Skip to main content

A Thursday tweet from @ColbertReport showed the dangers of taking satire out of context and having the Twitter feed for a television show not actually run by anyone associated with the show. As a result, #CancelColbert ended up trending on Twitter.

Wednesday night, discussing Washington NFL team owner Dan Snyder's foundation to "help" Native Americans even as he refuses to change his team's offensive name, Colbert said:

Folks, this move by Dan Snyder inspires me, because my show has frequently come under attack for having a so-called offensive mascot. My beloved character Ching-Chong Ding-Dong…the point is, offensive or not — not — Ching-Chong is part of the unique heritage of the Colbert Nation that cannot change. But I’m willing to show the Asian community that I care by introducing the Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitive to Orientals or Whatever.
Guess which part of that @ColbertReport tweeted out that angered Twitter users? That's right, out of context, "I am willing to show #Asian community I care by introducing the Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever." (Hashtagging "Asian" was a great touch, don't you think? Just to prove that there was a real Social Media Professional at work on racially objectionable tweets.)

Twitter user and freelance writer Suey Park's response:

The Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals has decided to call for #CancelColbert. Trend it.
@suey_park
 

In a bizarre confluence, Park's campaign was supported by Michelle Malkin and Twitchy even as Park was bombarded with the kind of racism you'd usually expect if the Twitchy folks had turned their wrath on you. Colbert, for his part, distanced himself from the tweet and the account that put it out:

#CancelColbert - I agree! Just saw @ColbertReport tweet. I share your rage.
Who is that, though? I'm @StephenAtHome
http://t.co/...
@StephenAtHome
 

Park and many #CancelColbert tweeters argue that the line wasn't acceptable even in context, and the Colbert fans who are falling back on racism to defend it certainly aren't a convincing counter to that.

Originally posted to Laura Clawson on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 07:16 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Ah, but Righteous Outrage is so seductive... (14+ / 0-)

      ...and it's all the rage (pardon the pun) since it's that rare but thoroughly justifiable addiction, notably when paired with social justice overtones, and when spiked with social media the heights of its power is yet to be seen...

    •  I am sure he will (9+ / 0-)

      but honestly, this was not a wise thing to do.  Claiming context helps, but it does not justify the words he used.  I know he was trying to bring together several topics that have been brought up over the past few days, and in that it was a good job, but it did go a bit too far.

      By using these words for one racial group, when he certainly would not use similiar words for another racial group, he is saying that he has different respect for the integrity of different groups.  It is hard to understand unless you have experienced it.  It is like a white neighbor asking if you swam over.  The racial epitaph was not said, but the implication is clear.

      •  It's called satire (20+ / 0-)

        If you can't handle satire, stay away from the Colbert show.

        I do wonder if he's lost any writers though, since lately his satire seems a bit less sharp.

        "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

        by Subterranean on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 09:37:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah we all get satire (5+ / 0-)

          I get what he was doing.  I get it.

          But sometimes, POC get a little fatigued of the satire, jokes, non jokes, almost jokes...

          Sometimes it's just too damn much, really.

          •  I don't know what a POC is (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ruellia, dackmont, friendjudy, Damaged262

            but I suggest you staw away from any of Swift's writing, especially the bit about eating Irish babies.

            "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

            by Subterranean on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 11:34:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Suggesting the Irish eat THEIR OWN babies (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LNK, dackmont, Damaged262

              as a solution to all their problems.  

              The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

              by Inland on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 11:42:15 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  "A Modest Proposal".... (11+ / 0-)

                Title of Swift's absolutely brilliant essay.

                Among the educated it is a good 'code word'...Anybody who announces the desire to make a modest proposal is signaling that what comes next is satire.

                Highly recommended:
                http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                SNIPPET:

                . . . . This essay is widely held to be one of the greatest examples of sustained irony in the history of the English language. Much of its shock value derives from the fact that the first portion of the essay describes the plight of starving beggars in Ireland, so that the reader is unprepared for the surprise of Swift's solution when he states, "A young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or a ragout."
            •  Person of Color (0+ / 0-)

              Got it.  

              "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

              by Subterranean on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 12:07:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  but swift din't call them "micks" (0+ / 0-)

              the asian people angry w/colbert don't think using a racial slur for asian people as a punchline when talking about bigotry towards native americans.

              i know everyone says "it's satire" but maybe asians are tired of white folks think "hey a minority is a minority amirite it's all a joke anyway"

              ask yourselves, would you have laughed if the punchline was "colbert's halfway house for lazy ass n*ggers"?

              hey it's satire!

              or "colbert's home for whiny feminist c*nts"?

              my point is, there are some words nobody uses, even in satire, because they are hateful.  these people on twitter* have said "ding ding ching ching orientals" are words that offend them, as asian americans.  really, what's so wrong with that?  who gets to tell people of other races what words are offensive to describe them?

              *i am not including the obvious rwnj (cough michelle malkin cough) who are jumping on this band wagon to cause trouble.

              skippy the bush kangaroo: aware of all internet traditions since 2002!

              by skippy on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 08:55:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  There are some words nobody uses, even in satire, (0+ / 0-)

                because they are hateful??  Really?  You think George Carlin wouldn't have used them?  That he DIDN'T use them?  Or how about Lewis Black?  D.L. Hughley?  Lewis C.K.?  Janeane Garofalo?  The list goes on.  (Perhaps you're too young to remember Lenny Bruce?)

                It's called political SATIRE, not political correctness.  And sometimes it has to be brutally honest because pretending that people don't say these words in real life is naive.  And change doesn't occur by hiding your head in the sand.

          •  Yes, and Native Americans (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            valmont

            Are getting sick of an NFL team with a very offensive mascot/team name, The "Redskins".  THAT was the context of this bit. THAT was the point.

        •  I agree (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Subterranean, m00finsan

          I feel like his stuff is not really all that funny anymore. I like the daily show better. I think Jessica Williams has been getting better writers on there.

          •  Yeah, a few years ago (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            m00finsan

            I considered TDS to be Colbert's warmup act.  Not now.  

            It was a good run, at least.  We can't really expect any show to sustain the level of humor Colbert had at its peak.  

            "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

            by Subterranean on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 11:38:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The Colbert Report (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Damaged262

            I really prefer The Colbert Report because I know that Stephen is making fun of the republicans who need to be made fun of.  He is very good at what he does and I will always be a supporter of his show.

        •  This was satire too: (8+ / 0-)

          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          But I don't see anyone thought it defensible.

          "Satire" is not a blanket mulligan from any blowback for what you say.

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

          by raptavio on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 11:48:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Damn right. We don't want to be hypocrites... (5+ / 0-)

            ...on this subject and cede the high ground by trying to twist racism into "satire". Some things are unacceptable...regardless of the messenger.

            BTW, I said this when Maher called Sarah Palin a c**t. That is a deplorable word that should NEVER be directed at a woman...PERIOD.

            Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

            by Love Me Slender on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 03:01:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nicely said. (8+ / 0-)

              Oh, and here's another one:

              We can disagree that Colbert deserves to be fired/his show cancelled over this, and still think what he said was poor satire that used racist language.

              Imagine that.

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

              by raptavio on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 03:06:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You're making so much sense... (5+ / 0-)

                ...my brain hurts a bit :)

                Here's the thing: I'm sure Colbert and his people are genuinely sorry for that bit. His apology, unlike fellow satirist Limbaugh, would strike me as genuine. It is a boner that goes away...no firing, just a learning experience.

                What is NOT acceptable is all the "Duh...it's just satire" bullshit floating around this thread. We either decry racism or we don't. We don't dress up racism as "satire" just because we like the messenger.

                Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

                by Love Me Slender on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 03:26:48 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  "Racist language" not same as "racial epithets" (5+ / 0-)

                There's a difference between "racial epithets" and racist language, and that's what's being missed by the comments here arguing that "racism isn't justified by saying it's satire".  Racism isn't justified by anything.  But using racial epithets isn't always racist.  Does anyone truly believe Colbert was intending to be anything other than satirical?

                That said:

                (a) Satire is a fine art, and I agree that Colbert's attempt here was somewhat lame, and that that fact blunted the irony.

                (b) There is such a thing as using satire an an excuse to be offensive -- we've seen it all the time from Limbaugh et. al. ever since Obama ran in 08.  But again, does anyone really believe Colbert was doing that?  I doubt anyone other than the disingenuous or irony-impaired would so argue.

                "Happiness is the only good. The place to be happy is here. The time to be happy is now. The way to be happy is to make others so." - Robert Ingersoll

                by dackmont on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 06:54:34 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I think everyone agrees -- (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  m00finsan, Damaged262, tryhardyes

                  or at least, everyone reasonable agrees -- Colbert's intent was satire. Even Suey Park has said there.

                  But satirical intent is not, as I have said already, a blanket mulligan.

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

                  by raptavio on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 08:25:41 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Mulligan for what? Bad taste or racism? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    jqb

                    What, if anything, should Colbert not be excused for here?

                    Was it "using racist language"?  Do we call it "racist language" every time someone uses a racial epithet?  Depends on what you mean by "racist language", obviously.  To me, it sounds bad, like something a (borderline) racist might do.

                    I'd suggest that Colbert could fairly be accused of something more like:  "using racial epithets to not-very-funny effect".  Obviously not the same thing as racism, and not even really in the same ballpark, in every case -- as when a satirist's sympathies are well-known.

                    Racism is a big deal.  We should be rigorous about it, and not imply (with, e.g., vague terms like "racist language") that Colbert might be kinda racist, maybe.

                    Is it racist (or anywhere in the ballpark of racist) to use racial epithets in dumb satire but not in brilliant satire?  No, that makes no sense.  Rather, I'd say it's a matter of poor taste.  If one is going to use racial epithets, one had better have a good reason to do so, e.g. really, really good satire.  Otherwise, using those terms is in bad taste; they're poisonous, and only rarely can poisons be used in a healing way.

                    "Happiness is the only good. The place to be happy is here. The time to be happy is now. The way to be happy is to make others so." - Robert Ingersoll

                    by dackmont on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 11:37:37 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm not one of those (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      m00finsan, poco, tryhardyes

                      who think that the word "racist" is an accusation of some unforgivable sin and should therefore only be used for the guys in hoods.

                      Some terms are racist. Some actions are racist, even if the intent behind them isn't necessarily racist. That's just the way it is.

                      This can lead to a much longer conversation on "What is racism" that I honestly don't have the stamina for right now.

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

                      by raptavio on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 08:04:53 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  "I'm not one of those" (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        tryhardyes

                        All the worse for you -- racism is an unforgivable sin.

                        Some terms are racist. Some actions are racist, even if the intent behind them isn't necessarily racist. That's just the way it is.
                        No, that's the way it isn't. People who oppose real racism understand that it doesn't dwell just in words. As for Colbert's actions, they were anti-racist.
                        •  You say that (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          costello7, amoverton

                          because you define racism in a self-serving manner, rather than the pervasive, systemic manifestation of power, privilege and oppression that has both major and minor, overt and subtle, manifestations.

                          Because you define the word according to your preconceptions and privilege, not according to the real world.

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

                          by raptavio on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 12:46:13 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Wow raptivo, that's a lot of extremism (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            tryhardyes, 420 forever, dackmont

                            in just 2 small paragraphs.  I'm not discounting the way you feel, but those are some harsh glasses you're viewing something that was meant to draw light on and embarrass the shit out of racists, like those that love the name Redskins.  They may not even realize, even this far into the game that it's racism and that is the point of the Colbert Report skit in question.  The f*cking guy was trying to equate the racist use of the name Redskin with the racist use of the asian insults.  How do you not get that?

                            I'm damaged and I like it, it made me what I am! BTW, my avatar is as stollen as my father's retirement fund, the old man died almost penniless. Bankers don't go to prison for breaking our laws, they buy bigger yachts.

                            by Damaged262 on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 08:04:53 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Beyond that, Raptavio's charges are completely (0+ / 0-)

                            irrational, ad hominem swill that don't at all follow from what I wrote. If Raptavio believes, as I do, that racism is

                            the pervasive, systemic manifestation of power, privilege and oppression that has both major and minor, overt and subtle, manifestations
                            then how in the word can it be "just the way it is" that "some actions are racist", independent of intent? Raptavio seems to have no understanding of hsr own words describing racism. And how in the world can my claiming that racism doesn't just dwell in words and that Colbert's actions were anti-racist possibly be construed as my defining racism in a "self-serving manner",  according to my "preconceptions and privilege"? What sort of person employs such grossly ad hominem well-poisoning charges, based on no evidence at all?
                          •  All ad hominem. (0+ / 0-)
                            the pervasive, systemic manifestation of power, privilege and oppression that has both major and minor, overt and subtle, manifestations.
                            That is quite how I define it, and informs my comments in this thread that seem to be beyond your comprehension.
                            Because you define the word according to your preconceptions and privilege, not according to the real world.
                            You are full of rank shit. The whole point is about the racism of  ball teams called "Redskins" and of the conceit of buying people off by forming some bogus organization for Amerind concerns but not changing the name. Your accusations against me here are false, blind, and grossly dishonest.
                          •  If that was how you defined racism (0+ / 0-)

                            then you and I would have no quibble that specific actions can be racist (i.e. one of those major or minor, overt or subtle manifestations) without the person committing them being defined by the word.

                            Since you reject that with venom and vitriol, however, well, I leave it as an exercise to the reader as to who's full of shit.

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

                            by raptavio on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 08:27:52 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  you can be racist just fine (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Damaged262, jqb, costello7, tryhardyes

                      without using any overt "racist" words. I am really getting tired of all this PC stuff. It's getting to the point where you can't talk without someone having a hissy fit over what kind of word you use. WHAT MATTERS IS THE CONTEXT!!

                      •  Nobody who uses the term "PC" unironically (3+ / 0-)

                        should be trusted as an honest broker.

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

                        by raptavio on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 12:47:07 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Irony=ignoring the context, as U did just now [nt] (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          acornweb

                          "Happiness is the only good. The place to be happy is here. The time to be happy is now. The way to be happy is to make others so." - Robert Ingersoll

                          by dackmont on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 06:20:16 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Nope. (0+ / 0-)

                            In context, you used a pejorative to make an emotional, rather than rational, argument.

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

                            by raptavio on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 06:47:29 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's actually quite rational to say that context (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            acornweb

                            matters and that one shouldn't over-focus on words at the expense of context.

                            As for the term "PC", I agree that it is often used by the right wing to demonize the left's commitment to equality.  In fact, that's where it originated, didn't it?  But I don't think it follows that zootwoman -- who, btw, made the comment, and not me -- was necessarily coming from that stance just because she used the term.  I agree with her point and I don't think it was "emotional" at all.  In fact, I could take you to task for accusing a woman of being emotional, but I'm not going to, because I know that context matters.

                            As I just mentioned below, I think I can see where you're coming from.  Satire is not a blanket mulligan, and that "Washington N***ers" diary is a good example of that fact.  I don't think Colbert was inappropriate, but I can see how some might.  And I understand that you're not calling him a racist.  I do think Park overreacted considerably, no matter how fine a human being she is otherwise.

                            "Happiness is the only good. The place to be happy is here. The time to be happy is now. The way to be happy is to make others so." - Robert Ingersoll

                            by dackmont on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 07:23:01 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  There are a few things (0+ / 0-)

                            which are red flags to me.

                            "Race card" is one. "Politically correct" is another.

                            Both mean "I want to say offensive things to or about minorities without consequence."

                            As such, the context that matters is whether the usage is earnest or ironic.

                            No sentiment expressed by unironic use of that phrase is worth defending.

                            As to Ms. Park, she may or may not have overreacted. However, it's the fact that the blowback on her was racist, sexist, and utterly indefensible, and that this blowback includes Colbert's fans as well as Kossacks who we' like to have assumed are against such things as racism and sexism even when they're employed in defense of liberal heroes is particularly galling.

                            Park's supposed overreaction is getting all the blame from some sectors, and there seems to be little acknowledgment that Colbert gave her something to which to react, and that her reaction would have barely made a blip had that sheer volume of mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging vitriol not been fired back at her by all manner of bad actors.

                            And that includes every asshole who condescendingly asserts that the silly girl doesn't understand satire.

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

                            by raptavio on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 05:59:52 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't think your generalizations hold up (0+ / 0-)

                            Thanks for the reply.  Here's where I differ.  You wrote:

                            "Race card" is one. "Politically correct" is another.

                            Both mean "I want to say offensive things to or about minorities without consequence."

                            Yeah, they can mean that, but they don't always.  Which you should be able to surmise from the lefties here, like me, who are disagreeing with your generalization and sometimes use the terms unironically.  Deny this if you want, but look up the "no true Scotsman" fallacy first.

                            As for vile criticisms of Park, what are you talking about?  Which comments specifically in this thread are "racist, sexist, and utterly indefensible"?  Because you should have HR'd them if they really were.  Or are they "racist, sexist, and utterly indefensible" only according to some rigid metric like "no sentiment is defensible if expressed via unironic usage of terms X or Y"?  Because then I can see why you didn't HR them, because you know that they're not really, uncontroversially perceived as horrific among the Left, and therefore you know that you'd get dinged for abusing HR privileges.  Worth thinking about.

                            Finally, saying Park doesn't understand satire isn't the same as demeaning her in a sexist or ageist way.  If it is, then your calling a female Kossack's argument "emotional", above, was on its face sexist.

                            I know we agree on a lot of stuff because we're Lefties, but IMHO your criteria for appropriate discourse are too rigid, and to be honest, self-serving, because if you really practiced what you preached you'd be HR-ing stuff left and right (so to speak), and would refrain from repeating a classically sexist trope like "woman, your argument is emotional".  Like I said -- worth thinking about.  I don't mean any of this in a hostile way.  I mean it in the Carl Sagan sense of offering reasoned criticism in a friendly way. Take care.

                            "Happiness is the only good. The place to be happy is here. The time to be happy is now. The way to be happy is to make others so." - Robert Ingersoll

                            by dackmont on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 01:13:02 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  quoth: (0+ / 0-)
                            Yeah, they can mean that, but they don't always.  Which you should be able to surmise from the lefties here, like me, who are disagreeing with your generalization and sometimes use the terms unironically.  Deny this if you want, but look up the "no true Scotsman" fallacy first.
                            There's no "no true Scotsman" fallacy to concern about. I labor under no illusions that the left is free of those who wish to defend privilege. I simply assert that though one may believe one is not defending privilege by calling things politically correct or playing the race card, one is wrong. The term is a pejorative, and by definition pejoratives are an attempt to make an emotional argument rather than a rational one. And the emotional argument is to accuse someone of adhering to an arbitrary orthodoxy rather than having a legitimate basis for one's offense at a behavior. No.

