Stephen Colbert (apparently) must be destroyed

Comedian Stephen Colbert is the latest person to run into the “Outrage, Inc.” buzzsaw. And, apparently, he simply must be destroyed.

Colbert is a famous American comedian who hosts a nightly show in which he pretends to be a far-right conservative.  In fact, his show mocks the far right and its agenda.

The other night, Colbert was “reporting” on the controversy surrounding Washington, DC’s football team, the “Redskins.”  Redskin is an old name for American Indians / Native Americans, and it’s considered pejorative, if outdated. There’s been a growing movement to force the team to change its name.  So, Colbert, doing what he does, skewered the Redskins by “agreeing” with them.

Specifically, Colbert reported on Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder trying to appease his critics by creating a “foundation” to “help” Native Americans: “The Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation.”


Colbert then explains that he too has created a foundation – his is for Asian-Americans. So, he argues (between the lines, as he does), he can be as offensive as he wants to be about Asians, because, you know, he created a foundation.  He then goes on a long rant about how racist stereotypes about Asians are part of the long heritage of his show, obviously mocking the notion that the term “Redskin” is part of the long heritage of America.

Colbert’s foundation to show the Asian-American community that he cares is called the “Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever.”


Taken out of context, it would look like Colbert was using racist stereotypes to mock Asian-Americans, when in fact, he was suggesting that racist stereotypes of Asian-Americans are not somehow minimized, or acceptable, if you create a patronizing “foundation” on their behalf, intended to whitewash your crimes.

But Outrage, Inc. got a hold of it, and now Stephen Colbert, one of America’s biggest and most effective progressive voices, simply must be destroyed in the name of progressivism.  (Though, it’s worth noting that far-right conservative activist Michelle Malkin, who cares so much about anti-Asian sentiment that she wrote an entire book defending the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, has been fanning the flames against Colbert as well, and conservatives have an entire online system for trolling (bullying) people on the Internet – it’s no wonder they’d be out for Colbert’s blood, he’s a liberal.)

There’s now a trending hashtag on Twitter, #cancelcolbert, and very-serious-very-hurt people are demanding that Stephen Colbert be fired, and his show canceled – all in the name of progressive values.

Adding to the problem, and confusion, Comedy Central has a Twitter account, not run by Colbert or his show, that tweeted a quote from his segment, in particular the name of the racist Asian-American foundation.  Standing alone, the quote sounds racist.  It did to me.

I am willing to show #Asian community I care by introducing the Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever.

That is, until I watched the video and realized that the tweet was a quote from the segment, and it was a “foundation” that was actually poking fun at the Redskin’s “I’m not racist” foundation.

Colbert went on Twitter to explain, but that didn’t matter.


Enough already.  Enough of the never-ending jihad against every progressive who has said or written something that you think proves he’s racist, sexist, misogynist, or that he hates bisexuals, trans people or cats.  Putting aside for a moment the fact that most of these outrages are based on utter bs to start with – usually, as in the case of Colbert, someone has utterly misunderstood the underlying point of the discussion – even if the outrage were justified, you don’t destroy someone like Stephen Colbert, who has an incredible record of defending progressivism, based on one “mistake,” and then claim to be destroying him in the name of progressivism. (I say “progressive,” but we do it to conservatives sometimes too. Often our ire is justified, sometimes it’s not.)

One of the arguments made in the defense of the Asian-American who reportedly started the entire brouhaha, is that since the person is Asian-American, they therefore know what racism is — and since they’re calling this racism, it per se is racism, and you should STFU because you’re white and what would you know anyway.

In fact, the woman who launched this campaign, Suey Park, just did a HuffPostLive chat in which she attacked the host for being white, a man, and having an opinion different from her own:

SUEY PARK: I feel like it’s incredibly patronizing of you to paint these questions this way, especially as a white man, I don’t expect you to be able to understand what people of color are actually saying with regards to #CancelColbert.

HUFFPO’S JOSH ZEPPS: Suey, being a white man doesn’t prevent me from being able to think, and prevent me from being able to have reasoned perspectives on things. I didn’t give up my right to have an intellectual conversation when I was born.

SUEY PARK: White men definitely feel like they’re entitled to talk over me, they definitely feel like they’re entitled to kind of minimalize my experience. And they definitely feel like they are somehow exempt and so logical as compared to women who are painted as emotional, right?

