The Colbert Retort

LetalisK

New member
May 5, 2010
2,769
0
0
Vigormortis said:
Hunter85792 said:
Oh my god, I about lost it with laughter at three and a half minutes in when, several times, she says, and I quote, "...especially as a white man, I don't expect you to understand..."

Just...wow. She's bitching about Colbert making a "racist" joke while she's actively displaying racism herself.

That's fucking gold.
Everyone knows that white people don't have the capacity for sympathy or cognitive reasoning. Disagreements must be because you're white.

/sarcasm

Seriously though, "As an X, I don't expect you to understand..." is quickly becoming racist short-hand akin to "I have a black friend". It probably had some value at some point in time, but now it's a racist go-to tagline for self-justification.
 

Darth_Payn

New member
Aug 5, 2009
2,868
0
0
josemlopes said:
This right here is the problem: "influential/heavily-followed ... social-media activist" since all it is is a person that says "I dont like it so you shouldnt like it either" to its followers.
That sounds like Marge Simpson's philosophy on changing society (from Itchy & Scratchy to MMA Fighting). Except I don't think Marge knows Twitter's a thing, since one of her recurring gags is being behind on technology.

Well, one more reason to not join Twitter. It makes you sound like a goddamned idiot.
 

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
th3dark3rsh33p said:
The the men in this forum aren't starting a campaign to cancel a TV show.
Oh, I see. Because wanting to cancel a TV show totally justifies harassment.

th3dark3rsh33p said:
I once again bring you to Phil Fish, who was 100% harassed by the internet out of the spot light with very little sympathy until he actually left.
Which was a terrible thing, but was very unusual (unlike the harassment of women both online and in-person). And also had nothing to do with his gender.

th3dark3rsh33p said:
At the end of it. What makes a rape threat worse then a death threat? Seriously.
I never said it was worse. Did you read my post? I said that women get both death threats and rape threats. And I asked the question why it is the women who get the rape threats, but not usually the men. Do you have an explanation for that?

th3dark3rsh33p said:
Men get death threats against them and their families all the time when they are unpopular and drawing a lot of attention to themselves.
No, they don't. There are lots of men with unpopular opinions who draw attention to themselves, and they rarely get death threats.

th3dark3rsh33p said:
What is your justification for a difference?
I didn't justify anything. What's your justification for the way men and women are treated differently?

If you are so against this kind of behavior, then why do you want to make excuses for it when it happens to women? Why would you offer any of the responses you do above, where you seem to say that it's a perfectly normal thing? Why don't you just condemn the behavior, rather than trying to equivocate?

Does men being victims of harassment justify the harassment of women? If not, then what exactly are you trying to argue?
 

Vigormortis

New member
Nov 21, 2007
4,531
0
0
lostlevel said:
LetalisK said:
Hunter85792 said:
Even though the interviewer was being a bit of a dick throughout, I was a little disappointed he didn't immediately jump on her for her "as a white man" and "people of color" comments.

Though, props to the guy for not exploding into a torrent of unbridled laughter at the hypocrisy on display. I know I would have.
 

The Material Sheep

New member
Nov 12, 2009
339
0
0
1. I never said it justified harassment in anyway shape or form. Cut out the straw men.

2. The funny thing about Phil Fish is that it he got attention for being harassed. Male Journalists and online personalities are heavily harassed with various messages from, accusations of sexual misconduct to death threats to family. This doesn't get addressed because unfortunately it's standard operating procedure for the interwebs.

3. Men don't get rape threats, because society doesn't tell men the greatest evil in the world has been done to you if you've been raped. It's just doesn't hold the same cultural weight to throw a rape threat at a man. It's why they get more death threats and threats to family, as it's more likely to get a rise out of a man then a rape threat would.

4. Rarely get death threats? Do you ever hear what journalists for online news sources get? Are you kidding me? Threats to person and family are standard business for males on the internet. They don't get publicized, but that's mainly because it's not marketable to show a man being harassed. It's a cultural perception that men don't need defending and women do, so when it happens to a woman it's publicized to a ridiculous degree.