                            Also, there's a difference between "You're making an emotional argument" -- which I should better phrase as "You're making an argument that appeals to the emotion of the listener" -- and "You're being emotional." That said, I should be careful what landmines I step upon, too. But that doesn't make me wrong about the inherent invalidity of any argument that rests upon the pejoratives "politically correct" or "the race card." Because tu quoque arguments are fallacious, too.

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

                            by raptavio on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 01:23:40 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Pejoratives and semantics (0+ / 0-)

                            I get that "PC" and "race card" originated as pejoratives from the Right, and even today when I hear them I generally go "uh-oh" and brace for a stream of bigotry.  But I at least listen to what's being said, especially on DK, where most people are OK.  I couldn't tell you how many people accept unironic use of those terms as being OK; to me, they're red flags, but not absolute barriers.

                            My primary focus in activism is disability rights, and one of the things we're into is getting people to stop using the R-word.  ("R**ard[ed]".)  It takes time.  A lot of people who use it don't realize how hurtful it is, and the longer form of the word even now is somewhat accepted as a non-pejorative, just as "moron" and "imbecile" and "idiot" used to be.

                            But language changes.  If someone uses the R-word, I'll point it out (tsk, tsk) ;-).  But I'll listen to their overall point, too.  There is a difference between rejecting an argument that is based on a flawed assumption and rejecting an argument just because of choice of words, even if you do believe that use of a word necessarily implies a flawed stance.

                            But you're right of course, in that choice of words certainly matters.  It's just not a matter of black and white, to use a potentially loaded expression.  Yep, I'm careful with that one, and never use the word "niggardly" or the expression "call a spade a spade" anymore, and I think it's pretty obviously time to lay them to rest.  While most people who use the terms unironically harbor no ill intent -- it's the ironic usage that's bad -- I know that these words can have an impact comparable to the way a person with PTSD experiences triggering phenomena. Some will say, hey, it's a hard world, I can't go worrying about offending everyone, but why on earth make the world any more hard, voluntarily?  I think some people just wall off their own suffering and are thus unempathetic with others.  Hey, nice exchange; we actually got nicer as it went on, which is... nice, given how things often go.

                            "Happiness is the only good. The place to be happy is here. The time to be happy is now. The way to be happy is to make others so." - Robert Ingersoll

                            by dackmont on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 02:24:44 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  On the "tsk, tsk", no. (0+ / 0-)

                            That R-word was "racist", not "retarded." I endeavor to not use the latter word as a pejorative, though I have, in the past, failed to do so.

                            It's not cool to simultaneously appear to want to keep the conversation above-board and try to set me back on my heels by dragging up an old thread -- particularly with a false accusation. Can we keep this above board, please?

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

                            by raptavio on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 03:08:42 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Hey, sorry about that (0+ / 0-)

                            No malice intended, but even with a minute amount of distance, it's hard to see that as anything less than dickish on my part (not to mention that I was factually wrong), and I apologize fully for that.  Truly.  Haven't slept in a long while, and I'm kind of wired and chatty, so -- not my best moment.  I'm sorry.  I really wasn't trying to make you loose face... I just googled for the hell of it, and saw that someone twittered about your post, and made the same wrong assumption they did.  Almost didn't even mention it (but, guess I just had to "make the point").  Now I see why I hesitated.

                            Can you imagine the discipline it must take not to commit gaffes in a long campaign?  I'm pretty "gaffe-prone" so I can't even conceive of it.  But people come in all different wirings.

                            Not making an excuse, though -- I apologize for that.

                            "Happiness is the only good. The place to be happy is here. The time to be happy is now. The way to be happy is to make others so." - Robert Ingersoll

                            by dackmont on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 03:40:08 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  P.S. - btw, that D.O.V. diary kicked ass (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            raptavio

                            This one.  "Eye on the prize -- SCOTUS" -- that's it.

                            "Happiness is the only good. The place to be happy is here. The time to be happy is now. The way to be happy is to make others so." - Robert Ingersoll

                            by dackmont on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 03:46:08 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes it did (0+ / 0-)

                            but wait a tick - who the eff tweeted about my DKos comment?

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

                            by raptavio on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 04:11:55 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  oh, the zombie. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            dackmont

                            I might have known. How pathetic.

                            Anyway, forgiven, forgotten, and respect earned for being the bigger person.

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

                            by raptavio on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 04:13:52 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thanks (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            raptavio

                            And I just discovered that Google targeted my search results to push DailyKos stuff to the top, since doing the search with Startpage (which uses Google's database but anonymizes you) didn't return the same hit.  (F*ck, I can't believe I even googled over this at all, but anyway.)  Startpage lacks that convenient "completes words & phrases for you" feature but otherwise, pretty cool.

                            Sorry you have a "fan"; these things happen the more you say what you mean in public.  For which... rock on.  I'll look out for your diaries.  (Don't look for mine -- I don't have the time or skill set to do them well)

                            "Happiness is the only good. The place to be happy is here. The time to be happy is now. The way to be happy is to make others so." - Robert Ingersoll

                            by dackmont on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 04:25:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nice talking with you. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            dackmont

                            It's nice to be able to discuss these things with a minimum of acrimony.

                            These issues about race and privilege are so often acrimonious that it stands out when it's not.

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

                            by raptavio on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 04:27:16 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  I find you overall statement to be unclear. (0+ / 0-)

                      Are you supportive or against what happened on the Colbert Report?  You start out as if you feel what he said was purposeful but the tone at the end sounds as if you take offense to what was said.  Maybe I'm not reading it right.  You're not being satirical are you?  ;-)

                      I'm damaged and I like it, it made me what I am! BTW, my avatar is as stollen as my father's retirement fund, the old man died almost penniless. Bankers don't go to prison for breaking our laws, they buy bigger yachts.

                      by Damaged262 on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 07:56:35 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I meant that statement towards: (0+ / 0-)

                        Dagmont's "Mulligan for what?" statement, when the hell is D. Kos gonna add an edit option?

                        I'm damaged and I like it, it made me what I am! BTW, my avatar is as stollen as my father's retirement fund, the old man died almost penniless. Bankers don't go to prison for breaking our laws, they buy bigger yachts.

                        by Damaged262 on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 08:38:19 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Don't worry -- it was clear enough that you were (0+ / 0-)

                          responding to my  "Mulligan for what?" statement.  Even if the indentation in the thread didn't make it obvious, one could tell by clicking on "parent" in your reply.

                          "Happiness is the only good. The place to be happy is here. The time to be happy is now. The way to be happy is to make others so." - Robert Ingersoll

                          by dackmont on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 07:02:55 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  I mean that Park was wrong, and that Colbert (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        acornweb

                        was fine, and that -- at worst -- Colbert might be fairly accused of using satire that wasn't funny or sharp enough to justify use of a racial epithet.

                        It is, certainly, possible to use racial epithets gratuitously even when satire is intended.  In a comment above, raptavio linked to an example of satire that inappropriately used a racial epithet.  The latter was essentially saying, "hey, Snyder wouldn't call the team the 'Washington N***ers', so it's also inappropriate to call them the Redskins," but then went on to use the N-word so many times that it was just over the top (even if the diarist meant well).  So what I was trying to say is this:  that diary was a 10 on a 10 scale of "satire misusing a racial epithet", then maybe Colbert was a 1 or 2 or so, depending on how unfunny one thinks he was.

                        Does that make sense?

                        Personally, I think Colbert was fine.  It wasn't the funniest satire I've ever seen, but it didn't rise to the level of even a 1 on the "satire misusing a racial epithet" scale.  Park overreacted.

                        So, no, I wasn't being satirical, but I agree it can be hard to tell sometimes, especially in written communication online ... the internt kinda needs an emoticon that specifically and unambigously says "just in case it wasn't clear, I was being ironic!"  :-) (<== non-ironic smiley)

                        "Happiness is the only good. The place to be happy is here. The time to be happy is now. The way to be happy is to make others so." - Robert Ingersoll

                        by dackmont on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 07:00:38 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  You're missing the point. (6+ / 0-)

                    Numerous people are claiming that Colbert was racist -- mostly right wing idiots on twitter, but a number of people here too. They are flatly, obviously, wrong. And it's quite notable that you completely ignored dackmont's argument. You say "a blanket mulligan" -- for what? Are you seriously saying that Colbert is a racist or was being racist? This being DK, I know that you will not budge an inch, but maybe somewhere in your head a neuron or two of intellectual honesty will stir.

                •  While I agree with your points in the main, (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Damaged262
                  There is such a thing as using satire an an excuse to be offensive -- we've seen it all the time from Limbaugh et. al. ever since Obama ran in 08.
                  I believe you are confusing 'satire' with 'sarcasm'.
            •  There's a huge difference (4+ / 0-)

              between calling Palin a "cunt" and Colbert's skit.  Of course Maher was out of line.  He also did not try to excuse it by calling it "satire".

              "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

              by Subterranean on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 03:41:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  There is, yes. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                m00finsan, moviemeister76

                But it's a matter of severity, not applicability.

                And some people were perfectly happy to defend Maher too.

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

                by raptavio on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 04:30:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  So as I understand (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Damaged262, Luv2luvU

                your logic implies it's OK for a satirist like Maher to call a man a dick head but not cool at all to call a woman a c**t? They are both vulgar terms describing people of a different gender but to suggest one is OK and the other is not is the epitome of a double standard and hipprocracy in it's nakedness.      The very fact that I had to disguise the word on this thread for fear of being censored speaks volumes.
                The fact is, all Maher was doing was calling a Skunk a Skunk. I'd be more irritated with him for standing up for Rumsfeld. Now there is a true c*nt!

                "The Liberty of Democracy is not safe if the People tolerate the growth of Private Power to a point where it becomes stronger than their Democratic State itself. That, in it's essence, is Fascism, ownership of Government by an individual or a Group" FDR

                by Kirk Welch on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 05:49:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't speak for the commenter (0+ / 0-)

                  toward which your own question was aimed.  I will say that, as a feminist, I take exception to anyone using gender insults.  It's not okay to use language referring to genitals as slurs.  End stop.

                  I don't mind using vulgar terms for genitals when referring to the body parts themselves (though I do have preferences).  That's just slang.  That's categorically different from demeaning persons by way of genital terminology.

            •  I'm curious, do you have a problem ... (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jqb, Damaged262, Luv2luvU, tryhardyes

              ... with a man being called a cunt?

              I have zero problem with that word, in any context. And I genuinely don't get why people do. How is the word so very worse, than bitch or whore, when being used specifically as an insult? If a man called me any slur-type word, with the intention of denigrating me, which word he used would be of no real consequence at all.

              I watch a lot of UK TV, and I see people use the word constantly, and have never cringed once - regardless of which gender is taking it. In fact, I get madder when some random person presumes to say, "God bless you," to me, assuming I both believe in his/her god and that I want "His" blessing.

              And for that matter, how is the word cunt an unacceptable thing to call a woman, but few people think there's anything wrong with calling a man a dick? And at what point, does the word asshole become off limits, just because we all have one of those pieces of anatomy?

              There are a thousand things that Maher has said, that I found more reductive, obtuse and offensive, than him ever calling a single woman a cunt - especially since Palin is the epitome of the slang meaning of the word cunt, which is a despicable and vulgar person. And I genuinely do not grasp the concept, of people treating that word as if it were equal to the N-word (that even the most liberal of us won't use without a VERY good reason).

            •  About the c-word... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Luv2luvU

              I don't know if you're aware of this, but in the UK, it's an insult used without regard to gender.  Men will call each other c**ts (in deference to your self-censorship) with equal abandon over there, possibly even more than they do women.

              But NEVER directed at a woman?  Sorry, but when we're talking about such (to us) morally reprehensible types as Sarah Palin, I daresay exception can be made.  

          •  Jim Hill gave a defense. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Luv2luvU, Damaged262

            It's remarkable how often, when people say "anyone", they mean "anyone who agrees with me".

            •  Or maybe I just missed that one (0+ / 0-)

              and you're trying to score rhetorical points. You're not seriously claiming THAT piece of shit diary was OK, are you?

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

              by raptavio on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 12:48:42 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  This may shock you, but not everyone who (0+ / 0-)

                disagrees with you is evil (or "privileged" or "self-serving" or whatever assholish ad hom you like to attach to them).

                •  Nice. (0+ / 0-)

                  You showed your ignorance again while you're busy casting insults.

                  If you're white in America, you're privileged. If you're male, you're privileged. If you're heterosexual, you're privileged. If you're wealthy. If you're Christian. Etc. It is part and parcel of being in a society that grants privilege to certain classes that it does not grant to other classes.

                  And that's not your fault. Nor is it mine. We can no more be responsible for being the beneficiaries of privilege than a lawn can for being watered. It is not something to feel responsible for, it is not something to feel guilty about. It just is.

                  And that means that those without privilege are going to see things in our society that those of us with privilege do not; things we take for granted they cannot; they will face challenges we never even imagine having to face. That is the way of things.

                  Where you or I take responsibility is in whether our actions intend to protect that privilege (often, by denying its existence).

                  So I ask you again: Are you seriously claiming THAT piece of shit diary was OK?

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

                  by raptavio on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 08:35:03 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Bullshit...and here's the unavoidable truth: (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Matt Z, m00finsan, costello7, Luv2luvU

          If Colbert spewed Limbaugh's brand of "satire", this site would be calling for his head. That is a FACT.

          Racism is racism...regardless of what else we find acceptable from his or her mouth.

          Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

          by Love Me Slender on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 02:59:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Epithet, not epitaph. (4+ / 0-)

        An epitaph is found on gravestones.

      •  I usually like Colbert (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        raptavio, Matt Z, m00finsan, OIL GUY

        in this case I'm glad to see him called out by Suey Park.  Perhaps the shows writers will "think" before making an attempt to satirize one ugly situation (the Washington team - re: Native Americans ) by using very offensive racial stereotypes used against Asians.

        "If you're in a coalition and you're comfortable, you know it's not a broad enough coalition." Dr. Bernice Johnson Reagon

        by Denise Oliver Velez on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 12:43:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But...isn't that the point? (13+ / 0-)

          The satire (and underlying point) wouldn't make as much sense or have the same impact if he didn't use such an obvious offensive term.

          He had to use something offensive enough that no rational thinker could say "Hmmm, not sure I see what's wrong with that." No right-minded individual could look at what he said and see it as anything other than offensive, which, when tying it into the Redskins situation, gives the point it's impact.

          "No children have ever meddled with the Republican Party and lived to tell about it." - Sideshow Bob

          by ThinkerT on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 01:40:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Satire about racism (4+ / 0-)

            is a very, very difficult thing to pull off well.

            Colbert no doubt had the best intentions. But despite them, he misfired, at least in the eyes of many people, even on our side of the political spectrum.

            Unfortunately, far too many people on the left are willing to excuse it and attack the accuser if the offender is on our "Team."

            I expect, however, that Colbert will be bigger than many of his less thoughtful fans. I believe this strongly. In fact, I bet Suey Park will be invited onto his show. (Whether she accepts is another matter.)

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

            by raptavio on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 01:52:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I "excuse" Colbert's satire of racism. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Damaged262

              And I'm a lot more "thoughtful" about this issue than the people bashing Colbert and saying incredibly stupid things like "racism is racism".

              •  Gonna reply to every single one of my comments? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Damaged262

                And try to impose your narrow and self-serving definition of racism onto every one of them?

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

                by raptavio on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 12:49:42 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I didn't, but go lie anyway. (0+ / 0-)

                  The "narrow" definition of racism is the one that ignores context and intent and focuses on just the words. And "self-serving"? Can't you come up with some intellectually honest, non-ad-hom justification for your differing view -- this "wider" notion of racism that turns Colbert into a racist?  Not that I really care what comes forth from intellectually dishonest sources.

          •  Except (3+ / 0-)

            He did it by deliberately hurting a group of people to make a point. White people trying to tell Asian-Americans that they just need to have a sense of humor after he deliberately chose their group to hurt is offensive.

            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 02:31:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  "deliberately hurting a group of people" (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Damaged262

              Why do you have to lie?

              •  Well, why do you have to be such a CLUELESS IDIOT? (0+ / 0-)

                Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha.

                Get it ? !!!

                I called U a "CLUELESS IDIOT".

                Funny! Funnier in big caps, no?

                Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha.

                No one is coming to save us, the future is in our hands.

                by koNko on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 12:43:45 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  DITTO (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Damaged262, PistonMoaned

            the problem here is that it's so obvious it's too subtle for most people.

        •  You should check Park's twitter feed. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Damaged262, PistonMoaned

          It's a cesspool of right wing bigots and anti-white racism. Park is being even less clear than Colbert.

        •  I'm not offended because I know how over the top (0+ / 0-)

          Colbert gets, but if I didn't and just read it cold, it would find it pretty offensive so I think assuming everyone who had that reaction is some kind of hot house flower or over-reacting is a pretty pig-headed assumption.

          Comedians push the limits and sometimes go a bit too far, and the smart ones know when to apologize or turn it around on themselves, lets see what happens.

          But I got to say, some people on this thread just don't get it.

          No one is coming to save us, the future is in our hands.

          by koNko on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 12:38:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  but "he" did not use those words (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        friendjudy

        that Twitter account is not his.  it belongs to Comedy Central and he apparently has no control over what goes out over it

        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 10:31:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes he did. (0+ / 0-)

          The ColbertReport tweet took them out of context, from his show. You really shouldn't be commenting if you are so unfamiliar with the basic facts. Did you really think that everyone else here is misdirected and you're the one person who knows the facts? Sheesh.

          http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/...

          •  your own link makes my point (0+ / 0-)

            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 06:33:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Stop with the dishonest bullshit. (0+ / 0-)

              lowt wrote "By using these words for one racial group ..."

              You wrote "but "he" did not use those words".

              You were wrong. Just admit it. All the rest about the twitter account and Colbert not being the author is well known but has absolutely nothing to do with your idiotic claim that Colbert "did not use those words".

              Or don't admit it ... that would be par for the course at DK. Your moral character is of no concern to me. Goodbye.

              •  yes he used the words on the show--happy now? (0+ / 0-)

                you know perfectly well that my point was that he did not write the tweet... not that the tweet did not include his words.

                at least you are admitting now that he is not the author of the twitter account, which is my ONLY POINT, since it was the tweet that caused all this brouhaha from Park!  not the show, not the facebook page, not the original character. it was the tweet from @ColbertReport that started this.

                your opinion of my moral character is of no concern to me, since you are not the final arbiter or moral character for me, Colbert, or anyone else for that matter.