We’ve used that argument from time to time in the gay community as well. And it’s often accurate, but not always. Just because I’m gay, doesn’t mean I’m always right. Sometimes, gay people have a unique life-experience which lends itself to spotting homophobia that straight people might not notice. Other times, our unique experience makes us hypersensitive, and we blow up about something unjustly. The problem with the change-dot-orgafication of the Internet is that now “everyone’s an activist.”  And activism, like any other skill in life, takes a certain amount of, well, skill.  And just because you have the power to blow things up doesn’t mean you have the wisdom to wield it well. Good activists are usually right about their targets. The masses, less so.

The Internet has led to some amazing citizen engagement. But it’s also empowered a lot of crazy. It gives crazy a home where it can meet like-minded crazy, and then make crazy babies.

While it’s certainly possible that, once you find a large number of people who agree with you, this might prove that your cause is just.  It also might simply mean you’ve joined a cult.


About 4:50 into the video Colbert starts talking about the Redskins.

(I’m told that in order to better see my Facebook posts in your feed, you need to “follow” me.)

CyberDisobedience on Substack | @aravosis | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

88 Responses to “Stephen Colbert (apparently) must be destroyed”

  1. mainmac says:

    And Swift should be castigated for his maltreatment of babies? If political satire flops, it fails. But you don’t lump the satirist in with those they’re satirizing.

  2. emjayay says:

    Suey Park had an undergraduate career. Other people go to college, but I guess self important people have an actual career there.

  3. Steven Koh says:

    i doubt that those people would call themselves gay. That is so bourgeois. More likely, her supporters are self-described “queers” (used not as a reclamation of an old slur, but as reference to a marginalized, transgressive agent) or perhaps as LGBTQIAAPNGCSGL.

    In any event, these folks desperately try to portray their views as coming from the young. In fact, all of the jargon and all of the PC politics demonstrated by Ms. Park were prevalent 25 years ago and in fact were far more popular at that time. PC of the Suey Park variety probably peaked around 1991-92. Her ideology and the ideology of her “queer” supporters is not young or new. It is old. It is the invention of people who today are eligible for AARP membership.

  4. Steven Koh says:

    The best way to understand certain PC activists is to treat them like a cult. The cult has rigid moral judgments, a siege mentality, and an internal logic that immunizes the group from criticism and automatically discounts contrarian views. The cult needs to attack some transgressor from time to time, regardless of whether a transgressor actually exists. You’ll notice how individuality is disregarded, as individual human beings are recast as group ambassadors. Ms. Park doesn’t have objections to the show, “people of color” do. The HuffPo interviewer wasn’t asking patronizing questions, “white males” were doing it. Everything becomes recast as group conflict simply by refusing to recognize that individuals exist. Thus, there is no way to question Ms. Park’s judgment or perspective without impugning “people of color”.

    If this looks familiar, it should. We see it all the time in transgender activism. No group of activists is more embedded in this cultlike mindset than trans activists. The best response to all of this is to ignore it. Show it disrespect and disregard. Since the cultists make no actual arguments, and only issue moral decrees which lack any moral authority, there is nothing to which Colbert or anyone else needs to respond. But just remember, that’s not what I Steve Koh, thinks. It is what “cis, Korean males” think.

  5. Kiesha says:

    Let me get this straight, ms park says she is a writer, so off coarse she understands what satire is, yet it is quite obvious that she doesn’t have a clue. By the way she kept referring to the gentleman as a white man, man that doesn’t understand what people off color go through, does that mean she considers herself a person of color, because, in this country, she can’t try and co-oped the use of that term, when we as Americans understand that it means, African- American generally and American Indian along with the American-Mexican or other hispanic people from South America and the Caribbean. No one is going to allow her to co-oped that term for the Asian Community, nice try though, she has many more problems than that though, talk about an inferiority complex.

  6. Chris Carter says:

    Your points are well taken. As for how I could be in partial agreement….

    Suey Park (and others) proposed the idea that using a racist stereotype to satirize another racist stereotype can do harm to the community whose stereotype (in the case, Asian-Americans) gets used to that end. I can understand that concern, and therein lies my partial agreement. Park’s tactics in how she tackled the issue are what I disagree with, those tactics being well-described in Mr. Aravosis’ original post and comments.

