            Sorry you can't accept the issue is legitimate -- and that you are helping to make it worse.

                            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                            by raptavio on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 03:08:42 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  To be fair (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            raptavio, Lexicon, poco

                            Markos feeds into this idea all the freaking time by referring to the Republican Party as the party of racists. But still, it truly is astounding to see white people in this diary saying the exact racist nonsense conservatives say in regards to controversies over race. With no apparent irony whatsoever.

                            Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

                            by moviemeister76 on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 03:08:42 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  For far too many progressives, (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            moviemeister76, poco

                            race is an issue which only matters as a device to attack conservatives with. When it comes to expecting better of our own, well, support for racial justice is lip-service only.

                            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                            by raptavio on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 03:11:09 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't know if it's a progressive thing (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            raptavio, poco

                            I think it's just a white thing. Here in the South, many middle and upper class white people will talk a lot about how racist poor whites are, and attack them any time they exhibit the slightest bit of racism. I've seen this from both liberal and conservative whites.

                            I didn't realize how big of a thing this actually is until I moved down here. A lot of white folks in the city down here really do loathe white folks in the rural and mountain regions, and most of their hatred comes out in describing how racist those poor white people are. And apparently this has been going on for a few decades.

                            But whenever I have tried to point out to a city person that he or she is being racist, it's like I've called them Hitler or something.

                            For way too many white people, they've got this image of what a racist is supposed to look like, and Surprise! it doesn't look like them.

                            Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

                            by moviemeister76 on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 03:19:33 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ooh. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            moviemeister76

                            That's... interesting.

                            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                            by raptavio on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 04:27:57 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Consider (0+ / 0-)

                            that you're misidentifying classism as racism.  That they attribute racist ideas or behaviors to those beneath them class-wise doesn't mean that those of a lower class do not engage in such ideations or behaviors.

                            While it is not unheard of for someone of a particular race to engage in self-loathing to the point of hating his/her own race, it is less common in those who occupy the top tier of that society's race hierarchy.  Self-hatred on that scale usually derives from the overt marginalization of the minority in question by the majority of society, of which said marginalization is internalized.  I do not see any evidence that this is paralleled in dominant white American society.

                          •  Actually, it did punch up (0+ / 0-)

                            It was satire making fun of people who would think you can innocently name a team "Ching Chong Ding Dongs."

                            That's a point so simple that I wonder that anyone can fail to grasp it.

                          •  If you think anything about Colbert's satire (0+ / 0-)

                            was simple, you're dead wrong.

                            Colbert's satire was a very, very skillful effort to walk a very, very thin line. It was, in fact, masterful, subtle, and very nuanced in that effort. It also, to some extent, failed, as is entirely unsurprising given the dangerous waters into which Colbert and his writers waded.

                            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                            by raptavio on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 05:23:15 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  One can say it only punches up (0+ / 0-)

                            By completely ignoring the history of racism towards Asian Americans in this country. In other words, by telling yourself that it wouldn't be painful for Asian Americans to hear the same words they get all the time come out of the mouth of Colbert. Satire or not, when it's the exact same words you're used to hearing anyway, it's painful.

                            Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

                            by moviemeister76 on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 01:39:46 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •  Ummm, no. (0+ / 0-)

                Stephen Colbert has never done GOP fundraisers, never supported GOP candidates financially or with personal appearances. Colbert is engaging in SATIRE. In fact, he is the best satirist since Tom Lehrer.

                I wondered if Park understood what actually satire meant and she answered my question in the Salon interview:

                Did you watch the Monday night segment on the “Colbert Report”?

                No, and I think that’s an irrelevant question.

                Why do you think that’s an irrelevant question?

                Because you’re still trying to understand my context, rather than the reaction and the conversation that I was trying to create.

                You don’t think understanding your context is just as important?

                I don’t think so.

                Why is that?

                I think it was just an opportunity to use hyperbole in a way to make social commentary

                sat·ire

                :  trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly

                She gives an almost dictionary explanation of satire but then demonstrates that she does not get the point of satire.

                But the pivotal proof of her cluelessness is that she dismisses the importance of context in communication. Context is ALWAYS important. Context is EVERYTHING. Without context, language as a means of communication collapses into chaos.

                Park seems to have a very impressive vocabulary, she is just kind of shaky on what the words actually mean. With her disdain for contextual relevance, this is unsurprising.

                •  Not interested in dead threading (0+ / 0-)

                  nor presenting the volume of information readily available to refute your claims. My post is a week old. Move on.