                #notcanceled

                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 Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 06:25:18 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  perhaps this will clarify (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Damaged262

            from all accounts, Park et al. got upset about the tweet, not the show.  and Colbert did not send the tweet.

            and neither she nor her supporters appear to be upset about the name of the Washington football team, or the foundation that is Snyder's attempt to BUY the right to use racist language!

            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 06:52:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Oh please (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TrueBlueMajority, Damaged262

        The last thing any satirist should do is walk on egg shells. His writers are fine, Colbert's never been funnier - the funniest guy on TV since Steve Allen, and perhaps the most brilliant satirist ever on TV. Michele Malkin is the queen of faux outrage, and in this case I'm certain it's because she hates the politics (and, imho, herself)  not because she's truly offended, but because it's a good cover for the truth of what she's really up to: hectoring to censor any "liberals" or "liberal" news coverage. His "Ching Chong" bit, coming on the heels of a report on that idiot who owns the Washington R-words, perfectly mocking the owner's ludicrous attempt to placate Native Americans - by setting up some sort of foundation (but still keeping the damn nickname). Yes, satire takes some discernment to appreciate.

      •  It's epithet not epitaph (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Damaged262
      •  Oh, yes, let's have (0+ / 0-)

        censorship, by all means.  No farce containing anything that anyone can construe as offensive.  That's what's known as a toothless (and declawed) tiger.  Don't we get enough of this self-inflicted cr*p as it is?  Conservative thugs can use whatever vicious ad hominem attacks and epithets (I think that's the word you intended) they want, but if we progressives call them on it, we are being "mean", and feel we have to apologize.

    •  My wife and I have long held issue with Colbert's (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Luv2luvU, VPofKarma, Damaged262

      stealing of her pet name for my Ching-Chong Ding-Dong.
      And there is no oriental connotation to that, as that Ding-Dong is decidedly occidental.
      Well, as occidental as someone with Sicilian ancestry can be. ;)

      •  Wzrd1… (0+ / 0-)

        Your dick is such a dick!  You should talk to him about that and maybe he'll grow some balls.  Then he can talk to your wife about being such a racist towards him!  Sure, he's only got one good eye, and it's slanted somewhat vertically I assume, but still, she needs to tune it down some.  She could be a bit more PC about it, right?  :-)  

        I'm damaged and I like it, it made me what I am! BTW, my avatar is as stollen as my father's retirement fund, the old man died almost penniless. Bankers don't go to prison for breaking our laws, they buy bigger yachts.

        by Damaged262 on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 08:16:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The Mouth (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Damaged262

      Does anyone actually listen to Michelle "The Mouth" Malkin?  I seriously doubt it.

  •  Outrageous !!! (20+ / 0-)

    This brings into doubt everything ever said by this prevaricator !!!
    Bring out the dive bombers !
    Tora Tora Tora !

    "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

    by indycam on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 07:24:01 AM PDT

    •  Because it's okay to be racist as long as you (5+ / 0-)

      use it as satire?

      Excusing this because it's satire doesn't cut it.  However, looking at it in context - that it was a sarcastic response to a stupid move by the Washington R's owner - does.  The response wasn't a very good one, although the intent was.  

      A sincere apology, with explanation, should be issued.

      •  That smell! (44+ / 0-)

        Satire is certainly dead in you, Gustynpip.  

        "Excusing this because it's satire doesn't cut it."  HAHA!  Damn, this is so meta. Maybe you should look up the definition of satire because it seems like you don't know what it is.

        [Terrorists] are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. --Digby

        by rabel on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 07:53:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Every party needs a wet blanket (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rabel, MHB, Johnny Q, DRDZ

          Gustynpip is just fullfilling his/her role as the party pooper.

          “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” - Steinbeck

          by gjohnsit on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 08:34:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Instead of apologizing (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rabel, LNK, zootwoman

          Colbert should mine the outtwitterage  for some comedy.
          If he's offended some, he should try to atone with comedy, not some lame apology.
          He's an entertainer/ comedian after all, not a politician or statesman.

          Maybe his satire fell flat with some people, but comedy is subjective, I personally don't find Louis CK to be that funny, obviously many people do.

          •  I don't think any of the people whining actually (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Luv2luvU, novapsyche

            watched the show. Colbert performed an outrageous bit as "my beloved character, Ching Chong Ding Dong", then said that "the small minded out there" have called the character "an offensive caricature of an Asian-American" which he then nuttily denies, saying that "Ching Chong" isn't American, he's "a Chinaman" ... and yet gustynpip wrote above "Except this wasn't exaggerated"?? These fools who liken Colbert to Limbaugh and idiotically say things like "racism is racism" show no sign of understanding what racism is. Shining a light on racism is not racism. Paul Ryan is racist. Bill O'Reilly is racist. Stephen Colbert is not racist.

        •  Your reaction is nothing more than the old (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Matt Z, m00finsan, OIL GUY

          Feminists don't have a sense of humor" crap.  I clearly remember the attitude in the seventies and eighties that if men made fun of women, ha ha ha, we better accept it or expect to be accused of not having a sense of humor.  Since they were saying it to be funny, we were the ones at fault for finding it offensive - although of course their real intent was to be offensive.

          Bullshit I don't know what satire is.  If you can't come up with a better comeback than that, you need to learn what an argument is.  Because you sure as hell didn't make a compelling one.

      •  Please explain the difference between satire (9+ / 0-)

        and "a sarcastic response to a stupid move by the Washington R's owner"

        •  Satire is funny. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          m00finsan
          •  Since you still don't seem to get it, let me spell (8+ / 0-)

            it out for you.

            Stephen Colbert is not racist. In fact, he doesn't even see race [rimshot]

            He was using a clearly and undeniably terrible and racist Asian stereotype to draw attention to how utterly ridiculous it is for Dan Snyder to attempt to hide his racism and insensitivity towards Native Americans. In a word, satire.

            It's satire regardless of whether or not you personally find it funny.

            •  Not exactly true (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              OIL GUY, Calvino Partigiani, Luv2luvU

              Satire is subjective, it assumes an agreement about certain facts or beliefs in order to "work", ie a shared understanding of "context".  I think what you may fail to realize is that for some the "context" is much broader and more complex than your somewhat condescending-appearing "let me spell it out for you" retort suggests you understand.  

              I like Colbert, I think he is very smart and funny and I hold zero belief that he is consciously racist.  I don't believe there is any intent to be racist.  I believe some of the idiots on the right (like Malkin who consistently engage in politics that are deliberately racist) have little standing here to judge Mr Colbert).  However, this does not mean that his comment, however intended, wasn't racist.  

              This is the complexity of racism in America, and why some of us who have lived with being taunted with "ching chong" and spit on and shoved by young members of the KKK and run off the road by a car full of white young men chanting that, we may not find it as much a clean intellectual exercise in the nature of comedy as do you.  When you also watch your mother spit on by someone using those words, the phrase may have a different impact.

              Would you believe Colbert using the N-word as satire would be as appropriate?  

              We all have to figure this out, without much template, to get to that "more perfect union".  As a progressive, I believe we can.

              "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of these United States of America -9.75 -6.87

              by Uncle Moji on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 03:45:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I never said the comment wasn't racist (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Uncle Moji, Damaged262, jqb, Luv2luvU

                Looking at the comment I wrote:

                He was using a clearly and undeniably terrible and racist Asian stereotype
                As I say, the comment was undeniably terrible and racist. Taken by itself, it would be completely unacceptable.

                Taken in context, he is using something terrible to highlight the absurdity of racism. I don't personally think the "Ching Chong Ding Dong" character is funny. The amount of laughter from the crowd at the character is unfortunate, because it shows that we still believe in these stereotypes on some level. That to me is the offensive part of the clip.

                I understand where you're coming from. If I wasn't familiar with Colbert and all I saw was the brief clip or the tweet, I'd probably be outraged too. And I understand why someone might be offended even with the context, and that perpetuating stereotypes is never a good thing. But if you could somehow measure it, I would bet that Colbert's net effect on racist attitudes would be hugely positive.

                On your first point, I would agree that an individual's understanding of satire may require an agreement about certain facts or beliefs with the satirist, but if an individual lacks that agreement it doesn't mean the piece ceases to be satire. If the presenter intends it to be satirical, it is satire regardless of subjective understanding.

                To answer your question about the n-word, yes. It's no different. As George Carlin said, it's the intention behind the words that make them good or bad.

                •  The issue is really whether or not "intent" (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Akran, Calvino Partigiani, Luv2luvU

                  in and of itself it the determinant of the validity of impact, and intent alone insulates the user of the responsibility for that "impact" on others.  

                  ie.  I, George Wallace or George Carlin, do not believe I have malicious or derogatory intent in using the N word, therefore if you are offended that I called you an N word, that's not my problem because it wasn't my intent.  By prefacing any impact as based solely on "intent" without equally considering "impact" is, in my view, self-serving and no different that how Justice Scalia sees his views on blacks or women or queers.  

                  I don't think this kind of view, which I consider somewhat selfish and lacking in an understanding of the interconnectedness of a society and what social responsibility entail, is what the body of Stephen Colbert's very finely considered social commentary normally reflects.  I don't think he would agree with your analysis of either the purity of satire or of the unfettered use of racist language in satire.  He does not use the word "nigger" in his racial satire, so clearly even he believes there is a line that should not be crossed, even by someone as brilliant as he is in pushing the envelope on race and satire.  

                  I think this was a human misstep by Colbert, I bear him no ill will, and would fight those who wish his show off the air.   He would not be human if he was perfect, and I believe he is human.  He's a bright man, and I like his work very much, I am not simply willing to dismiss all criticism of him and his single choice here as a universal failure by those who raise concerns to be too stupid to "understand"  comedy.

                  Stephen Colbert is not George Carlin, and frankly, I am glad of it.  Colbert is, in my view, a more thoughtful and less self-absorbed social commentator than Carlin.  

                  Again, we disagree that satire without contextual understanding is still satire.  It may be intended by the writer as satire, but without agreement, it is simply a private monologue without audience - there may be a value in that, but it's not communication which is an essential element of this kind of spoken art and requires relationship.  But perhaps you are more zen than I am, if a comic makes a joke based on social commentary while all alone in the forest, does it still matter?  

                  "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of these United States of America -9.75 -6.87

                  by Uncle Moji on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 05:31:20 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  By the way (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Akran, Calvino Partigiani, Luv2luvU

                  let me also add that I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your reply.  We may never agree on this, but I think our discussion reflects what is best about public discourse, and I thank you for this opportunity.

                  Best regards to you.

                  "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of these United States of America -9.75 -6.87

                  by Uncle Moji on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 05:36:07 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Agreed (3+ / 0-)

                    I don't find this particular bit offensive because of its larger implications, but I understand your point of view and may be on your side given another example with different intentions.

                    To be honest I never meant to get into a discussion defending Colbert. I just wanted to point out a commenter that seemed to not understand the meaning of the word satire, but it was condescending so I appreciate you keeping me in line.

                  •  One last thing.. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Uncle Moji, Luv2luvU

                    I don't know if I would argue that it's just the user's intent that matters, as my last comment implied. Colbert's brand of satire is pretty unique at this moment in time. Maybe it's something special about him that excuses the obviously racist bit in my eyes. Because of everything else I've seen from Colbert, including his testimony in front of Congress about migrant workers, I know Colbert doesn't have a racist bone in his body. Because of this, maybe I let him get away with more than I would anyone else.

                    •  Clearly there's a huge difference between (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      novapsyche

                      George Wallace intending no offense and Stephen Colbert intending to illustrate, rather than commit racism. Uncle Moji is more thoughtful that most (well all) of the other Colbert critics here, but he's still addressing a strawman.

                      •  Thanks for your thoughts (0+ / 0-)

                        I think I understand your point.  Perhaps I am simply poor at explaining mine in a way that illustrates my thoughts, or that we simply have a fundamental disagreement about ideas.  

                        My comments here (as in other diaries on the use of racist language or images) are about the concept of intent versus impact.  The idea that they can be separated, which I believe remains a fundamental hurdle to "a more perfect union". This idea that the impact of the use of racist language or images is, or can be irrelevant to, or can insulate the person who uses it based on his or her motive or intent in using those words or images.  

                        ie Wallace meant to be racially offensive using racist language and Colbert meant to illustrate racism using racist language.  That requires that the person who hears or sees racially-laden iconic language or images who has been the victim of those words or images "understand" the intent of the speaker and requires that they react to or not react to language that has victimized them in 99% of all other previous uses. This places the onus entirely on those who have already been victimized and abused by racism to exercise restraint or understanding about the "intent" of the user.  The user, apparently, has only to say "But I didn't intend for it be offensive" and is not responsible for anything more.  

                        This concept that intent outweighs impact is one used by those in dominance or privilege, not to think about, or care about, the potentially harmful impact on the victims of racism that the "Ching Chong" example has, because it is meant to illustrate the racism within that shared dominant group.   This is an oddity for me in a multicultural society, and confounds me - that a white guy uses racist language (in front of Asian people) to enlightened the present white people to racism toward Asians, so the racism in the words used is for educational purposes.  If Colbert was talking ONLY to a non-Asian group, without possibility of harming Asian viewers, perhaps I could concede the point.  

                        I get why Colbert used racist language, I like Colbert, I think he is one of the premier commentators on the ills of American society, but I think here, he went too far.  I do not condemn him as a man or as a comedian or as a progressive, I say, this one use, this one "bit" failed, if it was meant to illustrate and then condemn the continued acceptability of anti-Asian racism it failed, because even here, as an Asian man, I am still being told, "Ching Chong, he had to use it, you still don't get it, he's helping you."  

                        I think he is a better writer than this one bit.  I know he's a better writer than this one bit.  He has the capacity to make the same point in another way.  It's why I watch his show, and why I will continue to watch his show.

                        An enormous thank you to your for putting up with my tomes of thoughts.  I have to work on shortening it up.  But I appreciate your patience.  Thank you.

                        "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of these United States of America -9.75 -6.87

                        by Uncle Moji on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 05:29:12 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  ""understand" the intent of the speaker" (0+ / 0-)

                          Yes, and I think it's disingenuous to claim a lack of understanding of Colbert's intent.

                          This places the onus entirely on those who have already been victimized and abused by racism to exercise restraint or understanding about the "intent" of the user.  
                          Oh please. Everyone bears a responsibility to exercise restraint on intellectual dishonesty and to understand what is readily understandable. That doesn't mean that they aren't allowed to have a negative reaction, but it does mean that they should not make obviously false accusations. I find that the criticisms of Colbert are deeply intellectually dishonest. If you "fundamentally disagree", that's really of no interest to me.
                          if it was meant to illustrate and then condemn the continued acceptability of anti-Asian racism it failed
                          But it wasn't! It was meant to illustrate and then condemn anti-Amerind racism by use of something that you readily agree is offensive! He drew from the culture a blatantly insulting caricature of Asians -- its very familiarity is a large part of what is so offensive about it. He did this to stir indignation of the treatment of Amerinds in people who hadn't given much thought to the offensiveness of "Redskin". Do you really have no clue as to what the bit was about?

                           

                          I am still being told, "Ching Chong, he had to use it, you still don't get it, he's helping you."  
                          Perhaps this self-centeredness is your fundamental problem. He didn't do it for you! And please, no one is addressing you as "Ching Chong" -- that's so deeply intellectually dishonest that I can barely fathom it ... but I don't want to touch it again. Over and out.
                •  You are wrong. In order to talk about racism (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Damaged262, jqb

                  You have to use racist dialog.

                  Satire is a genre of literature, and sometimes graphic and performing arts, in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, corporations, government or society itself, into improvement.[1] Although satire is usually meant to be humorous, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon and as a tool to draw attention to both particular and wider issues in society.
                •  first of all (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Damaged262, jqb, Luv2luvU

                  you should just type the n-word because we all know what it means. It's like being a Christina and thinking you aren't swearing by saying snap instead of Damn. You are still conveying the meaning in some regard. Oh...wait...meaning is contextual!!! Satire is not just about being funny. S

                  atire is a genre of literature, and sometimes graphic and performing arts, in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, corporations, government or society itself, into improvement.[1] Although satire is usually meant to be humorous, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon and as a tool to draw attention to both particular and wider issues in society.
                  So I would say that Colbert's skit was extremely successful and get's an A++. Including showing "amount of laughter from the crowd at the character is unfortunate, because it shows that we still believe in these stereotypes on some level. "  Now we can't blame Stephen for doing a fantabulous job. You ought to thank him.
                  •  Hmm. (0+ / 0-)
                    you should just type the n-word because we all know what it means. It's like being a Christina and thinking you aren't swearing by saying snap instead of Damn.
                    Why didn't you take your own advice?

                    I generally avoid using the slur myself; the context in which I'm most likely to do so is when I'm discussing race in an historical context (i.e., when quoting direct sources from the era before the Civil War, during Reconstruction, during Jim Crow, during the Civil Rights Era, &c).  I don't go around typing it for no good reason--the reason has to be exceptional.

                    To me, saying the term "n-word" is actually being respectful of those who have had the word used against them as a weapon.  I am one of those persons--one of my former employers committed such an act--and so I am quite sensitized to the word, both in print & in speech.  Some people think saying "n-word" treats the listener as a child or someone who simply cannot handle harsh speech, when in fact it's usually used in a respectful sense, in a way meant to effect the least amount of harm.

                    •  I understand your position (0+ / 0-)

                      I can't stand the word. It even makes be cringe when I hear young black men playing with the word which is their right and I think they take away it's power to hurt a bit when they play with it. Words are basically have real meaning only within context. For example I  pat my grand daughter on the head when she is being an imp and say, stop it "you little monkey." Monkey is a cute word for a jumping around child. But if someone called Obama a monkey in a derisive was then that's racism. When Bush is depicted as a chimp - well that's funny. It's funny to me. It's not calling him the n-word, it has to do with the film, "Bedtime for Bonzo" starring Ronald Reagan and Bush's facial features.  It may be rude of me to think it's funny but that's another topic.

            •  That's exactly this issue, well summarized (0+ / 0-)

              Colbert's team brought out the black humor to shine a light on atrocious behaviour, because that easily puts into perspective how absurd it would be accept that original, atrocious stance.

              If the joke fell flat, then it wasn't well executed - but, the intent was to show that hurtful and unfair things are truly so - partly, because so much of society is apathetic to the running insult that is the Washington D.C. football team's name.