5. I'm not making any excuses for anyone. I'm saying it's all horrible, it's just not a gender issue. Sweet Christ dude, I know your looking for an argument that's REALLY easy to beat and make you look like the smartest guy in the room, but I'm not playing on those terms. I'm not belittling anyone's harassment, I'm saying it's NOT a gender issue, it's just AN ISSUE. An issue we all have to deal with that effects everyone and doesn't target anyone one group specifically. It's just a horrid aspect of internet culture due to a lot of anonymity and wanting to get the cheapest and easiest rise out of people that put themselves out their looking for attention. How do we fix it? Fuck if I know, but I damn sure know that misdirecting attention from the issue to treat symptoms and not causes is not going to help.
 

Grey Edwards

New member
Sep 18, 2012
12
0
0
SOCIALCONSTRUCT said:
Well all I see here is one cishet white male condescending to whitesplain and mansplain why what another cishet white male said isn't hateful and bigoted. Maybe they both just need to check their privilege and stop whining about their first world problems.

I can't believe the guy that told me about the unconventional racism of Halo, just how awful it is make a media product aimed at teenage boys, South Park as a gated community, and other similar gems is getting cold feet all of sudden.


Seriously though, #CancelColbert and #IStandWithSuey. I can't think of justice more poetic than for a white male minstrel show to be hoist on its own politically correct petard.
Sigh. Crap like this is just as racist and bigoted as the things you campaign against. For reference, hating on the "majority" makes you just as bad as people who hate on people in the "minorities".
 

launchpadmcqwak

New member
Dec 6, 2011
449
0
0
Callate said:
I feel quite strongly that disliking something, even disliking something strongly, is not reason enough for that thing to cease to exist.
If all leftists like bob thought like you, this site and the internet in general would be bearable.
 

PlasmaCow

New member
Jul 18, 2009
63
0
0
This whole thing just makes me think of HG Wells' amazing "The Sleep Awakes", in which speeches by officials have been reduced down to "the word" - short 3-6 word headline-grabbing sentences.
 

faefrost

New member
Jun 2, 2010
1,280
0
0
Amir Kondori said:
@suey_park is 22, people are allowed to be stupid at 22. It would be nice if she apologized, but I get the sense that she is someone who can never admit to being wrong.
Park is a PROFESSIONAL Social Media Warrior. She gets PAID for drumming up outrage. Note that her only public facing e-mail is "bookings". She works the college speaking circuit putting in paid appearances to discuss these outrages such as Stephen Colbert. Remember "Everything in its proper context". The offended party that started "Cancel Colbert" has a strong profit motive for doing so. Doing things like that are what get her paid. It's how she pays the rent. (Which gets really amusing when you realize that she is supposedly a communist.)

So is poor Suey Park a stupid 22 year old who was offended at taking a joke out of context, or is she a manipulative profiteer playing off racial demagoguery for her own gains?
 

XMark

New member
Jan 25, 2010
1,408
0
0
okay, I wasn't even remotely familiar with the controversy. I saw the Colbert quote, and instantly these thoughts chained together in my mind -

The baseball dude had a team with a racist name.
The baseball dude used that racist name in an awkward way.
Colbert made fun of the way the baseball dude did the awkward racist naming thing by making an even more absurd parody example of the thing that the baseball dude did.

How can anyone not get that, unless they're just trying as hard as they can to be offended by something?
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
DrunkenElfMage said:
Gorrath said:
DrunkenElfMage said:
Also, lets not gloss over the actual racist tweets that Park received because of this hashtag. I saw some of the most disgusting things tweeted at this woman in "defense" of Stephen Colbert, it really made me question my initial opinion that Park was wrong, that even off handedly using racism ironically to villify and contextuallize actual racism still isn't okay because it can be interpreted as Pro Racism by the right audience.

Ultimately, I still disagree with Park, but I won't act as if there isn't a problem with the world to start with.
I don't know that I can agree with you. The idea that one should not satirize racism because someone might not get that it's satire seems more than a little like an over reaction. It's no more surprising that actual racists didn't understand the context of what's going on when not even the SJW herself seemed to. I agree with that that Park is in the wrong here, but one should not construe a bunch of people acting like racists as the fault of the original satire, their words and deeds are their own.
My point is is that despite the Colbert's original intent, his words were still used to promote racism. You and I both know that that wasn't the point of the joke, but that doesn't change that it happened. Colbert unintentionally provided a platform for racists to stand on, and I have a feeling that that is (in part) what Park hates about the joke in the first place.