    And FWIW, I think calling it #CancelColbert was a very sensationalist move on Park’s part. A weekend storm on Twitter will do approximately nothing to get a successful program like The Colbert Report anywhere near cancellation. Her co-opting and subsequent drowning out of the original issue, Native American concern over racist mascotry, did damage to the very cause Colbert was trying to support in his satire.

    To put it another way, there was vastly more Twitter outrage over a satire of racism than has ever been generated over real racism. If we’re going to express outrage over something, it would be nice if that something were a genuine source of a problem warranting that outrage.

  7. Of course, because like the far right (and let’s be honest, that’s a large part of conservatism now) the far left are humorless bores, so mired in excusing their own psuedo babble…Why on earth any sane person would agree with #CancelColbert beggars belief… He often mocks BOTH the parts of the circle you describe…

  8. Amazing that an educated mind like hers can be entirely wasted by lacking any sense of humor or the humility to admit she did not bother to understand the context BEFORE opening her mouth.

  9. AutAut says:

    I say let’s launch a twitter campaign to chop suey’s notions from any credibility. We could call it #chopsuey.

  10. Tor says:

    That’s how it usually comes off.

  11. cinorjer says:

    The reason stereotype thinking exists is because there are enough people around that can be pointed to. Suey Park is the perfect stereotype of a man hating women’s lib and white race hating minority all rolled into one, by her own words. Trying to hold an intelligent conversation is met with personal attacks because we white men aren’t allowed to disagree with her.

  12. I doubt they’ve read Marx. But I’ve heard a lot about this overall philosophy, the kind of attack and thinking, being based on Marx.

  13. KingCranky says:

    Required Reading, from 2010, for a better understanding of just how loathsome Snyder is, in particular notice the first “E” entry.

    Wonder why Suey Park gives Snyder’s business at the time-6 Flags-a pass for Asian-baiting?

    Snyder hated the article so much he sued for libel.

    One year later, after an intense PR battering, he dropped his lawsuit.

  14. Moderator3 says:

    Please don’t post using two different usernames.

  15. ericlamp says:

    anyone who would call Steve Colbert a racist, or call for the cancelling of his show, is a fucking idiot.

  16. 2karmanot says:

    Zombies are incapable of satire, irony and intelligent humor except when being parodies of themselves, and even then the irony is lost on them.

  17. 2karmanot says:


  18. 2karmanot says:

    “And they tend to embrace some convenient theories, some say based in marxism” WTF? What is left of the cracked-pot far left is as significant as a flea circus. If any of them has even read Marx I would be amazed.

  19. molosky says:

    I once encountered a person who was an extreme religious conservative — essentially a theocrat. Very influential in the GOP in 1990s. His story, though, was that he was a hard line Stalinist in his youth, who wanted to overthrow the US government and institute collectivization by force. One day he had a religious epiphany and switched to the far right overnight.

    My take on that story was “well he’s very consistent, then — he’s been an idiot from day one.”

    These people remind me of him. They are less about the substance than the self-righteous style — moral superiority is the theme, not the topic at hand. People like Park will either someday be embarrassed of their youthful idiocy or they will move around to some other method of practicing it into adulthood when this one fades.

  20. citizen_spot says:

    Hah! Remember the “Half Hour Comedy Hour”?
    ; )

  21. TracyMN says:

    Oh sure, I agree with all of this, especially about Colbert. Nothing is going to happen to him (nor should it). It’s just that Maher was mentioned in the other article on this topic, so I was just thinking out loud.

  22. molosky says:

    I have indeed noticed this as a broader phenomenon — a subset of “activists” of various identity groups who superficially resemble their sincere counterparts but exclusively use the tactic you describe, which I would note is the opposite of liberalism and emulates the kind of tactics I’ve seen on the far right.

    Park deserves highlighting because she not only has adopted this ideology, but is using it to promote herself within this “community” and is trying to make a career out of it. It’s something that needs to be called out by the respective communities sooner rather than later, if they want to avoid empowering their real adversaries.

    Park, for example, is basically an employee of Malkin for all practical purposes.