              So, this dark, post-ironic style of humor helps to break through apathy about "Redskins" and show quite clearly how deeply insulting it is to an entire set of people and their history - by using an example which is OBVIOUSLY far over the top to many who might accept "Redskins", today.

              "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

              by wader on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 05:13:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  satire is not aways funny. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TrueBlueMajority, Damaged262, jqb, forrest

            from Wiki -

            Satire is a genre of literature, and sometimes graphic and performing arts, in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, corporations, government or society itself, into improvement.[1] Although satire is usually meant to be humorous, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon and as a tool to draw attention to both particular and wider issues in society.
      •  Disagree. (64+ / 0-)

        I don't think he was being racist.  He was doing the exact opposite.  Pointing out how insane Snyder's actions were by simply changing the context.  He was fighting racism.  Why should he have to apologize for that?

        The fact that everyone got up in arms immediately over it shows the hypocrisy of their actions.  Colbert apparently must apologize, but Snyder?  Shrug.

        In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

        by Cixelsyd on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 07:54:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe I'm wrong, but I at least am ok with this (16+ / 0-)

        I'm not going to tell anyone else they shouldn't be offended by it, that they should understand. But I know Colbert wanted to show that THIS is clearly, obviously offensive and will outrage people... and that it should show people who refuse to accept it that many Native Americans are just as hurt by the casual use of the term "redskin."

      •  Reasoning by analogy (25+ / 0-)

        It's not a joke. It's meant to be offensive. Why? To put Dan Snyder is context.

        When someone says "replace gay with black" in the context of, say, Arizona's "religious freedom" bill, they're doing exactly the same thing Colbert did here. Except, of course, since Colbert's character is a Bill O'Reilly parody and a self-described 'idiot', he actually makes the offensive statement.

        •  How could you say "gay" and "black"?!?! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dburn

          That's racist and homophobic!!!

          Plus, no context AT ALL??  How could you use no context AT ALL???

          "Happiness is the only good. The place to be happy is here. The time to be happy is now. The way to be happy is to make others so." - Robert Ingersoll

          by dackmont on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 08:09:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  How exactly is making fun of racist tropes (22+ / 0-)

        "being racist"? Could you explain that to me. Perhaps I have a comprehension problem. It seems clear that someone does.

        •  this happens all the time though (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Damaged262

          Person A makes a racist remark

          Person B points out that person A made a racist remark, sometimes using humor, rhetoric, or other clever means to do so.

          Supporters of Person A start clamoring that Person B is playing the race card, or that Person B is racist.

          I don't understand it either.

          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 10:43:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  This is almost worth an HR (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MrJersey, rabel, MHB

        Simply because your lack of ability to appreciate satire and humor is so extreme it is criminal.

        “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” - Steinbeck

        by gjohnsit on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 08:30:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Are you one of those utterly humorless people (13+ / 0-)

        who hate "Blazing Saddles", too?

        The last time the Republicans were this radical, they were working to elect former slaves to Congress. What a difference a century and a half makes!

        by jayjaybear on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 08:31:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  So is Blazing Saddles racist? (7+ / 0-)

        "Where are the white women at?"

        That sure sounds like a racist charcterization to me.  An oversexualized black male out to take away our white women!  OMG, it's promulgating a stereotype!  

        Confirmed:  Blazing Saddles is the most racist movie of the 20th century, except for Afterbirth of a Nation.

        "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

        by Subterranean on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 09:40:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Art isn't art unless it creates an emotion (4+ / 0-)

          in the viewer/listener.
             Bland is not art.

           When it comes to the art of comedy, if you don't offend or surprise or challenge the listener in some way, then you may as well be a musician for elevators.

          “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” - Steinbeck

          by gjohnsit on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 10:47:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Colbert's not a racist. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Damaged262

        It takes extraordinary stupidity and a complete failure to understand what racism is to accuse Colbert of having been racist.

      •  You are officially part of the Idiot agenda (0+ / 0-)

        that makes the right target progressives as knuckleheads, gustypip.  Adults get satire.  Adults know where lines are drawn, adults know when people are poking holes through the tapestry of hidden messages, and most importantly, adults know when to let messages that insult the insulters scream louder than what the haters love.  Read it slowly, you'll get my point sooner if you do.  No offense intended, however; feel insulted all you want if you don't get my point.  Impetuous children often don't get the message the first time around.  I did a few stints in in-school suspension because I was impetuous, so I know from experience.

        I'm damaged and I like it, it made me what I am! BTW, my avatar is as stollen as my father's retirement fund, the old man died almost penniless. Bankers don't go to prison for breaking our laws, they buy bigger yachts.

        by Damaged262 on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 08:30:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  i once wrote to TPM over a TPM comment (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      koosah, here4tehbeer, m00finsan

      about the Iraq war. i got a reply from Josh (i was thrilled) and
      he informed me it was satire. i was less than thrilled with my own brain after that.

      you have to be careful w/satire half the crowd wont get it.

      i think colbert should have known that. wonder if they didnt care

    •  I felt the same way about the New Yorker cover (6+ / 0-)

      Remember that? I thought it was hilarious and still think so to this day, although approximately half this site lost its shit over it.

      Anyone without a sense of humor, blow me.

      Once again, Republicans show there is no fact that they feel the need to learn. ~ Fordmandalay

      by MeMeMeMeMe on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 08:13:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  #CancelTwitter (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      smartalek
    •  Even Twain had a few sour notes (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z, m00finsan

      In his autobiography, he claimed that Americans were heartless, and that immigrants were heartless within a generation or two.

      Except for the Jews, he added, who would never really be Americans because they weren't Christian.

      It was clear what he was trying to say (only non-Christian Americans act like Christians) but in the text of the autobiography (actually a letter to a friend he included in the autobiography) the wording was inartful enough that he seemed anti-Semitic.

      For those of you who prefer Bartlett to Obama, re-watch the West Wing. For those who prefer Clinton, re-watch old news videos.

      by Ptolemy on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 11:15:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  no community has a monopoly on stupid (6+ / 0-)

    so Park's repeating it makes the monopoly stronger

    http://twitchy.com/...

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013 (@eState4Column5).

    by annieli on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 07:25:34 AM PDT

  •  It was so obviously satire. What? (22+ / 0-)

    The one that should be ashamed is Dan Snyder.

    This isn't freedom. This is fear - Captain America

    by Ellid on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 07:35:32 AM PDT

  •  People that use Twitter have way too much time (20+ / 0-)

    on their hands.  As do folks that read DailyKos.

  •  Dear twitter users (25+ / 0-)

    "Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar."
    ~ Edward R. Murrow

    "If you pour some music on whatever's wrong, it'll sure help out." Levon Helm

    by BOHICA on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 07:37:23 AM PDT

  •  After getting endless grief for (46+ / 0-)

    "Yellow Man" and "Rednecks," Randy Newman decided to write a parody of bigots so stupid and obvious that anyone would get it. So he penned "Short People."

    "You know what I learned? There's a lot of short people. And, man, are they touchy."

    He also learned that even if you put up a neon sign over a joke saying, "This is a joke mocking bigots," there are people who just won't get it.

    I live under the bridge to the 21st Century.

    by Crashing Vor on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 07:38:36 AM PDT

  •  Michael Richards Moment.....I think not. (6+ / 0-)
  •  I remember once at a gas station way back when (10+ / 0-)

    I asked the gas station attendant who was a black man if they had cigarettes. He looked at me with a really intense look of anger and said "What did you say to me?". I repeated my request for cigarettes then he got thoughtful and said yes. so I got a pack. After it occurred to me that he thought I called him the N word. Point being some people hear what they expect to hear.

    Slow thinkers - keep right

    by Dave the Wave on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 07:40:16 AM PDT

  •  "Offensensitivity" is the term, I believe. (5+ / 0-)

    http://tcsgrv.tumblr.com/...

    (the original Berke Breathed cartoon)

  •  The piece made me cringe (5+ / 0-)

    I am neither an Asian nor a professional commedian, but I thought the portion of the piece with Stephen as 'ching-chong-ding-dong' went on longer than necessary. His point could have been made with just an image behind him as he spoke.  It felt like an excuse to indulge in ethnic stereotypes.

  •  "They Just Don't Get It" (8+ / 0-)

    Used often over the years in talking about somebody who seems to be really out of touch. This is over the top in not getting it by Malkin and her fellow travelers. In many meaning of the phrase. I guess Carroll O'Connor survived being called a racist for his Archie Bunker character. Don't think there has been a case with someone not getting satire as deep as this one. So let us be direct if it is not that complicated. In trying to point out the offensive nature of using the racist term Redskins as a name for a football team, the Colbert Report invented a racist name for their mascot and explored the issue, knowing that people would get the obvious racist nature of the Cplbert Report mascot by using the same denses that those who have used in defending the use of the term Redskins is. It points out how ridiculous the term Redskin is as a team name.

    They probably still don't get it.

  •  And you think that Colbert Report... (0+ / 0-)

    for all its fame for chameleonist conservatism wouldn't get a break? Or the tweet would be ignored?

    Silly literalist people...

    Ugh. --UB.

    The Republican Party is run by the KOCH BROTHERS.

    by unclebucky on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 07:42:16 AM PDT

  •  "Offensensitivity" is the word, I believe... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wednesday Bizzare

    http://tcsgrv.tumblr.com/...

    original comic by Berke Breathed

  •  My thoughts on the #CancelColbert kerfuffle. (4+ / 0-)

    "What's next?" - President Josiah Bartlet, The West Wing

    by shaf on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 07:44:35 AM PDT

  •  is it any more offensive that THESE comments (15+ / 0-)

    “Remember, Jesus would rather constantly shame gays than let orphans have a family.”

    “Baby carrots are making me gay.”

    “I teach Sunday school, motherf***.”

    “If Germans are happy it means everyone else is miserable.”

     “Any religion whose messiah’s name isn’t recognized by Microsoft Word can’t be that much of a threat.”

     “I believe that the government that governs best is a government that governs least, and by these standards we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq.”

    " I like the fact of John McCain’s head being severed. Like that it will fit so much more nicely up George Bush’s butt!”

    “If women are breadwinners and men bring home the bacon, why do people complain about having no dough? I’m confused. Also hungry.”

      “New study reveals men like to cuddle. Another study reveals men will say anything to get into bed with a woman.”

    “Oliver Cromwell can kiss my singing emerald scrotum!”

    “Sorry, but retirement offends me. You don’t just stop fighting in the middle of a war because your legs hurt. So why do you get to stop working in the middle of your life just because your prostate hurts? That’s desertion.”

    “The worst thing about affirmative action is that it encourages reverse discrimination, so-called because it goes in the opposite way of how we naturally discriminate.”

  •  I don't get to decide what other people are (6+ / 0-)

    allowed to find offensive.  Actually . . . good for them for speaking out.  That makes for a healthier society.  

    ". . .as singularly embarrassing a public address as any allegedly sentient primate ever has delivered." - Charles P. Pierce

    by Rikon Snow on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 07:45:23 AM PDT

  •  You Can Hate Me Starting Now (18+ / 0-)

    But frankly, I'm getting a little tired of one group or another complaining about humor as if humor has ever been anything but edgy and gross and just plain wrong. If people are so weak in the mind and in their constitution that they can't handle it, or escalate every single remark into the Holocaust, then maybe they should just shut off the media and sink themselves into a nice lukewarm bathtub filled with bland oatmeal while they watch episodes of Small Wonder.

    If there are people who want humor to be safe and comforting blanket, then I'm checking out now because it won't be funny at all. Not even a little.

    And as the song and dance begins, the children play at home with needles, needles and pins.

    by The Lone Apple on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 07:45:53 AM PDT

  •  More of the same (4+ / 0-)

    That so many people get worked up over something from a television show – the very essence of which regular viewers know to be satirical political humor – and not over the very real issues confronting us is a very sad barometer indeed.

  •  Colbert put his satire right in W's face. (15+ / 0-)

    He's not scared of the likes of Michelle Malkin.

    The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

    by Inland on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 07:46:47 AM PDT

  •  It's good news for Jon Stewart. (7+ / 0-)

    Oh, and John McCain.

  •  Reminds Me of Charlie Brown (5+ / 0-)

    Charlie Brown: "Thanks for that Christmas Card you sent me Lucy."

    Lucy: "I didn't send you a Christmas Card Charlie Brown."

    Charlie Brown: "Don't you know sarcasm when you hear it?"

    "Some men see things as they are and ask, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?"

    by Doctor Who on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 07:48:00 AM PDT

  •  One of the things that satire (25+ / 0-)

    is meant to do is reframe a particular issue in a way that more people may understand. The way I see it, Colbert made this joke because - obviously - many Americans are desensitized to the use of Native American stereotypes as mascots, so Colbert chose the Ching-Chong thing because more of us probably do see that as glaringly offensive. No one other than elderly folks even uses the word "Oriental" anymore.

    IMO, he was trying to get more people to understand the offensiveness of calling a football team "The Redskins" by likening it to a slur that has already been largely rejected as offensive by Amercican society.

    Money should be treated like any other controlled substance; if you can't use it responsibly then you don't get to use it.

    by La Gitane on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 07:48:04 AM PDT

  •  This is just further evidence that Colbert may not (19+ / 0-)

    really be a Conservative icon esposing real 'merican values, but rather a subversive librul satirist.

  •  Still confused (6+ / 0-)

    I saw the segment and totally get it, but, Laura, I've read your post a couple times and am having a lot of trouble following.

    •  We're talking about wingnut reactions to satire (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      artmartin, MrJersey, TofG, Johnny Q, ruellia

      so it IS difficult to understand.

      They never make any logical sense to begin wif....

      Legal means "good".
      [41984 | Feb 4, 2005]

      by xxdr zombiexx on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 07:52:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  this is more a liberal/progressive reaction (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mattc129

        to satire.

        Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility. uid 52583 lol

        by terrypinder on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 08:03:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No. I think we need to be talking about his fans (6+ / 0-)

        the ones that respond to Park with racism.  Lots of it.  Like buckets of it.  

        I think that the fact that young fans of a Liberal icon think it's ok to tweet racist remarks because someone offended their hero shows just how thing the patina of liberalism is in the younger generation.

        Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

        by lostboyjim on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 08:15:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I thought the racism came from Twitchy (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ruellia

          Whatever the fuck that is. I guess it's a conservative site. Anyway, after reading Laura's difficult to follow article a few times, I guess what she's trying to say is that Malkin and Twitchy retweeted it and that THEIR folks started spewing racism.

          But I still can't quite tell.

          Oh well.

        •  what people did to Park was WRONG (0+ / 0-)

          she obviously did not deserve racist comments directed at her because of her reaction to Colbert.

          but seriously folks, didn;t she do the exact same thing in her own post?

          She took the "racist" trope and sent it out, assuming that people would know SHE didn't mean it seriously!  So why can't she see Colbert was doing the same thing???

          I would attack her for being satire-deficient and humor-challenged, but not on the basis of her race or sex

          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 11:05:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Me too. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      live1, ORDem, ruellia

      I think it's the hashtag this and hashtag that thing. It confuses me. I must be getting old.

      "When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two." - Nisargadatta Maharaj.

      by mkor7 on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 08:10:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  That Michelle Malkin...such a national treasure (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, aggressiveprogressive

    Sure would be awful if something happened to her....

    Legal means "good".
    [41984 | Feb 4, 2005]

    by xxdr zombiexx on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 07:50:31 AM PDT

  •  Time to reprise "Rush Speaks Chinese" from Report (6+ / 0-)

    The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

    by Inland on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 07:56:19 AM PDT

    •  Rush sure is funny. Right, righties? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TrueBlueMajority

      I'm wondering how much of the outrage at the Tweet is coming from right wingers jealous of the successes of the Flush Rush campaign.

      Q: Why did the chicken cross the road? NRA guy: 'Cause chickens don't buy guns and stand their ground.

      by ebrann on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 05:43:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  the right wing hates colbert (14+ / 0-)

    he and stewart totally skewer their daily spin.

    of course malkin is leading the charge to cancel him.

    The colbert bit doesn't bother me,and i am asian.

  •  Republicans Rejoice! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AmazingBlaise

    After all, He's young, and will need something to do when the show cancels.

    For like Warren, they would find themselves with another Senatorial Candidate that they could easily trounce.  Just like they trounced Warren.    

    ... the watchword of true patriotism: "Our country - when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." - Carl Schurz; Oct. 17, 1899

    by NevDem on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 07:57:31 AM PDT

    •  if he ever ran in South Carolina (0+ / 0-)

      he might win

      imagine having a D Senator from South Carolina!!!

      But I think he said in an interview that his family is opposed to him getting involved in politics for realz

      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 11:08:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So now we will (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hulibow, Pale Jenova

    ....see just how susceptible to right-wing pressure the Comedy Channel is.

    Meanwhile, RushBo drones on and on and on and the GOP continues its racist dogwhistles against President Obama.

    But...should make a good segment on Michelle Malkin's commitment to stamping out racism.  If Colbert's writers can think of something dignified.

    50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

    by TarheelDem on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 07:58:01 AM PDT

  •  i saw the colbert bit (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ORDem, artmartin, ruellia

    and was a bit taken aback. except i got it. pretty edgy and risky but the point was well made. by using a caricature of racism in the extreme, colbert successfully (imho) laid waste to the washington team's hope of finding higher ground.

    not that snyder or most nfl fans care.

  •  I'm truly aghast at the comments to this. (12+ / 0-)

    Suddenly, minorities are "oversensitized" and twitter users are ridiculous.  Had this same "satiric" comment been made by the other side, the outrage here would be astronomical.  And the context would be ignored - which is the only thing that provides the slightest excuse for this garbage.  

    Whatever happened to our side being the side that held our own to the same standards as we hold the other side?  What happened to our believing that it should be the minorities that set the rules as to what offends them and what doesn't and we don't tell them they're being "too sensitive"?  

    I love Colbert.  But this was shit as satire and it offended people.  So whoever sent it out needs to issue a genuine, sincere apology and we all need to recognize that just because it was sent out by "our side", we need to maintain the same position we'd have taken had this been sent out by gasbag Limbaugh.

  •  So glad... (3+ / 0-)

    ...that I don't look at twitter very often.

    I'm not always political, but when I am I vote Democratic. Stay Democratic, my friends. -The Most Interesting Man in the World

    by boran2 on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 07:59:35 AM PDT

  •  You live by the snark; you die by the snark (0+ / 0-)

    Jokes can be dangerous when they do fall out of context. A lot of George Carlin falls into that category. (He was one of the very few who could finesse the n-word in a joke--but only in the context, of course.)