                  "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                  by raptavio on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 07:51:17 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  So Park can demand cancellation (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Darmok, Noisy Democrat

            And there's not supposed to be backlash. Right, let's just keep doing the MSNBC thing and firing everyone that steps on others' toes rather than considering their body of work.

            http://jasonluthor.jelabeaux.com/

            by DAISHI on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 02:02:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's not either/or. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poco

              You don't have to either join her in demanding Colbert be fired or go after her like a mortal enemy.

              You can go "Hey, I don't think Colbert should be fired over this, but I think we can agree that Colbert's attempt at satire on a very sensitive issue misfired and caused offense. Let's figure out a way to move forward from here."

              In fact, I expect that's pretty much what Colbert is going to do.

              "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

              by raptavio on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 02:19:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  To be fair, Park has also drawn the ire (0+ / 0-)

            of other Asians, who have tweeted their firm dissent to her account.

            I'm a Christian, therefore I'm a liberal.

            by VirginiaJeff on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 07:48:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poco

              It's one of the oldest defenses in the book to say 'This person from your minority group says you're wrong, so therefore you're wrong.' That's why Republicans love Ben Carson, Allen West, and Michelle Malkin.

              "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

              by raptavio on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 08:24:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  OK, let me ask (0+ / 0-)

                sincerely: How does one disagree with Park and her supporters? They've made it plain that no one white or male is qualified to disagree with her opinion. And you've made it clear that other Asians aren't qualified.

                Without sarcasm, tell me what would make it OK to disagree with her?

                I'm a Christian, therefore I'm a liberal.

                by VirginiaJeff on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 08:55:28 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Answered that in your other thread. (0+ / 0-)

                  Your characterization, by the by, is inaccurate.

                  "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                  by raptavio on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 09:03:45 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I watched her say it. Then I read her (0+ / 0-)

                    and her supporters stating it in various forums. It's not a characterization, it's a fact.

                    I'm a Christian, therefore I'm a liberal.

                    by VirginiaJeff on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 09:09:25 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Really. (0+ / 0-)

                      Well -- please, where did she say it? I'm all ears.

                      "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                      by raptavio on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 09:10:56 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Is this the part where I quote her (0+ / 0-)

                        saying it, and you say I'm misinterpreting her?  How about you show me an example of her NOT insulting a white male for disagreeing with her. That should be just as easy, right?

                        I'm a Christian, therefore I'm a liberal.

                        by VirginiaJeff on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 09:13:58 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  No. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          poco

                          You made the assertion, the onus is on you to support it. You don't get to turn it around by making a strawman of me.

                          "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                          by raptavio on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 09:17:55 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  That's not an example of straw man. (0+ / 0-)

                            But here ya' go. In the HP Live interview, when interviewer Josh Zepps offered a contrasting opinion to hers, Park responded:

                            "I feel like it's incredible patronizing for you to paint these questions this way, especially as a white man. I don't expect you to understand what people of color are actually saying with regard to #CancelColbert...."

                            I'm a Christian, therefore I'm a liberal.

                            by VirginiaJeff on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 09:32:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Okay. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            poco

                            That is where I was expecting you to go.

                            You did open with a gross mischaracterization. He wasn't offering a contrasting opinion. He was condescending to her in what was not racist, but an incredibly sexist, manner.

                            She followed up with calling him on his privileged attitude, which he was oozing when he tried to cut her off and dismiss her.

                            Now as to what she said.

                            She said as a member of the privileged class he cannot truly grok what the experience of the unprivileged class is. I believe that's a true statement. You may not. That's fine.

                            She also said that his condescension toward her was particularly galling because he was a white man condescending to an Asian woman on matters of race. You may disagree with that characterization; I agree with it. That's also fine.

                            But in neither case did she say he's disallowed to or (your words) is unqualified (also, you grossly mischaracterized what I said at the same moment), which was your assertion. She spoke of two distinctly different actions on his part, which you are globalizing into a "she's forbidding Whitey from disagreeing with her" blanket statement. You may, of course, reply with "Well, she implied it" or some nonsense, but someone so confident that I couldn't find a single case of her NOT insulting a white guy for disagreeing with her ought to be able to find something more direct, given the sheer volume of stuff she's been saying...

                            BTW -- example #1:

                            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                            by raptavio on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 10:01:37 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's (0+ / 0-)

                            really obtuse. He wasn't patronizing her. He disagreed with her. Frankly, I thought he was far more polite than she and her wacky opinion deserved.

                            Regardless of the excuse, those were her words. And she used the same ad hominem retorts in her Twitter posts. Anyone who disagreed with her was trashed for being white and/or male. Except for Asians, who were taunted as being sellouts to whites.