  23. Good luck arguing that. I wrote a piece about U of Illinois’ mascot – or symbol really – the chief, and got eviscerated for it. That symbol, the dance, the uniform, was revered at our school. He wasn’t permitted to do any of the goofy stuff that mascots do at other schools because he was there representing the native american tradition of Illinois and the region. His joke was to do a serious dance that was an amalgam of native american dances, and that’s it. No joking, no rallying the crowd, nothing. And he got axed because it was racist and offensive, etc. I’m still not sure if it was or wasn’t, but it was a far cry from the goofy mascots you see at other schools, the goof oversize tomahawks etc. I don’t know. We have mascots for the irish, for the ancient greeks (the spartans), but then again those groups weren’t really oppressed in recent memory (putting aside the whole “irish need not apply” thing). So it’s arguably different. Still, far more complicated than I think folks are willing to admit.

  24. It’s not just her. We have a vocal contingent of them on Team Gay as well, and some even write as junior bloggers on well known sites. It’s clearly trendy among younger liberals, and generally hates people who are white, male, gay, and if you’re all 3, forget about it. It’s far more complicated than that, and as you saw with Park, it’s built on this notion that those other people aren’t even permitted to speak, voice an opinion, or disagree with your accusation of their crimes because per se, because of their race, gender and sexual orientaiton they’re guilty, and per se if they speak they’re oppressing you. It’s a brilliant tactic – an entire philosophy built on the notion that other people are wrong, and if they try to speak in their defense, it only proves how wrong they really are, so they’re not permitted to speak at all. It’s racist, sexist and homophobic, in addition to be just seriously messed up.

  25. molosky says:

    Park’s activity is better understood in context of her overall agenda. She has taken some academic jargon and constructed it into a pseudo-philosophy that “Racism and whiteness go together. Only white people CAN be racist.” She’s on a long-term jihad against white men who in any way claim to oppose racism.

    In so doing, she is of course furthering the cause of actual racism. She claims to be liberal, but not by any definition.

  26. BeccaM says:

    I concur.

  27. kurtsteinbach says:

    According to an MSNBC report, the team name was controversial back in the 1930s when the team was named the Redskins. The response back then was racist….

  28. kurtsteinbach says:

    Yes, but in this “change the Redskin’s team name” controversy, it has been specifically pointed out that the Chiefs, the Indians, and other professional sports teams are not racial slurs and should not have to change their names. I think all of those teams with names like Redskins, Chiefs, and Indians should change their names, not just the Washington team….

  29. kurtsteinbach says:

    No it shows that there are wingnuts on both sides, at the extreme ends. A wise man once said, “moderation, and lots of it….”

  30. kurtsteinbach says:

    I’ve noticed that convergence of the viewpoints, ideas, and methods of extremists, too. I’ve pointed it out on Facebook, and on my own FB page while posting articles and commenting. For example, take Conservatism to an extreme and you get Fascism. Take Marxist-Communism to an extreme and you get Stalinism. Both end up in dictatorship and totalitarianism.The Nazis wer the National Socialist Party, National socialism, and Stalin wanted Socialism (so he claimed) in one or under one nation, the Soviet Union with himself as head, leader, or Furher. Both basically came out in the same place and managed only, to create slightly different police states in effect….

  31. kurtsteinbach says:

    In regards to Michelle Malkin, what kind of Asian American defends the interment of the Japanese, anyway? I remember when I was a teenager and saw the Murphy Brown episode where Stuart Best (Wallace Shawn) became a politician that supported reinterring the Japanese. I swerar, you could hear people’s jaws drop. There would have been outrage, and was some, if it wasn’t a comedy making an absurd point about extremist politics. Apparently, that is mainstream Conservative viewpoint, now. It is a sickness, but then so are a lot of Conservative ideas nowadays, like cutting food stamps or throwing away kids’ lunches because their parents couldn’t or didn’t pay. They seriously think shaming the kids will make them better, stronger, tougher and make the parents suddenly have the money to pay up…. Sick!

  32. kurtsteinbach says:

    I don’t realy think it’s meant to be funny, just hurtful and insulting….