    And God said, "Let there be light"; and with a Big Bang, there was light. And God said "Ow! Ow My eyes!" and in a flash God separated light from darkness. "Whew! Now that's better. Now where was I. Oh yea . . ."

    by Pale Jenova on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 08:02:09 AM PDT

  •  It was perhaps pretty bad satire (6+ / 0-)

    and Suey Park has a point, but her stupid hashtag has made the story about HER now. Now HER mentions are full of racists.

    almost NO ONE is talking about Dan Snyder now.

    Great job, Social Justice Twitter. Again. They've made the story about THEM and got Fake Mad twitter all outraged too.

    Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility. uid 52583 lol

    by terrypinder on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 08:02:25 AM PDT

  •  Colbert Misunderstood (9+ / 0-)

    I've seen reports claiming that about 30% of Colbert's audience are conservatives who think he agrees with them.  They obviously don't get it.  After years on the air, the secret should be out by now.

    William Hamilton practices Law and is a writer and community activist in the Charleston, SC area. He can reached through www.wjhamilton.com

    by wjhamilton29464 on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 08:03:18 AM PDT

    •  Remember (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Subterranean

      The RW flock live in 'fear' of everything associated with the Golden Rule, and take themselves much too seriously.  

      So,  that Number doesn't surprise me.  

      But I still enjoy watching Colbert's speech celebrating President Bush (who was there) at the Press Club(?) Dinner.  

      ... the watchword of true patriotism: "Our country - when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." - Carl Schurz; Oct. 17, 1899

      by NevDem on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 08:10:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Our Lady of Internment Camps Malkin (6+ / 0-)

    Is outraged I tell you outraged.  She is simply a hideous troll

    When you follow your bliss the universe will open doors where there were once walls.

    by BlueFranco on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 08:08:43 AM PDT

  •  Let Stephen Live! (5+ / 0-)

    Colbert is a national treasure on the order of Will Roger. Or Mr. Rogers. Or Roy Rogers, ferchrissakes!

    What stronger breast-plate than a heart untainted! Thrice is he arm'd, that hath his quarrel just; And he but naked, though lock'd up in steel, Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted. Henry VI Part II Act 3 Scene 2

    by TerryDarc on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 08:15:34 AM PDT

  •  Colbert (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VirginiaJeff, nmjardine, Subterranean

    once had a skit where he talked about Hungarians eating goulash. I think it was in response to Imus's "nappy hos" flap. It registered a 0.0 on the Outrage Meter.

  •  Someone wanted an extra 15 minutes of fame (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingBolete, nmjardine, Subterranean

    and it isn't Colbert.

  •  In other news, Irish group incensed by (19+ / 0-)

    Jonathan Swift's call to have their children eaten, EATEN I SAY!!!  #CANCELSWIFT

  •  Anybody in the snark business (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheChocolateChips

    can expect this once in a while, but lately it's gotten so you can't tell snark from reality, especially when snarking right-wing morans.  The trend has driven The Onion out of business.

  •  It's like when we all protested that racist ... (11+ / 0-)

    Archie Bunker.

    Some say that he was just a character to be held up for the express purpose of calling out racism but I think we all knew that Carroll O'Conner and Norman Lear were dyed-in-the-wool, bedsheet-wearing, pointy-headed KKK members that were rightly pilloried by liberals.

  •  Time for Colbert to Unleash Blue Steel (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    here4tehbeer

    n/m

    THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write that down in your book in great big letters. -- L. Ron Hubbard Technique 88

    by xenubarb on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 08:23:09 AM PDT

  •  colbert succeeded wildly (9+ / 0-)


    this is the point of satire - to draw attention to injustice and bigotry through exaggeration.  He's probably delighted.

    "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

    by louisev on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 08:37:42 AM PDT

  •  YOu have to be pretty stupid not to (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mdetrano, ruellia

    understand this is satire, pointing out how offensive the position of the 'Red's' owner.is

    •  Poe's law at work. (0+ / 0-)

      The tweet may have come from a writer, but it was still SC's "character", and I wouldn't even call it out-of-context.  "Ching-chong ding-dong foundation..."...and people think that's serious!  Wha...?

  •  Comedy is not pretty. (0+ / 0-)

    Non futuis apud Boston

    by kenlac on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 08:47:46 AM PDT

  •  Out of context. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AmazingBlaise

    Piss on'm all.

  •  They've forgotten & played into Colbert's schtick. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheChocolateChips, ruellia

    He is a faux (Fox?) "conservative'. His schtick is to point out, by doing and saying the same sorts of things "conservatives" do and say, just how ignorant and offensive "conservatism" is.

    When people "go off" this way about how Colbert said something offensive, they are primed to notice when Rand Paul, William Crystal, Charles Krauthammer or any other reactionary says, and means, something similar.

    Of course, when "conservatives" get called on their misbehavior, they complain about infringement of their free-speech rights.

    Colbert's act is similar to Andrew Dice Clay's. Colbert just does it much better.

    "An egg is not poultry.” An old Blues tune's brilliant insight into the notion that a zygote can, in any sense, be "a person."

    by carbonman1950 on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 08:52:09 AM PDT

  •  It's funny how some find funny to be unfunny. (5+ / 0-)

    Colbert's satirical piece on the Washington Redskins hit the mark. It showed what racial insensitivity really by making others the target, not just Native Americans. Yes, the target of this satirical exercise was the Asian American community, but it could have been any racial group. I think Colbert made his point, judging by the reaction from the public.
    Washington Redskins.


    The next house I build will be a military industrial complex. It seems to be the only structure that is impervious to anything man, or God, can throw at it.

    by glb3 on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 08:54:09 AM PDT

  •  Like so much Right-Wing Legislation... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    420 forever, ruellia

    the misguided sound and fury seeks a non-solution to a non-problem.
    Standard procedure in the Entitlement Playbook: Stir up the base about some sideshow...

  •  In other news, clueless person (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Noisy Democrat

    denounces Jonathan Swift for flippant letter disparaging the Irish....

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

    by VirginiaJeff on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 09:18:52 AM PDT

  •  Point Was Made (4+ / 0-)

    Look at this outrage at a satirical version targeted at Asian people ... shouldn't this lead to understanding of why "Redskins" is offensive to Native Americans?

    Can you imagine a football team called "The Orientals" ?

    •  Actually, for accuracy's sake. (0+ / 0-)

      "The Orientals" would be the equivalent of the Cleveland Indians.  The title equivalent to the "Redskins" would have been " The Slant Eyes."

      A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

      by Tempus Figits on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 11:27:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What I find interesting (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VirginiaJeff, Subterranean, Darmok

    is that Park stated in one of her earlier tweets on the subject, "I used to respect and enjoy your work, @ColbertReport. F**k you."

    Which to me screams of the same type of offense Issac Hayes had when Southpark turned their cannon of comedy against his religion. To put it another way for those of you who have no frigging clue what I'm talking about, Hayes was ok with the comedy routines when they were aimed elsewhere, but once they were aimed at something he was part of, well that was just too far!

    Frankly, I think duckman said it best.

    Nicht durch Zorn, sondern durch Lachen tödtet man. ~Nietzsche

    by somewierdguy on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 09:26:41 AM PDT

    •  Park must be one of those conservatives (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ruellia

      who think Colbert is a conservative.  Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, that one.

      "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

      by Subterranean on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 10:07:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Park is not a conservative. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        poco

        Consider why you assume she is.

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

        by raptavio on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 12:59:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And Colbert is not a racist (0+ / 0-)

          Maybe instead of demanding he get fired she communicate with Colbert.

          http://jasonluthor.jelabeaux.com/

          by DAISHI on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 02:03:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

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

            And maybe instead of denigrating and insulting her you consider that her offense might be legitimate, even if you don't like her presentation.

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

            by raptavio on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 02:17:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Offense is always legitimate (0+ / 0-)

              as long as people aren't lying about what they feel.

              However, it's not an insult to suggest that she may not fully understand satire, either in general or in this case specifically.

              I've yet to hear anyone defending Park comment on the Swift, child-cannibalism comparison. Was the suggestion that the Irish eat their own babies 'too far', 'over the line'? Or is that only reserved for racism?

              It seems to me that if eating babies is fair satire material, it's hard to argue what wouldn't be.

              Satire can be a powerful weapon used against the powerful rather than the powerless. People seem to be confusing the targets here, and suggesting that Colbert voluntarily disarms himself of this potent arsenal.

              That would be a mistake.

              Unfortunately, this overreaction has clouded the Redskins-Oriental satirical connection and therefore robbed the piece of its positive social impact on the public at large. This is why Park should be called to task, her counter-productivity.

              And it offends me.

              •  quoth: (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                poco
                However, it's not an insult to suggest that she may not fully understand satire, either in general or in this case specifically.
                Yes it is. "There there,  you just don't understand Colbert's genius." It's condescending and dismissive, ergo, insulting.
                I've yet to hear anyone defending Park comment on the Swift, child-cannibalism comparison. Was the suggestion that the Irish eat their own babies 'too far', 'over the line'? Or is that only reserved for racism?
                False equivalence.

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

                by raptavio on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 10:59:44 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Satire isn't always genius (0+ / 0-)

                  but neither is it always understood, even by smart people.

                  Her complaints indicate that she doesn't understand what satire is and how it works.

                  Discussing Swift's work is not 'false equivalence' or a 'strawman', it's an example of what satire is. It is sometimes designed to be overtly 'offensive', even more offensive than the topic it is attacking, because that's the only way it works, that's how you get people to take notice of the underlying issue and consider that issue in a different context.

                  As I said above, it's a powerful weapon that we cast off at our peril.

                  Also, it is not condescending and dismissive to believe that someone doesn't understand something if that belief is based on actual evidence (her statements).

                  Nor is is condescending and dismissive of you to suggest that I don't understand her point. It just happens  to think you're incorrect. I understand where she's coming from and I think she's wrong.

                  Tell me, what evidence do you have that Park actually understands how satire actually works? The comments you've already posted from her that satire is supposed to 'punch up' to make its point is exactly what the Colbert piece did.

                  •  Here's why: (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    poco, moviemeister76

                    Colbert and his writers tried -- masterfully, I hasten to add -- to thread a very tricky needle in order to do what I think we all agree is a laudable thing which does constitute "punching up", and that is to lampoon Snyder's ridiculous actions and the mindset of the supporters of the Redskins.

                    Swift also tried -- masterfully -- to highlight callous and cruel British attitudes toward the poor, and particularly the Irish poor. That detail is important.

                    Swift highlighted the callous and imperious attitudes of the crown toward the Irish by taking those attitudes to the next level -- one might even say that he turned metaphorical devouring of the Irish by the English into a literal one in his satire.

                    Colbert, in contrast, highlighted the callous attitudes regarding racism towards Native Americans -- by invoking racism toward Asians. In short, he drew an unwilling third party into the fight. And that third party also experiences many of the same kinds of racial discrimination and indifference (Park herself referred to the exotic/erotic stereotypes of Asian women and that has been her crusade since before this Colbert flap started), which Colbert exploited to drive home his point.

                    Swift did not do that. He didn't wrap his satire around the Scottish, Pictish, Gallic, Welsh, the American colonies, Native Americans, the French, or anyone else.

                    Colbert did -- which presents the appearance that on some level he saw Asian Americans as not a group of people but rather a rhetorical device.

                    Look -- I think few people truly believe Colbert should be taken off the air for this. (I suspect even Park knows her #CancelColbert tag is hyperbolic.) But that doesn't mean Colbert didn't err and it doesn't mean Colbert doesn't owe an amends.

                    Satire, by the way, need not be offensive. Satire about something which is offensive usually does, I'll grant you, but satire itself hardly needs to be.

                    Park's wrong, too, in that satire doesn't have to punch up when it punches. But no satire that punches down is worth defending, and that is what Colbert's satire did -- it punched down at one target as a device to punch up at another.

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

                    by raptavio on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 11:36:09 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I appreciate the thoughtful reply. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      poco, raptavio

                      You've semi-convinced me regarding the inclusion of the unwilling third party as a rhetorical device.

                      Thanks.

                    •  reposting my answer here right under yours (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      moviemeister76, VirginiaJeff

                      ...unwilling third parties are drawn into these observations all the time, to make the same point Colbert made.

                      90% the arguments on this blog about culturally insensitive language draw a third party in for comparison:  what if you said that about black people?  what if you said that about gay people?  what if you said that about women?  what if you said that about trans people?  what if you said that about blind people? etc.

                      when people are not getting the point when negative language and stereotypes are directed to one group, everyone, comedians and non comedians, tries to make the point clearer by using another group to make the offense more obvious.

                      i have a lot of respect for you, raptavio, and I respect a lot of other people a great deal who are taking Park's side on this issue.

                      in my opinion, that is why the skit worked.  people got more upset about Colbert's restatement than about Snyder's original announcement.  that does. not. make. sense.  His brilliant satire was meant to point to the wrongness of Snyder's stance, and instead people are jumping all over Colbert, including people I did not expect to respond this way.

                      And Snyder means it!  Unironically!  Whereas no one is accusing Colbert of actually believing the sentiment expressed in his skit, or the tweet that was not written by him or with his approval.

                      Colbert will be fine.  But Park is being used by Malkin et al., to detract from the REAL outrage: the name of the Washington football team, and the attempt by the team owner to BUY the right to be racist by starting his ridiculously named foundation!

                      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 12:24:26 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Every time you say (0+ / 0-)

                        "The REAL outrage" you are pushing aside one set of complaints as irrelevant.

                        They BOTH can be outrage, you know. By portraying this as a zero-sum game, you play right into the hands of the Malkins of the world.

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

                        by raptavio on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 12:54:48 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  I see what you're saying (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        raptavio

                        But I think the primary reason Asian Americans are upset in this case is because they understand they were used because most white people don't actually see them as a group that experiences oppression, even in a general sense. There's no way Colbert and his writers would have used black people and the n-word in that instance, but they keep going back to slurs against Asian Americans because they think it's safe.

                        And it is. Technically.

                        I've seen more acceptance of slurs against Asian Americans than even Native Americans. I've even seen white people argue that Asian Americans are in a position of power in America, so they can't be oppressed, and so have no reason to complain.

                        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 12:57:23 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  After all your comments on this (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      raptavio

                      This really is your best one. Thanks for this. I didn't have the strength to really wade into this.

                      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 12:58:01 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Oh and also -- (0+ / 0-)

                Your offense is illegitimate -- because you blame Park for Colbert's misfire and the outrage it generated, and for the incredibly vicious and inexcusable treatment of her by Colbert's erstwhile fans (and right-wing opportunists).

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

                by raptavio on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 11:01:08 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Wrong (0+ / 0-)

                  I don't blame her for Colbert's misfire, I don't blame her for being 'offended' as people shouldn't be blamed for feeling a feeling. I blame her for overreacting publically to something she didn't fully understand and robbing the satire of its positive social impact. Btw, what outrage did the satire cause before her tweet?

                  We're not talking about the unfortunately predictable racist response of the internet to her tweet, we're talking about her tweet and Colbert's satire. If you want to see if I condemn that racist response, sure, 100%.

                  However, I would be a bit careful at trying to declare what is and isn't legitimate offense.

                  •  Yet you blame her (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    poco

                    for the distraction from the Washington team's owner and the team name.

                    Not Colbert, and not the assholes who turned into racist thugs when Colbert came under fire.

                    Consider why.

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

                    by raptavio on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 11:37:44 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I only blame her for what she did. (0+ / 0-)

                      I blame the assholes for what they did, and I blame Colbert for what he did.

                      Now, considering the appropriateness of what each did, neither Colbert nor Park are anywhere near the level of those assholes.

                      But those assholes aren't really worthy of much discussion, IMO. The general internet is a cesspool of sexism, racism, misogyny and misanthropy which is why places like DKos are oases.

                      •  She couldn't have know that her tweet would go (0+ / 0-)

                        viral; although the possibility of that always exists, it's the exception rather than the rule. Initially, she was just making a comment as she probably often does on twitter. The reason it got all blown out of proportion was not all her doing.

                        "The economy and the environment are, in fact, permanently intertwined. A healthy economy depends on a healthy environment. Can't have one without the other." -- Meteor Blades

                        by politically indigo on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 03:31:32 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

  •  Once again, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ruellia, claytonben

    someone who exposes racism is cast as the real racist; the perpetrator is cast as the real victim.

    This is just right-wing jujitsu, a move now so reflexive as to be rendered meaningless. They need such moves, though, to fill their hate media air time and divert attention from their  policy vacuum. They probably also have to feed their addiction to the brain chemicals that are released by ginned up outrage.

    Marx was an optimist.

    by psnyder on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 09:30:28 AM PDT

  •  And humorless progressives eat their own yet again (6+ / 0-)

    to get a cheap tingle of self-righteousness.
    No wonder we lose most of the time.

  •  Suey Park is no right-winger, folks. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    moviemeister76, Bill W, m00finsan, navajo

    And the pushback she's gotten from erstwhile Colbert fans is truly disgusting.

    But here's a note for you:

    Even if Suey Park was a right winger - even if this were Michelle Malkin instead of Suey Park - the racist response she's gotten would be entirely unwarranted and shameful.

    And it makes me feel queasy to see the "can't people take a joke" defenses which sound just like those of Limbaugh's defenders.

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

    by raptavio on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 09:39:50 AM PDT

    •  If she's wrong, she's wrong (5+ / 0-)

      No matter who that puts us into bed with, metaphorically speaking.

      And the opposition from our side isn't "can't some people take a joke" but "can't some people not recognize satire when they see it."  A subtle distinction, but significant.

      •  I think it's pretty clear (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        m00finsan

        that Ms. Park, and many of her supporters, know satire when they see it.

        Satire can still cross the line.

        To wit, this recent diary on the same subject:
        http://www.dailykos.com/...

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

        by raptavio on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 09:57:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  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 ]

        •  So, Swift wasn't satire? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Darmok, Noisy Democrat

          Or is cannibalism of children less bad than racism when it comes to 'crossing a line'?

    •  It's not "can't take a joke" (0+ / 0-)

      It's "utterly misinterpreted a joke," which is different.

      When someone argues "They can't take a joke," that's an acknowledgement that genuine insult was intended, but a denial that it was bad enough to cause pain.