Keep in mind that I ultimately disagree with her, after all when someone shoots someone with a gun, we don't get mad at the person who handed out the bullets. But I can UNDERSTAND why she would feel that way. Its just that if we got rid of everything that could be taken out of context and used in a racist (or sexist) way, than all we would have on TV would be white static.
I think you and I are largely in agreement on all points then. Cheers.
 

SOCIALCONSTRUCT

New member
Apr 16, 2011
95
0
0
Grey Edwards said:
SOCIALCONSTRUCT said:
Well all I see here is one cishet white male condescending to whitesplain and mansplain why what another cishet white male said isn't hateful and bigoted. Maybe they both just need to check their privilege and stop whining about their first world problems.

I can't believe the guy that told me about the unconventional racism of Halo, just how awful it is to make a media product aimed at teenage boys, South Park as a gated community, and other similar gems is getting cold feet all of sudden.


Seriously though, #CancelColbert and #IStandWithSuey. I can't think of justice more poetic than for a white male minstrel show to be hoist on its own politically correct petard.
Sigh. Crap like this is just as racist and bigoted as the things you campaign against. For reference, hating on the "majority" makes you just as bad as people who hate on people in the "minorities".
It is an informal escapist convention that text in magenta designates sarcasm. Now where was I... oh yeah...

OK seriously, there is seriously people in this thread that are saying that reverse racism is really a thing. Wow, just wow! I... I have no words. I mean, hello bigots it's 2014 already so stop living in the 1950s. I can't wait for all old white people to die off so we can move past this stuff already.

MovieBob said:
I'm not as down on Tumblr-style activism as some are.
You don't say? Least shocking revelation ever.
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
Callate said:
I feel quite strongly that disliking something, even disliking something strongly, is not reason enough for that thing to cease to exist.

And if there's one place where the current left-wing culture (with which I generally identify) goes overboard, it's in the rush to presume that something it doesn't like is harmful. It isn't that a joke makes you feel bad; it perpetuates a stereotype that enables violence. It isn't that watching someone play a video game distrubs you; it's that it causes children to be aggressive. All too frequently this is wrapped up with a bow of "common sense", enabling the claims to be made with little or no relation to proven cause and effect.

(You aren't against common sense, are you? That would mean you're irrational, and that's one more reason to immediately dismiss anything else you have to say.)

What's really frustrating is that it ought to be enough to start a discussion that something makes people feel bad. We're capable of empathy, right? We don't want people to feel bad, right? We're capable of being that promised, idealized culture of inclusion that recognizes people are different without leaping to the conclusion that their "outsider" nature makes them somehow dangerous, right...?

(You know, much like jumping to the conclusion that that thing which makes you feel bad must also be dangerous...?)

...But no, we have to jump in with both guns blazing. Middle ground? What's that? Respect? Not due to the enemy! You have to come from a position of strength, and you never come to the table with anything less than a thundering, denunciatory how dare you?!

Park misused her power. I'm not going to call her some derogatory term for being female or Asian, but I'm not going to couch things with "there are a lot of rotten people 'defending' Colbert" or the presumption that she's usually right and righteous. In this case, she's multiple layers of wrong. She jumped to conclusions without bothering to gain context, she assumed it was her right to destroy the thing that made her uncomfortable, she's apparently stuck to defending a wrong-headed conclusion, and she's hollowed out her own side's ability to rally the next time there's something actually dangerous that needs to be addressed.

To my mind, she doesn't deserve excuses for her actions, regardless of how sickening some of her attackers may be. She needs to have that stick she's lashing out with wildly taken away and given to someone responsible.

The zealots for a cause, however righteous, are capable of doing far more damage to that cause than its detractors. We need to stop making excuses for people who are on our side badly. We need to stop being glad for their additional numbers, their rousing fury, their fire.

If you want to burn books, I don't care with what brand of martyrdom you choose to paint yourself. I don't want you on my side.
As someone who has disagreed with you on certain subjects in the past, I regard this post of yours as one of the best and well-reasoned pieces I've read on The Escapist. People in any ideology have this awful tendency to seek and defend allies where ever they find them and are often very hesitant to criticize the methods/fallacies/motivations of those who claim to be on the same side of a philosophy. I no longer claim any political affiliation because both parties in my country are engaged in this sort of nonsense. Your willingness to blast someone who claims to have the same overarching goals as you do is worthy of the highest praise.