  33. kurtsteinbach says:

    I don’t know how far the discussion and campaign to change the teams name will get. Most people do not remember a time when “Redskin” was a slur. I teach History and English, and even I have a tough time wrapping my head around it. It’s not like there is a whole lot of written history on the topic. I’m a fan of the team and have been since I was a kid, and I think they should change the name. I am also Jewish, but that doesn’t mean Snyder is going to listen to me. I don’t own anything with the team name or logo on it. Nothing that is Redskins or Washington football. I like the players, but they never can seem to get very far. They suck. I’ve also never been to one of their games. Snyder will change the team name when it gets to be a big enough controversy that it costs him money, which could be a problem because of the revenue sharing in the NFL. Maybe someone could buy him out and change the team name. I don’t see that the fans are going to stop going to games and buying stuff. As for Colbert, please keep doing what you’re doing. You are one of the funniest guys on TV. Personally, my favorite segment has always been “The Word.” As for the Right Wing, they get it. They get the jokes, the satire, and the sarcasm, and they hate us for it. GOOD! I don’t particularly like them either….

  34. chirisdex says:

    I alleged that something like this would occur. The Red onion published this content a few several weeks returning and nobody reported, which, in the thoughts of some, started out the entrance for this kind of humor:

    Spybubble gratis

  35. kurtsteinbach says:

    First, Comedy Central is not going to fire Stephen Colbert. He is doing exactly what they want him to do. Second, Bill Maher was not fired from Comedy Central. His show, Politically Incorrect was bought out by ABC. It was a step up from a comedy show to a forum where it would be taken more seriously and have a wider audience. Comedy Central was much smaller then and cable was considered at least a step below networks like ABC, CBS, and NBC, unlike now. Cable Stations now are considered much more on par and more equivalent with the big 4 networks….

  36. kurtsteinbach says:

    I’m sure they’ll find those WMDs any day now. Right after they build them…. LOL!

  37. Well, if they can’t take a joke, we need to chop Suey (and Malkin and all other
    conservatives). I only say that In Defense of Internment.

    Bullying is a vital part of every ecosystem, it teaches kids
    resilience. The world is a rough place; bullying is like getting
    inoculated. It’s a vaccine! And you little $hits, you got to learn to
    stay away from people like my son. That’s what you learn when you get
    punched in the face by a bully!

    How you think Steve Jobs
    turned out so great? Bullies. And I guarantee you, junior here will be
    getting the hottest chicks when he’s 30, because he got bullied today.
    What, you want to hit the peak now? My kid will be picking roadside
    garbage up in an orange jump suit in 10 years, and your kid in med
    school, curing cancer, and getting laid. You’re welcome!

    CARL: What if I want to cure cancer?

    FRANK: You’ll be lucky if you don’t get Gonorrhea from your cellmate. Spoken with love, son.

  38. GarySFBCN says:

    I suspected that something like this would happen. The Onion posted this article a few months back and nobody complained, which, in the minds of some, opened the door for this type of humor:

    “Redskins’ Kike Owner Refuses To Change Team’s Offensive Name”,34292/

    Also, “Ching Chong” could possibly be a play on the what the racist POS Rosie O’Donnell said.

  39. doug105 says:

    If you think that’s bad try yahoo comments sometime.

  40. LOL had me for a second :)

  41. TracyMN says:

    Hopefully, he’d just do what Maher did and move the show to HBO.

  42. BeccaM says:


  43. BeccaM says:

    Yup. The very same guy who said he knew exactly where the WMDs in Iraq were located.

  44. eccles11 says:

    Some people get off on calling others out for certain transgressions, it gives a feeling of power and superiority to do so, because of the feeling one gets from it, and from the esteem one may receive from their peers for doing so, quite often the standard of evidence for such claims is very low.

  45. Naja pallida says:

    I don’t get it.

  46. 4th Turning says:

    You “seem” surprised…

  47. zerosumgame0005 says:

    wherever he went if CC did dismiss him I would follow him and make sure CC never got another second of my watching

  48. zerosumgame0005 says:

    well Dkos is a pretty fucking stupid gang of trolls anyway

  49. That’s not funny.

  50. Oh god, he said that?

  51. quax says:

    Probably, but this may be mostly due to demographics. I think the intrinsic dividing line has more to do with the ability to emphasize.

  52. tamarz says:

    What’s even more offensive than their name is the owner of the team.

  53. tamarz says:

    sadly, you are exactly right. But the majority of stupid is on the right.