      The point here is that some people seem to be unable or unwilling to grasp that Colbert was making fun of people who would think it reasonable to say things like Ching-Chong Ding-Dong.  This kind of failure to comprehend is slightly scary, because it has chilling effects -- it contributes to creating a society in which everything is taken literally, intentions don't matter, context doesn't matter, etc.

      •  That's entirely untrue. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        poco

        Park has expanded on and clearly explained her position.

        Of course I understand satire, I’m a writer. 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.
        You're right insofar as the Colbert Report Twitter-feed did present Colbert's most offensive statement entirely devoid of context, and therefore made it far easier to take offense to -- and that is also not Suey Park's fault. But to say she doesn't understand the full context, nor has she misrepresented that context.

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

        by raptavio on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 05:20:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  He did punch up (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          skybluewater

          He did a great job of making fun of the guy who thinks it's reasonable to retain the name "Redskins." If someone chooses not to understand that, that's their choice.

        •  i am confused as to why Suey Park (0+ / 0-)

          thinks he punched down

          why did she think the skit was addressed towards her instead of Snyder?

          can anyone explain that to me?

          that's the one question I would ask her, if I could.

          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 11:26:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I answered that (0+ / 0-)

            just a few moments ago, here:
            http://www.dailykos.com/...

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

            by raptavio on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 11:38:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  ok, that is your interpretation of what she thinks (0+ / 0-)

              but unwilling third parties are drawn into these observations all the time, to make the same point Colbert made.

              90% the arguments on this blog about culturally insensitive language draw a third party in for comparison:  what if you said that about black people?  what if you said that about gay people?  what if you said that about women?  what if you said that about trans people?  what if you said that about blind people? etc.

              when people are not getting the point when negative language and stereotypes are directed to one group, everyone, comedians and non comedians, tries to make the point clearer by using another group to make the offense more obvious.

              i have a lot of respect for you, raptavio, and I respect a lot of other people a great deal who are taking Park's side on this issue.

              in my opinion, that is why the skit worked.  people got more upset about Colbert's restatement than about Snyder's original announcement.  that does. not. make. sense.  His brilliant satire was meant to point to the wrongness of Snyder's stance, and instead people are jumping all over Colbert, including people I did not expect to respond this way.

              And Snyder means it!  Unironically!  Whereas no one is accusing Colbert of actually believing the sentiment expressed in his skit, or the tweet that was not written by him or with his approval.

              Colbert will be fine.  But Park is being used by Malkin et al., to detract from the REAL outrage: the name of the Washington football team, and the attempt by the team owner to BUY the right to be racist by starting his ridiculously named foundation!

              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 12:12:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You're wrong about one very important point: (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TrueBlueMajority

                "people got more upset about Colbert's restatement than about Snyder's original announcement."

                Perhaps a few people did. Most people are pretty pissed off about Snyder's cynical ploy.

                What galls me the most, however, is the racist blowback against Park by Colbert's fans and Kossacks alike. Not because  it's more or less important than what Snyder's doing, but for the same reason torture in Guantanamo pisses me off more than beheadings in Saudi Arabia: Because I don't want this shit done in the name of causes in which I believe.

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

                by raptavio on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 12:53:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  i am in complete agreement with you (0+ / 0-)

                  about the blowback against Park,  It is wrong.

                  I don't want this shit done in the name of causes in which I believe.
                  I'm not sure what you mean by that.  Are Kogs and Colbert fans trashing Park in the name of causes in which you believe?

                  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 06:38:12 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes -- (0+ / 0-)

                    in support of Stephen Colbert, who is a lion of progressivism.

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

                    by raptavio on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 09:22:27 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  well, i wish they would not do that (0+ / 0-)

                      but a celebrity is not responsible for fans acting badly.

                      and although I admire him a very great deal, i am not defending Colbert personally so much as defending his style of satire.

                      and I am criticizing people who are more upset about what Colbert said than what Snyder said and did

                      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 10:53:34 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I never said a celebrity (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        moviemeister76

                        is not responsible for fans acting badly (except insofar as he exhorts them to -- which Colbert has not done in any way).

                        But you're falling into a trap by gauging any individual's relative level of outrage against Snyder or against Colbert, which is seeing the politics of race and privilege as a zero-sum game, or one where everyone ought to be focused on the same thing.

                        I think you'd be flipping off people who said "Why are you worried about Dan Snyder when Scott Walker is trying to suppress the black vote? That's the REAL issue, Snyder is just a sideshow." And you'd be right to do so. Likewise, when Colbert makes light about societal racism towards one group of people in order to highlight the racism against another group of people, the people who are the targets of racism about which he's making light may not appreciate that, and may say so.

                        I truly wish this hadn't snowballed; in an ideal world, this would be seen as the minor transgression that it was, and Colbert could have just broken character and said "Hey, I was trying to target Snyder with some satire, and I didn't see the harm it would cause. I'm really sorry about that and I'll do better in future" and moved on.

                        But instead we have this enormous blowback revealing the privileged and racist attitudes by conservatives and liberals alike, and that bugs the hell out of me. I don't like being reminded that among my fellow lefties are those whose dedication to fighting racial inequality is superficial at best.

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

                        by raptavio on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 06:44:23 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

  •  I love Colbert (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    m00finsan, raptavio

    But I think in this instance he crossed the line from brilliant satire to lazy hipster racism. Bad writing.

    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 09:51:29 AM PDT

  •  Seems an obvious difference (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    novapsyche, AmazingBlaise, ruellia

    When Rush Limbaugh included "Barack The Magic Negro" in his radio show, the listener was expected to come away with the notion that black people should be ridiculed because they are black.  I can't see any other conclusion there.  Clear-cut.

    The reason is that when Rush Limbaugh expresses political views, the understanding is that we are generally to take them at face value.  He IS an actual right-wing talk-show host whose audience IS actually other right-wingers.

    But here, Colbert's use of "Ching-Chong Ding-Dong" is intended to leave the viewer with the notion that Asian people (or anyone else) should NOT be ridiculed, intentionally or by insensitivity, because when one does so, one looks ridiculous.  

    This is because the Colbert Report is a PARODY.  His job is to be ridiculous, because he is a comedian, and this often includes presenting political views to illustrate them as ridiculous.  He is NOT actually a right-wing talk-show host.  His audience is NOT actually right-wingers.

    How is this not clear?

    •  I suspect (0+ / 0-)

      that despite protestations many of the people pissed about this don't watch the show. If she (Park) was really offended by this, why wasn't she offended the first time his "ching chong ding dong" character was shown? Why wasn't she tweeting it then? Why wasn't she offended at any of the jokes aimed at misogynists when he was portraying an exaggerated version of their misogyny using as a gigantic mirror?

      Nicht durch Zorn, sondern durch Lachen tödtet man. ~Nietzsche

      by somewierdguy on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 10:00:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  interestingly, I WAS offended the first time (0+ / 0-)

        he did it, back in 2005

        i thought it was waaay over the top

        i think it was supposed to be a bit about people getting caught saying things off camera that they would never say on camera

        even so, I thought he went too far

        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 11:41:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Of course, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skybluewater, poco

      the song "Barack the Magic Negro" was a response to this column by David Ehrenstein from the LA Times, which was a criticism of then-Sen. Obama's role as the "magic negro" as well as of the culture that seeks them out.

      That the song Limbaugh aired lampooned this article was true -- and it was, indeed, satirical. But that it was satirical didn't mean it wasn't also racist in and of itself. And it was.

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

      by raptavio on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 01:03:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  it's clear to me (0+ / 0-)

      sometimes I feel as if I have stepped into opposite world on my own homeblog

      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 11:27:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What? (7+ / 0-)

    ....the joke literally MAKES NO SENSE if you don't accept as a given that what he says about Asians is offensive and appalling and horrible.  

    The entire point is to demonstrate that "Redskins" is unacceptable with another, analogously terrible mascot.  How could people possibly not understand this?

  •  It's pretty disgraceful... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    m00finsan, raptavio, navajo

    ...that when an Asian-American woman and many, many other PoCs say that a white man said a thing that is, regardless of intention, fucked up and racist, they get attacked and have more fucked-up racism thrown at them. Michele Malkin is irrelevant in this discussion (and anyone with the slightest perceptiveness should be able to see easily that she was acting as a poison pill), the issue is a straight, white male comedian saying racist shit and more white people leaping to his defense instead of making the slightest effort to listen to the actual targets of said racism.

  •  It's always disappointing (0+ / 0-)

    to see reasonably intelligent people who also have their heads squarely up their ass.

    Suey Park is now no better than any outraged windbag on FOX News.

  •  The hair trigger of righteously indignant (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Darmok, Noisy Democrat, skybluewater

    twitterwebs outrage is pointed at YOU Stephen Colbert!  Understand, you will never be forgiven, or even understood.  Might as well ignore it and move on.  It takes forever to expiate such aggression at 140 characters a pop, and in the meantime, it renews faster than most of these folks can click "submit."  

  •  I don't get this (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Darmok, ruellia, schnecke21

    The point was to show how obnoxious and insincere Snyder is in trying to say as long as you set up a foundation, you can go about doing the thing people object to, which is maintaining the Redskins name.

    If Colbert were to just say isn't it ridiculous that Snyder doesn't think people will see through this foundation PR stunt, it wouldn't be funny and it wouldn't resonate.    

    Oh well. I look forward to his show on Monday to see what he says.  I have no interest in disparaging Ms. Park or anyone else who is offended, but I'm also very sorry that they missed the point.  

    •  Who Says She Doesn't Get It? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      m00finsan, poco

      Why are most of the skit and tweet's defenders stating that those who are upset don't understand satire, or don't know who Stephen Colbert is, or don't get that the target was Snyder? Or that we aren't part of actions targeting "real" racists like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, etc.? Anti-racist people who take action can comment on more than one criticism at a time. People of color face different issues simultaneously--just like almost everyone else.

      We get it. Some of us don't like it to the point of protest. Not all satire is good satire and not all performances get automatic passes because the performers have acceptable (liberal) political beliefs. Be it Patton Oswalt defending rape jokes (until he didn't) Daniel Tosh, etc., some folks think comedy can't go too far or completely miss the mark. And that' s their take. And others think there are boundaries that don't need to be pushed. "Progressives" aren't exempt from messing up, so why shouldn't they be called out, too?

      Prejudice often masquerades as "harmless" snark.

      by Lexicon on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 12:22:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, I guess we just disagree (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Darmok, Noisy Democrat, schnecke21

        that he "messed up."  I think he was trying to show the absurdity of Snyder's action by being equally absurd.  

        I guess everyone has their own threshold for what they consider offensive, and if they want to voice dissent, fine.  But there's a difference between saying I didn't like that skit and calling for an entire show to be cancelled.

        Satire can be more effective than direct criticism in shining a light on a controversial topic or event.  And I'm not sure who gets to decide what is "good" satire, which boundaries don't need to be pushed, etc.  Some media outlets wouldn't even broadcast Colbert's very edgy performance at the 2006 White House correspondence dinner because they thought it had crossed a line. And who was mostly upset about it? The politicians and journalists who had been the targets of his satire.  

        If you believe in censorship, then say so. But just remember that every person will have his or her own standard of what's offensive, so it will be very tough for comedians not to offend someone out there no matter how hard they try.

  •  I am proud of Suey Park (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric RoM, AmazingBlaise, skybluewater

    for fighting against the stereotyped notion that all Asians are extremely intelligent.

    I mean, she does know that the actor-writer Stephen Colbert plays a character with a similar name who is an idiot, right?  I mean, he's intentionally stupid, unlike the people at Fox.

    •  truly, she fights that stereotype well. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AmazingBlaise, skybluewater

      As a tone-deaf nincompoop, she will singlehandedly disperse the notion that Asians are all smart.

    •  At first I was thinking Ms. Park was overreacting, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      m00finsan, Lexicon, poco

      but from comments here, I'm beginning to think otherwise. Members of the more privileged group often never face what a minority faces daily.

      While it would be impossible for Colbert to effectively parody racism with out resorting to racism, if he had used African-Americans or Hispanic-Americans as a "target," it would not have gone over at all, so why should it be acceptable to use Asians as the "target?"

      If another minority had been the subject of the satire, I doubt their outrage would have been met with the same racist backlash. That Asians make up a smaller minority doesn't make it acceptable.

      It is the backlash which is truly offensive and should be offensive to Colbert. It is actually the opposite of his intention. As a performer, it puts him in a difficult position because part of his character's persona is that he doesn't drop the mask, so I wonder how he will handle this, or will he just let it blow over.

      Some time there is a price to be paid for satire. Swift was put in the stocks for "A Modest Proposal."

      "The economy and the environment are, in fact, permanently intertwined. A healthy economy depends on a healthy environment. Can't have one without the other." -- Meteor Blades

      by politically indigo on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 02:42:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, now that you mention it, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jhancock
        if he had used African-Americans or Hispanic-Americans as a "target," it would not have gone over at all, so why should it be acceptable to use Asians as the "target?"
        The satire works even more effectively because Colbert & his writers chose the most benign, best-regarded minority in American culture.  To juxtapose obvious, denigrating slurs against Asians & Asian-Americans to highlight the invisibility of racism against Native Americans is to give a highlight that otherwise would not have been able to be effected.
        •  Which is ok if you're not Asian-American? (0+ / 0-)

          I can see why Asian-Americans might be offended, and I think if they are, they should be able to criticize Colbert without being subjected to a racist barrage of would-be Colbert defenders. Colbert didn't ask for their defense and doesn't need it. If these defenders are seen as bigoted liberals, which may or may not be the case, then how does that help promote liberal values.

          The whole point of satire is that it might pierce the bubble of the bigots and allow them to see their bigotry for what it is, not that people who "get it" can pat themselves on the back for how clever they are.

          As I said earlier, you can't satirize racism without pretending to be racist, and people sometimes don't make the distinction between the two, but the racism against Ms. Park is not satirical, and it exposes the supposed racist underbelly that liberalism is often accused of. When the left is shown in such a light, it is used against them. This is not necessarily a bad thing because the left does need to realize that there is racism and sexism etc. among its ranks, and incidents like this don't allow the left to pretend otherwise. Futhermore, it should be remembered that it is not only right-wingers who need to be mindful of others.

          No matter how apt the parallel, if the controversy of slurring Asian-Americans even in jest overshadows the point about the racism against Native Americans, is the joke even really any longer an effective commentary helpful to them? Furthermore, if the overall effect is to incite only more racism against another group is this a desirable outcome? Are the Asian-Americans supposed to take one for the team? But which team is that? Hopefully, Colbert will be able to flip it some way again so that both Asian and Native Americans and others will be content, but satire doesn't usually work that way.

          I am not upset with Colbert's satire, but with the reaction of some people to Ms. Park, which reveals more about the racism in our culture than we like to admit, and the excuse of defending Colbert is a fig leaf.

          "The economy and the environment are, in fact, permanently intertwined. A healthy economy depends on a healthy environment. Can't have one without the other." -- Meteor Blades

          by politically indigo on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 11:00:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  To be clear, (0+ / 0-)
            I am not upset with Colbert's satire, but with the reaction of some people to Ms. Park, which reveals more about the racism in our culture than we like to admit, and the excuse of defending Colbert is a fig leaf.
            I was referring to Colbert's use of satire, not any slurs that may have come to Ms. Park as a result of her statements.

            I believe that it is possible to separate Colbert's use of offensive language to upend racist language in general & the actual use of racist language to silence a critic.  I don't believe that defending Colbert's bit, or his comedy on the whole, or satire itself, is the same trying to justify any racist comments directed at Ms. Park.  The conflation is, IMO, rather intellectually dishonest.

            •  Well, if you want to get personal about it, I see (0+ / 0-)

              that you have taken offense. I can understand why you would think I was conflating the two if you felt that I was implying that your defense of Colbert was the same as attacking Ms. Park. Since you did not attack her, I wonder why you might think this. I assumed you realized that I understood that you were defending Colbert's use of satire. I wasn't including you as one who was attacking Ms. Park, but those who did attack her used their defense of Colbert as their rationale for doing so.

              Most often when someone is offended it is not usually the intention of the offender to do so. Colbert did not intend to offend Ms. Park, and she probably realized that he was being satirical, since she is familiar with his comedy, and yet she was offended anyway. This is one of the hazards of language, and with satire even more so. I think Ms. Parks cry to cancel the show speaks more to the degree of her anger than to any real desire to cancel the show. I think she had a right to vent her feelings, and I think people who disagreed with her had a right to civilly disagree. The racist attacks on the other hand, No.

              Like you, "I believe it is possible to separate Colbert's use of offensive language to upend racist language in general & the actual use of racist language to silence a critic."  Which is along the lines of what I first thought when reading the article. I believe that even the satirical "target" may have the ability to do so, but I can also see that it is a more difficult situation because it is not merely an abstraction in that case. And your statement also leaves open the possibility that it is possible for someone not to separate the two. When this happens should we simply dismiss this person or try to understand where they are coming from. What would Colbert do?

              "The economy and the environment are, in fact, permanently intertwined. A healthy economy depends on a healthy environment. Can't have one without the other." -- Meteor Blades

              by politically indigo on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 02:15:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thank you for your clarification. (0+ / 0-)

                For the record, I apologize for coming across as though you intended to target me.  On my side, I had been reading through another community's characterization of the whole episode, wherein there was conflation of the two stances.  (Moreover, there have been some folk here doing the same.) Your wording seemed very similar to theirs, but your words are yours alone.  I again apologize for letting their characterizations color how I interpreted your statement.

                Most often when someone is offended it is not usually the intention of the offender to do so. Colbert did not intend to offend Ms. Park, and she probably realized that he was being satirical, since she is familiar with his comedy, and yet she was offended anyway. This is one of the hazards of language, and with satire even more so.
                I completely agree with you.  Language is amazingly powerful & often fraught with pitfalls.  Comedians are expected to adroitly traverse such treacherous terrain.  That we've ended up here means that something went terribly awry.
                •  "That we've ended up here means that something (0+ / 0-)

                  went terribly awry."

                  I'm glad you can see that.

                  What worries me is the thin veneer under which lies so much hostility. That is why I responded to the two remarks against Ms. Park above mine. They made me see that she had a point.

                  "The economy and the environment are, in fact, permanently intertwined. A healthy economy depends on a healthy environment. Can't have one without the other." -- Meteor Blades

                  by politically indigo on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 04:16:12 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  Here's an honest suggestion (0+ / 0-)

    whether you're outraged at this skit on a comedians show, or not, how about we all take a nice breather..and do something else.

    Like, for example, dealing with this
    this or maybe this I mean, they're just suggestions, because there are important things going on and this outrage at a comedian for a skit he did is distracting from them.