If more were willing to be as critical of people on their own side as they are of people on another side, I can't help but think every side would end up being more reasonable. Instead, the reasonable middle defend or perform apologetics for the fringe of their own side and end up undermining themselves because of it. Your words show a rare courage worthy of respect.
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
SOCIALCONSTRUCT said:
It is an informal escapist convention that text in magenta designates sarcasm. Now where was I... oh yeah...
I didn't know that either, glad you responded letting us know. I had two different posts written as a response because I always assume people are serious about what they are saying if I can't tell they are being sarcastic. I deleted both because re-reading your post over and over I couldn't fathom how it could not be satire. Much like Colbert's, your satire was either deeply amusing and horribly offensive all wrapped into one.
 

medv4380

The Crazy One
Feb 26, 2010
669
0
21
After seeing her Post interview I have to say she's a Troll. I can't tell which kind. I suspect she's just an ultra right wing troll attempting to parody what she thinks is civil libertarian activism. Then again she might just be a standard attention troll who doesn't realize that what she is doing is feeding the right wing nut-jobs view about civil liberties.
 

Alorxico

New member
Jan 5, 2011
193
0
0
SOCIALCONSTRUCT said:
OK seriously, there is seriously people in this thread that are saying that reverse racism is really a thing. ... hello bigots it's 2014 already so stop living in the 1950s. I can't wait for all old white people to die off so we can move past this stuff already.
... Ok, the term "reverse racism" makes no sense, based solely on meanings of the two words involved.

Racism is defined as "(1) the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. (2) prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief" (so by that definition ANYONE can be racist) while one of the definitions for the word Reverse is "a complete change of direction or action."

This would imply that REVERSE RACISM is the belief that NO member of ANY race possess characteristics or abilities that distinguish them as inferior or superior to other races and possibly being prejudice or discriminatory against those who do believe in such differences. I doubt that is what SOCIALCONSTRUCT meant, but I can't think of any other definition for it. Maybe I'm unimaginative.

Also, a bigot is "(1) a person who is obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of his or her own opinions and is prejudiced against those who hold different opinions. (2) one who expresses or is characterized by prejudice and intolerance."
 

tangoprime

Renegade Interrupt
May 5, 2011
716
0
0
Alorxico said:
MovieBob said:
The Colbert Retort

The controversy of #CancelColbert misses the point because of context.

Read Full Article

When I first read the article below, I could see Ms. Park's point of view, but I lost all respect for this woman and her cause when she responded to people telling her it was a joke with "Dear White People".

..... Really? Really.

The BBC article on the subject, with links to said Twitter post

UPDATE: Apparently the link wasn't working, so I have fixed it....hopefully.
...and now we know who the REAL racist here is Ms. Park, thanks for clarifying. This is sadly typical of most of the social media activist types, glad we got to see her tip her hand.
 

Verlander

New member
Apr 22, 2010
2,449
0
0
Conservative bigot gets offended at comedian smarter than they are, and hundreds of other conservatives jump on board at the opportunity to cancel a show mocking their stupidity, and it even has an ethnic leader so they can show that it's liberals who are the racists, not them, oh no?

Yeah, the money wins. Congrats on boosting ratings for the next episode
 

Verlander

New member
Apr 22, 2010
2,449
0
0
SOCIALCONSTRUCT said:
OK seriously, there is seriously people in this thread that are saying that reverse racism is really a thing. Wow, just wow! I... I have no words. I mean, hello bigots it's 2014 already so stop living in the 1950s. I can't wait for all old white people to die off so we can move past this stuff already.
There's no such thing as racism at all. It's not a thing. It doesn't exist. Nor does sexism. Or ageism. Or any form of discrimination.

Wow, it's amazing how stuff disappears when you will it to. You've taught me a valuable lesson today, I thank you profusely.
 

teamcharlie

New member
Jan 22, 2013
215
0
0
I don't think that getting the vast majority of people to 'think before you type' is going to work, especially when the currency of the day is buzz and its half-life can be measured in minutes.

But maybe people can at least research a problem a little before they start actively campaigning against it. Specifically: look for people who disagree with you, and see if any of their opinions hold water. I know that may be asking for a lot, but activism for activism's sake is not a good idea.