                            There is no way to disagree with her on this topic. And apparently no way to disagree with you, either.

                            I'm a Christian, therefore I'm a liberal.

                            by VirginiaJeff on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 10:14:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Packing more straw into the shape (0+ / 0-)

                            of a man, I see.

                            You've been given an example of one and our exchange gave several examples of the other -- now you deny both exist. Your disingenuousness shows, and therefore, the weakness of your position.

                            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                            by raptavio on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 08:07:38 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, Suey now says she planned the whole thing (0+ / 0-)

                            as satire, and that she was pretending to be crazy as part of the act. So ... you might pop over to her Twitter page and tell her she didn't seem crazy to you.  ;)

                            I'm a Christian, therefore I'm a liberal.

                            by VirginiaJeff on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 05:42:37 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •  How about this (0+ / 0-)

                said in response to:

                •  And? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  poco

                  Yes, I imagine any 23-year-old facing the shitstorm of unvarnished racism and misogyny, to say nothing of violent threats which she's facing might drop a few F-bombs there, whether she's right or wrong. (That's also the end of a much longer exchange where Prunae Lee was being much less than polite with Suey too.)

                  I didn't say that Asians who disagree with her don't exist. All I said was that their existence doesn't make Suey Park wrong and them right.

                  "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                  by raptavio on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 08:15:16 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Sorry, (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    novapsyche

                    that really should have been in response to the how to disagree bit. I don't care that she said fuck. Big deal. It isn't about being polite, who gives shit about that?

                    It was that disagreeing made those two individuals race traitors. By disagreeing with Park, they automatically don't care about ending racism--and they are divisive--solely because they disagree with one fucking person.

                    The stupid racist comments addressed to Park does not excuse her behavior, and neither does her age.

                    Reasonable people can disagree as to whether or not the Colbert bit was funny. But it was clearly satire. Was it offensive? Yes. It had to be offensive. If it wasn't, it would not have been satire. Snyder was clearly the target, any claim that Colbert was punching down means that they must also think Swift was punching Irish babies.

                    •  Do you realize (0+ / 0-)

                      the connotations of the term "race traitors?" You really should rephrase that.

                      And no, they don't merely disagree -- they do so by being disagreeable and insulting Park. They got more of the same in return, if perhaps an escalation.

                      Also, even if Suey Park's conduct in that exchange was out of line (and I can accept that it was) it does not make her wrong.

                      Also, comparing Colbert's sketch to Swift's A Modest Proposal is false equivalence writ large, and entirely evades (or if one were more charitable) misses the point of why Colbert's sketch was objectionable.

                      "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                      by raptavio on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 09:04:33 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I do realize the (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        TrueBlueMajority

                        connotation. It is not actually a term owned by white supremacists, rather common among many groups/individuals when people don't behave in the way that the group/individual feels is acceptable. And it is just as offensive of a concept when it comes from a young Asian woman as when it comes from white supremacists or any other group/individual.

                        I am curious as to why you feel it is false equivalence.

                        Further, I stated outright that it was offensive. But, that is inherent in satire. The Onion article last year about Snyder was also offensive, and also good satire. If you are satirizing something offensive, the satire will be offensive. And whether or not it is funny doesn't matter, humor is not required.

                        •  And now you're drawing equivalence (0+ / 0-)

                          between minorities and whites as if the latter's privilege were irrelevant.

                          Yes, actually, the term 'race traitor' specifically evokes White supremacy, and beyond that, racial supremacy, which is not evident in even the most extreme statements opposed to Colbert.

                          My patience for this is exhausted.

                          "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                          by raptavio on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 10:58:06 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  wow (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            novapsyche

                            Hmm. I'm sorry, I do find the idea offensive regardless as to who says it. And I don't really understand what white privilege has to do with it. It is either a shitty way to view the world, or it isn't. If it is, it is shitty regardless as to anything else.

                            If you decide you are interested, a short period of time researching will show that, for instance, Clarence Thomas has been referred to as a traitor for his entire public life--most recently for gutting the VRA. Hell, you can also think about the uproar Dr. West caused a year ago (or maybe to years ago, I don't quite recall).

                            Anyways, you have a terrific day.

                          •  No, no, no. (0+ / 0-)

                            Come on.  You've never heard, "Why are you acting so white?" on the playground?  That is enforcing racial behaviors.  That is accusing someone else of being a race traitor.  The term has not so much to do with racial superiority as much as racial conformity.