  54. 4th Turning says:

    John, John, John. You know better than any of us jeannys-come-lately that enough is never
    enough… Please see if you can find a way of borrowing the video from fox news.
    (and more on Errol Norris’ “The Unknown Known” doc.?)

    Rumsfeld ‘trained ape’ comment stirs controversy
    Posted by
    CNN Political Unit

    (CNN) – Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s comments earlier this week that a “trained ape” could have done a better job securing diplomatic relations with Afghanistan than the Obama administration sparked a backlash on social media.

    But a Rumsfeld aide notes that he has used the phrase before and wasn’t referring specifically to President Barack Obama.

  55. tamarz says:

    Reminds me of a sociology professor who made what some people in the class construed as racist remarks. He was actually trying to explain the effect of racism on American society. I had an argument with another student as I tried to explain what the professor was really saying. In fact, that professor’s wife was African-American and they had married at a time when interracial marriages were illegal in many states. He had fought racism all his life.

  56. goulo says:

    Weird. I’m reminded of the crazy shitstorm a couple months ago when dailykos suddenly erupted against cartoonist Ted Rall and claimed Rall was “racist” because of how he draws Obama in his political comics.

  57. Chris Carter says:

    It’s situations like this that contribute to my theory that the left/right political continuum is not a straight line going off in one direction or another, but a circle in which the most extreme leftists and rightists eventually meet each other and discover a disturbing merging of viewpoints.

    I want to sympathize with Suey Park and I am in partial agreement with her opinion on the matter of #CancelColbert, but it seems eminently clear she’s trying to embrace that strangely GWBush-like policy of You’re Either With Us Or Against Us. It’s effectively impossible to partially agree with her opinion without being labeled as a foe and told, “You can’t have your opinion because…”

  58. Thom Allen says:

    So Colbert is supposed to be creamed, but we let Jabba the Hutt do this with impunity: I wonder what Suey the Skitzoid would have to say about this. And who would care?

  59. Yalma Cuder-Zicci says:

    I had never heard of her. She’s on the Left?

  60. Mark says:

    This is the problem with Twitter: any thin-skinned user who can find the # symbol on a keyboard can create a firestorm on the ‘net.

  61. There’s a contingent of the far left that’s supremely racist, sexist, and homophobic. And they tend to embrace some convenient theories, some say based in marxism, that effectively shut down anyone who disagrees with them. Calling your interviewer white, or a man, is one such method. Park is part of a much larger problem on the left (and the right has its issues too, of course). And they normally wouldn’t matter, but the Internet has empowered these crazies.

  62. Like going after the Redskins. One of my favorite tweets was from a twitter friend of park chastizing “white men” for focusing on Park’s comments rather than the Redskins! That’s what Stephen Colbert was doing until Park hijacked the entire discussion.

  63. cole3244 says:

    as usual when liberals use humor to make a point the cons don’t get it but for the supposed left not to get it might mean they are a faux left to begin with.

  64. Blogvader says:

    *slow clap*

    Absolutely right, John. The #CancelColbert nonsense is stupid, and they don’t seem to realize that all of this energy could be better spent against actual enemies.

  65. Tor says:

    Conservative humor is not humorous.

  66. Yalma Cuder-Zicci says:

    God, that Suey Park was obnoxious. What was with her repeated attack on “white liberals”? She tipped her hand with that. Just like with Malkin, this is more about silencing Colbert’s power of punching holes in conservative idiocy than about any true racial outrage.

  67. Drew2u says:

    How did court cases go where Native Americans sued to get the removal of the name?

  68. Houndentenor says:

    I love my Twitter account. I follow my favorite singers (popular and opera), the few good writers left in journalism, some celebrities, friends and a few twatters who post pics of adorable dogs. (Aravosis fits more than one of those categories.) It’s a lot of fun. If you don’t like what someone tweets, you just stop following them. If someone is an asshole to you, you block them. (Only had to do what once. Some homocon claiming that I was a bigot for calling out other people’s bigotry or something because reasons.) It’s not hard to set up your account for good reading and somehow I seem to get a lot of information a day or so ahead of a lot of my friends this way. Plus, pics of people’s adorable pooches!

  69. Houndentenor says:

    I still can’t believe it wasn’t changed decades ago. This isn’t the first time this topic has come up. I remember it from the 70s.