    Nicht durch Zorn, sondern durch Lachen tödtet man. ~Nietzsche

    by somewierdguy on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 10:11:30 AM PDT

  •  Why not start a counter Twitter trend? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VeloDramatic

    Really, we need to put "social media" trends in context.

    Who the f#$% knows why but Michelle Malkin has over 700,000 twitter followers. So Step 1: She promotes this hashtag as a way to attack a left leaning comedy show. And 2) #CancelColbert starts trending.

    OMG!!! This trend might last 24 hours! How can we survive? Now we must agonize over whether Colbert should be funnier, less satirical, less harsh, more centrist or be cancelled!! Perhaps we should even disband the Democratic party to avoid being tarnished by this devastating twitter trend. Desperate times call for desperate measures and my god, we are talking about a twitter TREND!! {And don't forget Justin Beiber and Kim Khardashian have more twitter followers than President Obama, so we must take this trending business VERY, VERY seriously]

    But what a minute, social media trends are not exactly like organizing a civil rights movement. They are actually really east to start!  Remember, Oreos "you can still dunk in the dark" twitter trend from the 2013 Superbowl black out.  [BTW, how many packages of Oreos did you immediately run out and buy in direct response to that twitter trend? None you say? Exactly!]

    But all that aside, what if we all started a twitter trend of

    #SaveColbert_from_Conservatives_who_don't_ understand_Satire.
    Hooray the crops and Colbert are saved!
  •  colbert may need to drop the mask this weekend (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lexicon, m00finsan

    and splain this being the real stephen in very clear, apologetic terms.
    and then on monday go back to being his evil twin and satirically explain again.

    his comedy is wicked sometimes.
    this is one i can't tolerate, because it's just too too for me.

    I am tired of laughing at the irony of their stupidity.

    by stagemom on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 10:30:05 AM PDT

  •  It is out right racist to suggest Asians (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ruellia, Lexicon

    lack the intelligence and humor to appreciate Colbert's satire.

  •  I'm Asian and wasn't offended (4+ / 0-)

    This was so clearly satire that it just didn't register as offensive. Sure, he used all the tired racist tropes of Asian-bashing, but that's to be expected in the context of satire.

    I guess the danger of putting out an out-of-context racist tweet is that there is a huge group of people who don't understand satire and ARE racist and will take the Tweet at face value.

    •   believe (0+ / 0-)

      they are all sitting at phone stations, supported by the Kochs, the Adelsons, the repub riffraff, all just manning the battle stations and waiting for a chance to jump on someone - ANYone, who leans slightly left.  Poor Stephen is a non-moving target, as is Jon.

  •  False flag operation (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AmazingBlaise

    Park is ...not smart.  She's basically carrying water for Malkin.

    Well done Park.  Now aim at your other foot.

  •  And the straight-white-male "liberals" come out. (0+ / 0-)

    Let's see - "social justice," "overreacting," "it's called satire" (i.e., You Non-WhiteStraightMales Aren't Smart Enough To Get This) - this is only lacking "Political Correctness" to contain all the assholes' favorite buzzwords.

    It's always instructive to see straight white male progressives come out to support racist, misogynist or homophobic "humor" when it's THEIR guy doing it.

    * St. George Carlin used the N-word to refer to black people, called women c##ts and made rape jokes, and called bicyclists "those fuckin' f*gs in their tight shorts."

    * Bill Maher just sighs and rolls his eyes when his audience boos at yet another misogynistic or racist joke, and whines "SO politically correct." (BTW, "politically correct" is a phrase used solely by assholes - it doesn't mean you're being edgy, it means you're outraged that anyone besides a white straight Christian male thinks they have the right to be offended by something.)

    * Dan Savage routinely makes misogynistic jokes about women he despises, and is transphobic.

    Colbert needs to deal with this immediately - acknowledge, apologize, atone and take action - the way Jon Stewart handled a mis-characterization of a politician he'd mocked.

    Thank God, the Bob Fosse Kid is here! - Colin Mochrie

    by gardnerhill on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 10:45:13 AM PDT

  •  Michelle Malkin (3+ / 0-)

    who argued in favor of WW2 detention camps for Japanese Americans, is offended? So throwing people in a prison camp and taking all their property is OK, but she draws the line at racist jokes?

    •  She also defended (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TKO333

      Phil Robertson.

      “Duck Dynasty’s” Phil Robertson is not alone. He’s the latest in a long, long lineup of politically incorrect targets of the left’s sensitivity mob. Founded in 1985, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) gangstas won’t stop until both the cultural and legal enforcement of their agenda are the norm.

      Living is easy with eyes closed...

      by skybluewater on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 06:38:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Too Stupid To Get Satire? (3+ / 0-)

    If you are too stupid to get satire like Colbert, you shouldn't be voting. Yeah I'm that kind of elitist liberal.

  •  I think the main point of this whole thing was (3+ / 0-)

    #CancelRedskins

  •  Are We Sure Suey Park Is Not A Parody? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Noisy Democrat

    If someone wanted to do a satire of an extremely politically correct, humorless drop out academic eager to play the race card and picking fights with allies, she has the character down perfectly. Maybe Comedy Central could give her a half hour show. It's like she is not even acting.

  •  I don't twitter, or facebook, or participate in (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AmazingBlaise, m00finsan

    any other prive/public social media.  Correct me if I'm wrong; if you plant your words, images, opinions, etc., on these sites, you are inviting the world which you have entered to have at you.  The world is not a pretty place, much of the time. You are free to jump into the pool, but it is naivete to be greatly surprised at what lies below the surface.  It more often than not turns out to be a cesspool.
    Colbert's use of this particular Asian caricature has made me very uncomfortable from the very first.  I get the satire and parody.  Likewise with any of the racial and gender, hard, and biting satire.  It makes me uncomfortable, or cringe, or laugh out loud.  That's what satire does, when it is delivered in the most potent, biting, and truthful way; it helps to reveal the hypocrisy and ignorance which we are unaware of, or that we choose to ignore, in ourselves or others.
    I believe that Stewart, Colbert, and many other humorists and satirists too many to list, are, at their core, decent and humane people tryilng to make us look at ourselves and our follies, and, with some luck, learn something new and enlightening about ourselves and the social environment.
    Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, and others too many to list, are simply rotten to the core.  There is no equivalency of intent or design, though they may attempt to cloak their vileness in their own brand of humor.
    Maybe it's all just in the eye of the beholder; that certainly reveals quite a bit about the beholder.  

  •  this is just (0+ / 0-)

    another example of why most on the left refer to themselves as progressive and not liberal.

    if they were truly left they would get colbert's humor but since they are too cowardly to use the real lefty label their opinion on humor is humorless and uninformed.

  •  Context of Colbert's Asian stereotype satire (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    poco

    Deep and long history of hideous stereotypes which, fortunately, one doesn't encounter as much any more.

    Charlie Chan is Colbert's starting point, I think.

    You will find any number of Conservatives and Aristocrats making cheap cracks about Asians. For example, Prince Phillip of Great Britain warning British students in China not to eat too much rice or they would "get those slitty eyes."

    Some years ago a very senior American  banker asked about my Chinese-American colleague (someone, ironically, from a very elite clan...waaaay more refined and accomplished than me or the banker):  
    "Did that Chink finish the report yet ?"

  •  Complaining About a Comedian Doing Comedy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AmazingBlaise, skybluewater

    Is nothing sacred?

  •  Stalinists have no sense of humour (0+ / 0-)

    and are usually not too smart, either.

    They're EVERYwhere though, so watch out.

  •  The same thing said by Rush (0+ / 0-)

    would not raise an eyebrow.  He spouts hatred every day which is not satire. For him it is unvarnished truth.  The Outrage Express never seems to stop at his station otherwise he would have been off the air many years ago.

    Steven Colbert is no Rush Limbaugh, thank dog.

  •  Where's all this rage at the real issue here? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dconrad, skybluewater, VirginiaJeff

    All the rage over this, and all of these people are missing the point of the real issue: Colbert was calling out "Indian Mascots".

    Before you get mad at him - get mad at the racists promoting or using those mascots. Colbert's comment was just a way of saying "doing that would be like if I did this."

    I'm smelling a pretty big double standard here.

    OMG, like, gag them with a multi-colored spoon. Like, ya know.

    by Jyotai on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 02:11:01 PM PDT

  •  This deserves to be added to the mix: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    m00finsan, poco

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

    I wonder how many people will support the condescending, dismissive, belittling interviewer.

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

    by raptavio on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 02:35:49 PM PDT

    •  Well, I watched that interview, (0+ / 0-)

      and I have to say I support him.

      He was gracious to her for the first part, allowing her to go on at length, uninterrupted, several times.  He gave her far more freedom to speak her mind than interviewers normally do.  When he finally switched to speak with another person, Park tried to interrupt -- something he had not done to her.  Then when he came back to her, she upped the pretentiousness a little more. She whipped out the "white male" card, said she wouldn't waste her breath trying to educate him, and so he finally put an end to the ridiculousness.

      By the way, Park is proudly retweeting support from her new BFF Michelle Malkin. Malkin's greatest claim to discriminatory fame is her defense of Japanese-American Internment camps.

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

      by VirginiaJeff on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 07:32:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If anyone is over the top, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skybluewater, VirginiaJeff

    …it's Suey.  I get that she's offended, but I think she's in danger of not seeing the forest for the trees, or however that saying goes.

    I'm surprised to see so many here agreeing with her.

    Humor can be a vehicle for advancing an idea that people might otherwise resist.  Lighten up.

  •  Good Post (0+ / 0-)

    For an example of someone who is not falling back on racism to defend Colbert, check out my diary

    Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. - Zappa

    by ThisIsProgress on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 03:29:52 PM PDT

  •  Katie McDonough at Salon (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    m00finsan

    has a great take which many commenters of this diary would do well to read:

    http://www.salon.com/...

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

    by raptavio on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 04:46:04 PM PDT

    •  Lol (0+ / 0-)

      Of course Salon.com would support a dumb Twitter campaign like this.

      "but those in the camp defending a television host’s (failed) attempt to satirize racism "

      It was quite successful to anyone who isn't a #Hashtag #Activist looking to further their career and/or right-wing troll. Stopped reading here.

      •  Your loss. (0+ / 0-)

        Sounds like you need more than an article anyway.

        "Lol."

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

        by raptavio on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 01:35:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Get off tumblr dude (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VirginiaJeff

          I'm honestly terrified of the Democrats picking up the politics of "getting mad at comedians for obvious satire" in, say, Clinton's run in 2016 and facing a backlash they never saw coming. The Twitterverse of #Hashtag #Activists is a airtight compression chamber; anytime anything like this remotely hits the mainstream, people correctly identify it as a bunch of stupid bullshit.

          If you're looking for reasons for people to write off progressivism, this is a good first step. We're just lucky the GOP is too stupid to figure out much of anything these days, much less how to run against it.

  •  I won't know what to think about this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VirginiaJeff

    Until Sarah Palin writes something about it on Facebook.

    Living is easy with eyes closed...

    by skybluewater on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 06:29:05 PM PDT

  •  Jezebel has a great (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TrueBlueMajority

    take on Park's misplaced outrage:

    Good rule of thumb, just, for life in general: If Michelle Malkin is cheering you on, you are almost certainly doing something wrong.

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

    by VirginiaJeff on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 07:45:11 PM PDT

  •  Satires greater purose is socil criticism (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    War4Sale

    Not to be funny. Word police, some autocratic country is recalling you. Time to go home.

    Satire is a genre of literature, and sometimes graphic and performing arts, in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, corporations, government or society itself, into improvement.[1] Although satire is usually meant to be humorous, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon and as a tool to draw attention to both particular and wider issues in society.
  •  You want political correctness? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheLandstander

    You can't have it both ways.  Sorry, this is what you get when Americans drink the political correctness kool-aid.

    "I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness," Allen Ginsberg

    by Hermenutic on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 10:20:45 AM PDT

  •  The-Dumb-Dumb-REALLY-Dumb-Foundation (0+ / 0-)

    The people behind this effort are either dumb-dumb-dumb  ---or----  they're simply right wingers, out to demolish one of the most intelligent, award-winning,  and progressive satirical programs on television.

  •  As I said elsewhere (0+ / 0-)

    many who leapt to outrage without context may be those who think The Onion is news and are always outraged by its stories.

  •  It's satire... (0+ / 0-)

    ...for god's sake!!!

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

    Park obviously doesn't get it.  Why aren't Asians supporting Native Americans who want a name change?  "Redskins" is OFFENSIVE.  And I believe Asians are genetically related to Native Americans.

    How would they like if there were teams like "The Georgia Gooks?"  How about the "Nebraska Nips?" Or the "Joilet Japs?"

    There would be an uproar if there was a team called the "Boston Boot Lips'"  Or the "New Jersey Nigras."

    Snyder needs to get with it and change that name.  He is offending the people who lived here eons before his people immigrated here.

    I'm part Native american, and this "Redskin" stuff offends me.  It is no "honor," as Snyder puts it.  It's an insult.  Just watch any western movie.  Native Americans are constantly referred to as "Redskins," and always in a derogatory way.  I won't even mention the discrimination that Native Americans endured at the hands of the US Government.  A

    I don't like sports, so I can't boycott.  But at least I can let my voice be heard.  I don't know what ethnicity Snyder is, but I could parody a few team names in the same derogatory way if I knew.

  •  Twitter is called 'Twitter' for a good reason... (0+ / 0-)

    THEY'RE ALL TWITS!

  •  This is why progressives will lose the mid-terms (0+ / 0-)

    The statement of tripping over a dollar to save a dime is highly relevant here.
    If people can't appreciate satire against the owner of the "Redskins" and can't see the truth of the issue; the reason it comes off as bad taste is because Snyder's organization to help native Americans should be named something like "Redskin Rescue".

    "If you tell the truth, you won't have to remember anything", Mark Twain

    by Cruzankenny on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 11:35:46 AM PDT

  •  Where do you get the idea that those employing (0+ / 0-)

    racism are Colbert fans? As far as I can tell, they're all right wing trolls.

  •  Sounds like (0+ / 0-)

    some people went trolling!

  •  colbert (0+ / 0-)

    The RW noise machine used the same tactic against Bill Maher, forcing his highly popular and very funny show off network TV.
    If this succeeds again, Colbert will be welcomed on HBO--but if he goes I think Jon Stewart will follow.

  •  You know... (0+ / 0-)

    ...the nature of most racism is, at least from my perspective, so ridiculous it is a satire of its self. When I think of the term “redskin”for instance, another human being doesn't come to mind, only a baked potato. Classifying some one based off of such characteristics seems far too superficial to be anything other than a terrible joke, and if it weren't for the oppression and persecution that fallows such ridiculousness, it may actually be funny.

    I mean, come on, why would any sane person think such a thing? I very much doubt Colbert did, but at the same time, I do understand why someone would raise exceptions to his comments. We should take bigotry (satirical or not) seriously regardless of intent. On the other hand, I believe Colbert has proven that he is an ally, and one slip up should not be seen as a capital offense (for lack of a better term).

  •  Too late (0+ / 0-)

    Where was the outrage the first time Stephen used this character? Now, when he is using it to vilify the footballer everyone is up in arms. Stephen Colbert, not his character, the real person was drawing attention to Dan Snyder's unfailing racism with satire. Use your brains people.

    •  Where is the outrage... (0+ / 0-)

      ...over Colbert's obviously venom-laced portrayal of white males in EVERY SHOW HE MAKES?!

      This whole situation reminds me of why I think the guy who Dorothy-inOz/click-your-heels-together believes he could be another Gandhi or Buddha if only his parents hadn't circumcised him is just a little sad, as opposed to him being a bold thinker...

  •  Another twitter lynch mob (0+ / 0-)

    I hate twitter for this very reason. Let's not even get into the millions of fake accounts, scrubbed tweets, i.e., zero accountability.
    This whole thing is such utter bullshit. Colbert had the balls to stand up at the annual press club dinner and demolish Bush and the Repubes right in front of them. He's a true patriot and some PC asshole is sliming him. And a million pissants jump on the outrage bandwagon.

    Proudly wearing a tin-foil hat since 1972.

    by pissed off hippie on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 12:34:33 PM PDT

  •  First, it isn't satire. Let's get this straight. (0+ / 0-)

    It's called parody, not satire.

    And in that light, since Colbert is imitating and thereby performing parody not satire, the "joke" is well within the bounds of allowable.

    Come on folks! If you can imagine Bill O'Reilly saying it with a straight face (I can) then Colbert is doing exactly what he has always done. Parody of a half-wit.

  •  Parody demands a certain level of understanding (0+ / 0-)

    on the part of the audience.  This is what happens when people don't "get it".

    Feel trickled on yet?

    by War4Sale on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 12:41:55 PM PDT

  •  Colbert is just fine. (0+ / 0-)

    Please dig up Jonathan Swift and flog him too while you all are at it. #unable to comprehend satire

  •  Perhaps we should just make satire illegal (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheLandstander

    Either no one is exempt or everyone is exempt. If we cannot laugh at ourselves regardless of who we are, then life gets pretty offensive. If a show is funny, it doesn't matter what race you put into the writing. Amos and Andy was a great show but the Blacks were offended. Had they been white, it would have been fine as the writing was good. It is time we get over this. Should I be offended at the old Lucy show because it portrays white women as stupid? Get over yourselves. As it is television has become a vast wasteland of poorly written sit coms about stupid white guys in an effort to not offend any minority. They would be bad regardless of the main character. Colbert is brilliant, be proud that he included you.

  •  I've always known that republicans and (0+ / 0-)

    their tea-bagger friends were too stupid to know that Colbert was not one of their own, but it is disappointing to see my fellow lefties/liberals display an ignorance of satire. If you are offended  by satire, then tough shit.

  •  Where is Bloom County when you need it... (0+ / 0-)

    Offensensitivity; says it all.

  •  Soon or later (0+ / 0-)

    Colbert rapid pace and insane double negatives and double positives were eventually going to blow up in his face. It looks as if his attempt to make funny of everything also includes his own show. Truth is I watch his show because he is only funny half the time and it airs before Jon Stewarts which is funny most of the time.

  •  Funny (0+ / 0-)

    Limbaugh is still on the air, as well as countless other Rethuglicans yammerers. And don't get me started on the Republiclowns in Washington and throughout the country. I think this a conspiracy that needs to be investigated it probably has ties to Benguzzi.

  •  If Malkin is Offended (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MrBobo

    I guess the world should tip off it axis when one of the right's most favorite anti-everything liberal is offended.  I guess we should just go tell Stephen he is cancelled.  Don't they understand humor?  Well I guess maybe not for when his show first started it was used on Fox News as they were all too stupid to realize the joke was on them.  Her faux outrage is getting old.  Maybe Mr Ching Chong Ding Dong is offended by her.  Either way his point was made about how outrageous the acts from Snyder was to native americans.  I going to believe he never knew how we treat the native americans in this country.  He just adds to the ignorance.

  •  The inability to comprehend satire (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kbrown2225

    transcends political beliefs although I want to believe right wingers are numerically more hopeless than left wingers. And of course, the inability of many Americans to concentrate on anything longer than a tweet doesn't help since Colbert's bit went beyond 44 characters.

    I happened to watch that particular show and thought Colbert could not have been more obvious or more on-point.

    But then, if you watch a show that is 100% satirical you'd think anyone watching would get it as you would reading the Onion or Andy Borowitz. (note to confused Borowitz readers: Russia is not really joining the G1).

    Oy.

    Of course, there are a measurable number of right wing douche bags who have watched Colbert on more than one occasion and believe his O'Reilly schtick is authentic. I've met a few myself...and never try to correct them.

  •  Colbert (0+ / 0-)

    Satire is something that went out of style when political
    correctness became all the rage.Colbert is not guilty of any thing i.e.in my opinion.

  •  Ah, yes . . . (0+ / 0-)

    The land of free speech.  You can say "and, it, the, them (as long as you're not pointing a finger), some, and several other words without bringing the house down.  But beware the slippery slope.  Chop, chop? Suey??  Now you've scored one for Limbaugh, which is probably what this is all a bout, and you've forced me to retaliate with my own childish retort so I guess you can cancel my show, too.  

    This American burn ward is getting tiresome.

  •  Don't understand sarcasm? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kbrown2225

    The whole point of Colbert's act is that he's spoofing ultra-right conservatives... Whether it was in context or not is irrelevant. He says outrageous things to make conservatives appear foolish. Don't any of these people understand that?

  •  Satire (0+ / 0-)

    Are these the same people who defend Ted Nugent's rants against the President?  Colbert is a satirist who adopts a conservative, bigoted persona on his show; in context, there was nothing offensive about what he said.  

  •  This reminds me of the New Yorker cover... (0+ / 0-)

    ...that had this site in a tizzy in 2008.  Some of you need to take a deep breath every now and then.  

    Here's my flashback:  http://www.dailykos.com/...

    Important whining and Red Sox stuff at http://edsbarth.blogspot.com/

    by Barth on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 02:33:31 PM PDT

  •  The Washington Redskins Symbol (0+ / 0-)

    All of this turmoil could have been avoided and Dan Snyder could save some money if he would retain the name of his team but change the symbol to a potato. Very little would have to be changed in the Redskins' logo and paraphernalia, just apply a sticker over any human representations.

  •  Colbert (0+ / 0-)

    Did you see the show?  Do you understand Satire? See both and then comment again.

  •  So to these nitwits... (0+ / 0-)

    making fun of bigots is bigotry?  Amazing!

    Time sets all things right. Error lives but a day. Truth is eternal. - General James Longstreet

    by kbrown2225 on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 02:46:53 PM PDT

  •  REFERENCING TWITTER COMMENTS MADE. Out-of-context (0+ / 0-)

    WHERE ARE ALL OF THESE PEOPLE WHEN A REPUBLICAN MAKES BAD STATEMENTS OR WHEN ONE OF THE JERKS ON FOX NEWS NETWORK INSULTS A GUEST OR THE PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.A., LIES AND DISTORTS WHAT IS SUPPOSE TO BE THE NEWS. OR WHEN A REPUBLICAN OR FOX COMMENTATOR MAKES A OFF-COLOR COMMENT OR JOKE. WHEN WILL THEY ATTACK RUSH LIMBAUGH?????

     NOW THAT THESE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN MADE FOOLS OUT OF THEIRSELVES, THEY WILL LEARN TO CHECK THE SOURCE AND GET THE FULL STORY BEFORE THEY OPEN THERE MOUTHS....

  •  Who cares about Twitter anyway? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheLandstander

    "the Colbert fans who are falling back on racism to defend it"

    What is that supposed to mean? It is a spurious charge.

    By definition, Twitter is for people who don't have anything serous to say and are under the delusion that a few words actually communicate something serious.

    "The owners of this country know the truth: its called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it." ~ George Carlin

    by Gregory Wonderwheel on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 02:54:20 PM PDT

  •  Its Comedy (0+ / 0-)

    Oh puhleez folks. This tempest in a teapot does not deserve the attention itʻs getting. Colbert does SATIRE. We have many more important things to worry about, like what the coal/oil industry is doing to our water, like war in the Ukraine, like the growing income inequality in America, like the neanderthals and neanderthalettes that are trying to restrict womenʻs access to birth control, while also restricting access to abortion.... I could go on but then... I would be giving this too much attention. Buh Bye.

  •  Really ??? (0+ / 0-)

    Yawn...... Somebody has waaaaay too much time on their hands

    I believe in separation of corporation and State.

    by tipring on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 03:26:04 PM PDT

  •  I haven't seen this episode, but from what I've (0+ / 0-)

    read, a whole lot of people misconstrued Stephen's joke. Which happens quite regularly, btw. Now that he made these comments, he has provided a helluva lot of job security for the hacks at Faux. This one could keep them occupied for several weeks. Long live Colbert Nation!

  •  colbert (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheLandstander

    (a) everybody needs to simply grow up. relax a little....
    (b) the purpose of humor is to entertain AND to highlight areas of discomfort and difference and to make them less threatening.
    (c) nick cannon in white-face; julianne hough in black-face; who cares? [see (a) above.]
    (d) has nobody ever watched chelsea handler? some of the things she says makes this look like kids' play.
    (e) suey park: a tad of an overreaction?
    (f) put all this effort into something important.
    (g) - (z) see (a) above.....and enjoy life a little.

  •  Those who live by satire... (0+ / 0-)

    usually miss the mark sometimes.  I understand his point but he is fighting one stereotype with another.  Why not take on the Fighting Irish or the New England Patriots and turn them into the fighting drunk Irish or the traitorous (to England) Patriots.  Then he'll have a real fight in his hands.  

  •  Do NOT cancel Colbert... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheLandstander, MrBobo

    Come on, why now?  Colbert has used this before....No one ever asks anyone at FOX NOISE,  far right radio, and even members of Congress to apologize for really horrible and disrespectful stuff!  There's nothing like fake outrage!

  •  Total BS (0+ / 0-)

    Ok you are so mad at the Ching Chong Ding punch line that somehow you forgot about the RACIST name of Redskins to which Colbert was referring the punchline to.. Give me a break. Cancel his show for saying Ding Dong Ching Chong or whatever but show no sensitivity whatsoever to the Indian community who object to the team name Redskins. Hello Pot my name is Mr kettle, nice to meet ya..

  •  Confused (0+ / 0-)

    Why is everyone so upset that a satirical comedian made a satirical joke about a real life racist situation? I don't watch Colbert's show, but I have seen it in the past and it was quite apparent that he was a satirical comedian, and quite a good one at that. Seems to me, it doesn't matter what he says until the joke is about YOUR race, then it becomes a sensitive subject. Calling for his head over a satirical joke that was taken out of context is the epitome of ignorance, overreaction, and useless self-indignation.

    If you can't see a satirical joke for what it is, then don't concern yourself with satirical humor, because you will never get it.

  •  Professional victimization and faux outrage (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheLandstander

    Let's be clear. The only thing that the "uproar" is "proof" of is that a lot of people don't get satire, or just love painting themselves as victims. Mocking racism by co-opting a racist's language is not being racist. Constructing an imaginary, but equally ridiculous parallel to mock Dan Snyder's organization was mocking Snyder, not Asians.

  •  Gosh there are really stupid people everywhere (0+ / 0-)

    Wake up and wise up everyone. THere are two real news shows on TV now - The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. There are some segments of other shows which brush shoulders with actual news but not for long - mostly they repeat their personal talking points. SO - it makes sense that there would be a bunch of wackos who decide that everything should not offend them or else it should be destroyed. Reminds me of a Bumper Sticker we had on the VW Bus - back in the age of Aquarius...
               "Nuke an Unborn Gay Whale for Christ!"
    There - that should cause a psychotic break long enough for a belly laugh somewhere. Ahh - back to Uncle George Carlin please!

  •  There are a lot of perks (0+ / 0-)

    to playing as an egotistic, insensitive, right-wing billionaire, but there can be some pitfalls to going too far with it.

    Those of us who know & enjoy Colbert won't take it that seriously, but I can easily see how it might offend someone who isn't that familiar with him (and of course there will be those who'll use it to discredit Colbert)

    Satirical comedy can get tricky sometimes.

  •  "To show how much I love African-Americans... (0+ / 0-)

    I am hosting this year's Fried Chicken and Watermelon Dinner".

    Not racist if it's satire, right?

    •  It depends on the context genius (0+ / 0-)

      Are you a professional comedian who is well known for his faux right wing character, who employs satirical rhetoric to mock the ridiculous things that come from the group of people you historically mock, and is that fake dinner you're pretending to set up a construct designed to parallel a similarly ridiculous dinner that a clueless racist set up to try and prove his sensitivity to a group of people he's been insensitive to in the past?

      Yea, in that context, it's not racist.

      Are we done here Einstein?

    •  Thank you for getting it (0+ / 0-)

      See comment at the bottom of the page. (Ctrl-F my handle if newer replies have buried it.)

  •  Satire (0+ / 0-)

    Fer Pete's sake people, his "character" was used to mock Rush Limbaugh when that asshat used a Charlie Chan voice to mock China's Premier (or whatever his title is).

    The lady who got so upset about this in the first place was informed of that and pulled her tweet(s). I imagine she has a lot of egg on her face, being that he was totally on her "side."

    Had there been a better reference during his show as to what Colbert's character was originally designed for, and/or had a website not under his control not taken things out of context, this tempest in a teacup would never have happened.

    Unfortunately, what's been lost in all this hair tearing is his original point--you know, the one about the Redskins?

  •  It is so lovely... (0+ / 0-)

    ...when racists post remarks complaining about what they want to be racist remarks only because it comes from someone on the left.

  •  Colbert's mockery (0+ / 0-)

    Stephen Colbert has been mocking white guys for at least 8 years now.  Suddenly  he's being offensive? Stop with this shite.

  •  "Cancel Colbert"???? (0+ / 0-)

    Who knew Michelle Malkin watched "Comedy Central"?

    How does any Conservative even know who Stephen Colbert is, and what he does?

    Next thing you know... they will be tuning in to Rachel Maddow.

  •  Satire is a double-edged sword best used to (0+ / 0-)

    make people think rather than react.
    The consequences of its use must be expected to be mixed, like those of any other weapon.
    In this case, I suspect outrage on either side is coming only from those who delight in the ability to scream "Gotcha!" because they are reacting rather than thinking.

  •  Cancel Colbert?????? (0+ / 0-)

    You so bad but what about the guy who started all this, Snyder?????? Why would he try to buy off the Indian Nation if he didn't think he was doing anything offensive. Typical of the filthy rich who rather then clean up a mess, they try to buy cover it up with a little money.

  •  really? (0+ / 0-)

    Thats why they call them TWITS

  •  O.M.G. Some people can't take a joke! (0+ / 0-)

    You'd think that, these days, whenever a COMEDIAN comes out to say outrageous things, the first thing you do is check his/her facts - and when you are outraged too, you'll understand his 'context'.

    That's how I get "news" from my favorite five or six sites. They suggest absurd proposals, policies, actions and so forth; then they fake an enthusiastic audience of millions trampling the White House Lawn. OR, in the case of some super-right teabags, they'll go ahead (Jon Stewart's people do this) and film the person making a ridiculous speech, then pan the crowd to see that only 42 people are actually present and listening to it. (Also faked.)

    All you guys who are standing in line to fart out your tired "let-me-alone-I-need-a-beer-in-my-favorite-recliner" kind of response? I'm VERY proud of you for actually having an opinion!  But, OMG, please check your facts, check for comedy, check for actual news content - and you'll understand that Stephen Colbert, produced by Jon Stewart (who also has a 'news show' right after Colbert, are COMEDIANS. Yes. Check out your TVGuide.

    And in spite of that, I still get most of my news from them. II also get my news from Upworthy, Daily Kos, and a few other sites who do not have broomsticks up their arses. I pretty much don't have time for other straight-up sources unless it is an election cycle, when the origin of the 'news' is important (binders full of women, tape recorder hidden in the hydrangeas) such as repeatedly telling lies (Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin) rather than do the work necessary to check out the facts. I really like the little man on the street tidbits in which a person will answer a completely different questions from the one that was asked.

    One little note: Before Rachel Maddow (rhymes with shadow) got her own show, she would participate with the rest of the MSNBC crowd by reporting on certain aspects of the elections at hand, and she would be slightly pissed that they would give her assignments such as "Go find out how women respond to this stimulus or that lack of assistance or this particular gerrymander..." - she wanted to be a damn journalist! And as a Rhodes Scholar, with a doctorate from Cambridge in political science, she is eminently qualified.  But they made her wear skirts and dresses. (*She has great legs!!!) So as soon as she got her own show, she has steadily been raising our consciousness about changing (for example) our society's reaction to a report of rape; instead of telling men how not to be rapists, they start the lecture on how women should act, what she should wear, drink, say, etc... - as if it it entirely her responsibility to keep herself from being raped. I have NEVER heard of an initiative to make "DON'T RAPE PEOPLE" a famous phrase, hung in school dorms, 'the baths', gay bars, and schools, schools and school. And schools.  

    If anyone has ever heard of anything like this, any kind of effort to make boys and young men understand that they can't just pick one and go assault her, I'd love to hear about it. So would Laura Clawson. And Rachel Maddow. And especially, Stephen Colbert. And me. And, maybe the rest of us. Such an initiative would be ground-breakingly misunderstandable, of course, so we would all have to be prepared for the ugly stuff and even the good stuff - comments from men who just never heard of that before, even though they had fantastic parents.

    Thanks, guys. If something like this came to a vote in ANY of our state or federal legislatures, it would become apparently immediately who are the men and who are the boys.

    Tired, going to bed. Thanks! Good article, Clawson.

  •  Are people really becoming so stupid (0+ / 0-)

    that they can't recognize farce unless someone puts in that little winking smiley face to clue them in???  If so, we have lost a time-honored and very effective weapon to fight injustice.  Are the Internet  and social media to blame for this dumbing-down?  Or is it all the sugar and additives in the American diet that have poisoned people's brains?  Jonathan Swift must be spinning so hard in his grave he will soon bore right through (and maybe initiate the zombie apocalypse). And my hero Mel Brooks must be choking on his Kosher ham and eggs.  Maybe that's the solution -- these literal-minded idiots should sit down with a good Kosher ham sandwich and watch "Blazing Saddles".  

  •  Would he do the same line with Asians present? (0+ / 0-)

    Oh wait, he did the line with Asians WHO WRITE FOR HIS SHOW present and with Asians in the live audience.

  •  Speaking as an Asian-American (0+ / 0-)

    The reason this rubs me the wrong way is because of the sneaking doubt that an otherwise liberal person would ever do this sort of thing with any other racial minority, even if in service of a larger point about a real-life racist situation, etc. etc. I don't know if it's true of Stephen Colbert, but it certainly at least seems to be true of the commentariat here. How many times have "professional victimization" or "OMG some people can't take a joke" ever graced the titles of DKos comments when the diary in question was about a potentially racist comment directed at, say, African-Americans, Latinos, or Native Americans? Without, apparently, any HR's or hostile replies?

    This whole episode reminds me of the time, several years ago, when Guy Aoki, an APA activist, confronted Sarah Silverman over her use of the phrase "I love chinks" in a skit she did. They held a whole event, chockful of the same tedious sermonizing about the definition of satire, and about the role of comedy in social criticism and its boundaries, as you see here. No one directly asked the obvious question: would she have made the same joke, with the same national platform, with the words nigger or spic?

    I don't think Colbert himself is a weasel who tries to be edgy by making fun of Asian-Americans because he's too chicken shit to do it to any other minority group. I'd like to think, and I do think, that he's too good for that. But he operates in a social context where people like that are endemic, including in - or perhaps especially - in his core audience of political liberals. (Conservatives are less likely to care about the other minorities to begin with.)

    If there's a positive takeaway from all this, it's that Asian-Americans, here represented by one Suey Park, are increasingly not tolerating being the "acceptable" target of racial jokes. If this all seems overly strident and self-focused to you, then good. It's high time that at least some in the AA community started erring on the side of stridency rather than accommodation. And if the show or the network is hurt and chastened by this, good. If not, we'll be there next time, because there will be a next time. But there won't be a next next next next time, as Asian-Americans are becoming more socially and politically active.

  •  Not going to happen...First, if we want to get (0+ / 0-)

    the conversation in or out of context, before we take Colbert off the air, let's fire 70% of GOP Congressmen running for the Midterms.   You wanna talk about race, start with Congressman King in Iowa.

  •  "Her Cups Runneth Over" (0+ / 0-)

    Anybody remember Terry Rakolta? She's the lady that probably saved Married With Children! and even admitted that her boycott campaign contributed to the higher viewership of the show!  So bring on the protest Michelle Malkin!!!

  •  Colbert (0+ / 0-)

    It's a joke. He plays a character. Get over it.

  •  Colbert (0+ / 0-)

    It's a joke. He plays a character. Get over it.

  •  Now that I've seen Sueh Park's tweets (0+ / 0-)

    I see that she immediately told Stephen Colbert "F*** you" -- without asterisks. Is this what passes for reasonable, respectable political protest these days? I understand that Twitter has a limit on characters, but why go for vulgar, offensive language? I think it's a sad sign of our times when F.U. is considered an acceptable form of public argument.

  •  140 characters limits the benign (0+ / 0-)

    The tweet took away the satirical context that makes the obvious violation of norms against racist expression relatively benign.

    Suey and supporters argue that such statements can never be made benign and therefore -- cannot be funny.

    I am not so sure -- but maybe I'm just "manslaining."  :-P

    The benign violation theory builds on work by Tom Veatch and integrates existing humor theories to propose that humor occurs when and only when three conditions are satisfied: (1) a situation is violation, (2) the situation is benign, and (3) both perceptions occur simultaneously. - See more at: http://www.petermcgraw.org/...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site