                            I will acknowledge that many of the victims of being so slurred are Caucasian American women who have taken as consensual sexual/romantic partners men of other racial backgrounds.  Still, they are not the only group.  To wit, there are plenty of race traitors of the Black background (Rice, Thomas, Carson, West & Keyes among them).  They have sold out for political gain at the expense of those in their identified group.

                          •  You obviously have no understanding (0+ / 0-)

                            of the specific history of the term "Race traitor". And I have no more stamina to try to educate you after this very long and grueling thread.

                            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                            by raptavio on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 09:29:12 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  money quote (0+ / 0-)

                          if you are satirizing something offensive

                          the satire will be offensive

                          Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
                          DEMAND CREATES JOBS!!!
                          Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

                          by TrueBlueMajority on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 11:24:09 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

              •  I hesitate to engage you so directly, raptavio, (0+ / 0-)

                but let me ask you:  what am I gaining, as a non-celebrity black woman, by defending Colbert on the grounds of his art?  I am not Michelle Malkin, Allen West or Ben Carson--I am not a token looking to be compensated for giving one side political cover.  I am a fan of Colbert, yes, but not one who is willing to simply "cover" or "give a mulligan" toward.

                When I listen to racist tropes, I take into account their context.  Otherwise, I would never have become a fan of Richard Pryor's stand-up.  He inserted race everywhere.

                I also realize that my being a black woman who supports Colbert does not give Colbert cover.  Just because I am otherwise sensitive to matters of race, that does not mean that I am in the right in this matter.

                I will say, in my defense, that I do take offense when persons of descent other than mine are "othered".  Just today on the bus, I heard a woman (also coincidentally black) being overly loud & using the term "Oriental".  I cringed every time I heard it.  I have sensitized myself to slurs of other cultures.

                This satire is not poking fun at Asians.  It is pointing out overt racism by proxy.  We have become so inured to racism toward Native Americans (indeed, to some extent they don't even register as legitimate minorities in our culture as they've been so marginalized as to become invisible) that we need another, more shocking form of racism to reawaken us as a society.  Colbert uses such an outdated, obviously antiquated slur to accomplish his ends.

                As I intimated upthread, there is no real instance of self-hatred when it comes to being an American of Caucasian descent.  So, for Colbert, the next best tool in his satirical toolbox would be to expose racism by "committing" racism via his bigoted character.  That is, really, the only means he has as a white male conservative character.  I think he did as good of a job as could be expected.  (And I say this as someone who does not & has never liked the Ching Chong Ding Dong character.)

                •  Why do you have to be gaining anything? (0+ / 0-)

                  Those who wish to defend privilege may certainly leap upon a minority woman's defense and use it as a shield, but that doesn't mean any specific defense of Colbert needs be anything but sincere, whether by a white man or a black woman or an Asian of any gender.

                  Also, everyone here knows what Colbert was doing and why. His intent and the object of his satire need no further explanation.

                  "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                  by raptavio on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 09:34:42 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Because the people you mention (0+ / 0-)

                    (Carson, West, Malkin) have indeed benefited directly from their tokenistic shielding of conservatives from criticism regarding racism & othering.

                    My defense of satire is not a defense of privilege, despite your repeated attempts to conflate the two.

                    •  I'm not being clear -- my bad. (0+ / 0-)

                      Fatigue and all.

                      A defense of Colbert may or may not be a springboard for a defense of privilege. I would suggest that most of the defenses in the form of "Colbert didn't cross the line with his satire, and this is why" are not defenses of privilege, and most of the defenses in the form of "Park can't take a joke/is a jerk/is an idiot/is a racist" are defenses of privilege.

                      "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                      by raptavio on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 06:36:12 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

                If I, as an Asian American, think this thing is waaaaaaaay overblown, now I'm Michelle Malkin or Ben Carson? Jeebus, we're into Evel Kneival jumping over 40 sharks level of unnecessary outrage.

                •  No. No no no. (0+ / 0-)

                  That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that sincere, right or wrong, defenses of offense against a minority group by members of that minority group are often exploited by defenders of privilege to say, in essence, "Since this minority X says it's OK, every minority X who says it's not is obviously wrong."

                  Some people, like West, Malkin or Carson, have made a career out of being that guy, but this phenomenon happens whether the defense is sincere or insincere, valid or invalid.

                  The person to whom I was replying seemed to be implementing that defense, i.e. since this/these Asian American(s) think what Colbert did was fine, Park and the Asian Americans who don't are wrong.

                  That does not, I guess I'd better say explicitly to avoid further misunderstandng, mean that the converse is true, either. Park's outrage does not make the not-outraged wrong either.

                  Make sense?

                  "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                  by raptavio on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 09:02:30 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site