  70. Houndentenor says:

    Most of our country is NOT made up of humorless assholes. Most Americans can take a joke. It’s just that the humorless assholes, on the LEFT as well as the RIGHT, are very loud and we have a media that thrives on idiots screaming at each other as a substitute for news and informed commentary.

    Someone awhile back (maybe on a different site, who remembers?) asked me for an example of such idiocy on the left. I present Exhibit A. America has a long tradition of such social commentary. Mark Twain may be the best (simply by virtue of also being our greatest author) but there are plenty of others including the recent brilliance of Dave Chapelle. Colbert isn’t quite at that level but he’s very good at what he does. It shouldn’t surprise me that there are people who don’t get the joke, but sometimes I forget what nutbaggery goes on around me.

  71. emjayay says:

    Their for-profit millionaire owned and staffed sports teams are often up there in the same category with motherhood, apple pie, and Jesus.

  72. Clevelandchick says:

    You wouldn’t believe how much crap I get from people when I tell them I think the Indian’s mascot is racist and should be changed. It’s like I called their mother ugly and kicked their dog. People hate change, even when it’s the right thing to do and deep down they know it.

  73. Ryan says:

    The thing that frustrates me is how low a priority education is in these conflicts. I understand that having to repeatedly educated the ignorant can be frustrating and tiresome, but trying to educate first can have much better results. It helps sort out the clueless from the unrepentant and allows the clueless a chance to learn from their mistake and reform themselves. Getting attacked for seemingly random things just makes people wonder why they should bother (especially when they are trying to support the side that is attacking them).

  74. Naja pallida says:

    Some people’s political positions depend on them not getting humor.

  75. quax says:

    Goes to show that the wingnuts don’t have a monopoly on stupid.

  76. BeccaM says:

    Or, to borrow a saying, some people’s jobs depend on them not getting humor.

  77. It’s time to chop Suey!

  78. BeccaM says:

    And of course the faux outrage is based on an utterly phony depiction of the Colbert Show segment.

    But we have folks on the left willing to shoot their mouths without actually viewing the segment in question, in full. And of course, the conservative right who would absolutely LOVE to have Colbert’s show taken off the air and doubly gleeful — complete with villain-style hand rubbing — if it was ostensibly for ‘tolerance’ and ‘respect for minorities’ reasons.

    Colbert didn’t make any mistake — except perhaps in not realizing people would gladly twist his humor to suit their own agendas. I actually do remember the original broadcast from 2005 when he had that ‘Ching-Chong’ character, and the point then was the same as now: It’s an offensive stereotype! It’s supposed to be!

    As for the ‘Redskins’ controversy… y’know what’s as offensive as their name? Their mascot, the ‘Redskin in profile’ shown on all their uniforms and advertisements, complete with feathers, beads, red skin and a gigantic nose. (Of course, the Cleveland Indians’ cartoon is even worse.)

  79. Silver_Witch says:

    Some people just don’t get satire.

  80. TheOriginalLiz says:

    I understand what you’re saying, but anyone who takes seriously anything posted by an organization named Comedy Central has a whole different set of problems. Plus, the name “Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever” is pretty clearly bogus.

  81. LanceThruster says:

    You can’t handle the Truthiness!

  82. Dan Cobb says:

    Amazing… sadly these people do not understand satire, irony and intelligent humor. Are these people who are seriously criticizing Colbert so concrete that they are still fuming about Jonathan Swift’s proposal that the poor eat babies!? Ugh. Maybe European/American cultures are just too far evolved in some ways that the rest of the world just can’t fathom!?

  83. Drew2u says:

    I can’t exactly F*ck ’em if they can’t take a joke! :D


  84. A_nonymoose says:

    F*ck ’em if they can’t take a joke.

  85. Drew2u says:

    From flash-mobs to Spring Uprisings to unintended comments by congresspersons, I understand the benefits of Twitter; I just think context is usually the weakest part of human dialogue as demonstrated by Comedy Central’s bad idea of quoting the name of the parody foundation.

  86. Twitter can be akin to Youtube’s comments section. Some of the worst reinforcing the worst. But the rest of the INternet ain’t great either.

  87. Drew2u says:

    I’m so glad I never had a twitter account. It’s where the knee-jerks meet the foot-in-mouthers.

© 2021 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS