Stephen Colbert - Racist

[ThunderChunky]

No, it is not clearly and obviously that. It is clearly and obviously the action of a whackaloon with very little grasp on reality, the motive of whom isn't terribly clear. Or rational.

It's obvious to me. While Suey Park is extreme, especially in this example, she represents the view a segment of people that have been attacking politically incorrect humor for a long time. As mentioned, even Jerry Seinfeld has lamented "PC nonsense." Other comedians too.

How Political Correctness is Killing Comedy http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/lisa-lampanelli-how-political-correctness-450210

That's the second time you've asked that. The first time, I declined to answer because I didn't feel that it was relevant, and there was a chance that my answer would have been misleading.

I have never been to a comedy show (except Tim Minchin, once). But that's not because I don't like comedy. It's because I don't like going to any kind of shows. I don't go to concerts or movies either. They're not my thing. I don't like being around lots of people.

Like I said, you're likely to misinterpret this statement, but you seemed extra-keen on the answer, so there you go.

I was keen on the answer because if you actually go to a comedy club you will see lots more comedians than if you just watch what is popular on TV or the internet. You seemed to suggest that comedians don't have to be offensive to be funny, but if you actually go to a club and get a more or less random sampling I suspect you will observe a significant amount of them use racial or otherwise politically incorrect humor

Like I said, my opinion isn't particularly relevant to the discussion. And like most questions, the answer to this one is "it depends on how it's done". Most of the time I'd say that I don't find racial humour to be all that funny. But there are bound to be exceptions.

You either think comedy should be restricted from certain topics or not (regardless of what you personally find funny). Suey Park and the PC police think it should. From your earlier comments it seemed like you were sympathetic to that side. I'm now sensing equivocation on the subject and still don't know where you stand.

 

[Corsair 115]

Oh, absolutely. But that's not a reason not to do it.

And there's no reason not to point out incidences where such efforts have seriously gone off the rails of reasonableness.

 

[arthwollipot]

You either think comedy should be restricted from certain topics or not (regardless of what you personally find funny). Suey Park and the PC police think it should. From your earlier comments it seemed like you were sympathetic to that side. I'm now sensing equivocation on the subject and still don't know where you stand.

Good.

You want to know where I stand? I stand in a place where conditions aren't binary, where they aren't black or white. In a place where things can be different according to the circumstances, and my opinion can change depending on the situation.

You want to know where I stand? I stand in a position where so-called "political correctness" is neither always-right nor always-wrong. I stand opposed to those people who would always oppose so-called "political correctness" because they claim it's purpose is something that it isn't. I stand opposed to those people who believe that the right to free speech carries an obligation to offend.

And before you ask, yes, people do say this. Anyone who says "if your comedy isn't offending someone you're doing it wrong" says this. You want to know where I stand? I stand in a place where this is not true - where a comedian does not have to alienate half the potential audience in order to think that they're doing it well. If Daniel Tosh didn't make rape jokes, his audience might be twice as big, and he'd be that much richer and more popular. But as soon as he made that rape joke, he lost a demographic, full of people who might otherwise have given him money.

This is not about comedy, or about my personal tastes. This isn't even about political correctness. A joke that was reasonable (and yes, even funny) in context was taken out of context. In context, no-one with even the slightest understanding of satire should have been offended. Notice that no-one is talking about the Washington Redskins, which is what the joke was all about. But somehow, so-called "political correctness" got dragged into the argument like a cat drags a dead bird into your bed, and now that's all people are talking about.

You think I should go to a comedy club? Well I think you should stop saying that political correctness is the enemy of art. I think you should stop talking about "political correctness" altogether and instead start talking about what kinds of things offend people and why.

If you are arguing against political correctness, then you are simply complaining that people don't like you when you're mean.

 

[ThunderChunky]

Good.

You want to know where I stand? I stand in a place where conditions aren't binary, where they aren't black or white. In a place where things can be different according to the circumstances, and my opinion can change depending on the situation.

So sometimes a joke about the holocaust, rape, or asian drivers is okay?

You want to know where I stand? I stand in a position where so-called "political correctness" is neither always-right nor always-wrong. I stand opposed to those people who would always oppose so-called "political correctness" because they claim it's purpose is something that it isn't. I stand opposed to those people who believe that the right to free speech carries an obligation to offend.

The right to free speech requires the right to offend. You are either for that right or against it.

The purpose of political correctness is to limit speech to the supposed "non offensive" (actually impossible). This effort is fine in certain professions but it directly stifles comedy.

And before you ask, yes, people do say this. Anyone who says "if your comedy isn't offending someone you're doing it wrong" says this. You want to know where I stand? I stand in a place where this is not true - where a comedian does not have to alienate half the potential audience in order to think that they're doing it well. If Daniel Tosh didn't make rape jokes, his audience might be twice as big, and he'd be that much richer and more popular. But as soon as he made that rape joke, he lost a demographic, full of people who might otherwise have given him money.

Comedians have choices, some choose highly offensive some choose not. The PC police want to silence those that choose to go the offensive route. Daniel Tosh gets to choose what subjects he makes jokes about, if he's funny he'll get an audience. He has a career many comedians would envy. Most of the people incited to hate Daniel Tosh would never have gone to his show anyway. These offended people never even heard the joke, but they want to silence him anyway.

This is not about comedy, or about my personal tastes. This isn't even about political correctness. A joke that was reasonable (and yes, even funny) in context was taken out of context. In context, no-one with even the slightest understanding of satire should have been offended. Notice that no-one is talking about the Washington Redskins, which is what the joke was all about. But somehow, so-called "political correctness" got dragged into the argument like a cat drags a dead bird into your bed, and now that's all people are talking about.

Of course this is about comedy. A joke was under attack. Those that believe in comedy will step up an defend it from the PC police.

You think I should go to a comedy club? Well I think you should stop saying that political correctness is the enemy of art. I think you should stop talking about "political correctness" altogether and instead start talking about what kinds of things offend people and why.

Only if you want to understand that offensive comedy is not rare, but normal, and that the PC police are indeed attacking a large part of the comedy spectrum. People get offended for a variety of reasons, it's even more subjective than comedy. If you think that can be avoided entirely then you do not understand what offends people..

If you are arguing against political correctness, then you are simply complaining that people don't like you when you're mean.

You can be mean and still be politically correct so I don't think that is the problem people have with it.

 

[Meed]

I stand opposed to those people who believe that the right to free speech carries an obligation to offend.

And before you ask, yes, people do say this. Anyone who says "if your comedy isn't offending someone you're doing it wrong" says this.

I disagree. That quote references only comedy, not free speech. And I don't read it as a statement about obligation, but rather about good comedy vs bad comedy. I don't think it's even a statement suggesting that comics should try to offend people, but more of an observation that if no one is offended by your comedy then it's probably not thought provoking, probably not challenging any norms, probably not tackling any difficult subjects, etc. I don't agree that comedy must be those things to be funny, but that is how I would interpret the statement.

You want to know where I stand? I stand in a place where this is not true - where a comedian does not have to alienate half the potential audience in order to think that they're doing it well.

Who said it has to be half?

If Daniel Tosh didn't make rape jokes, his audience might be twice as big, and he'd be that much richer and more popular. But as soon as he made that rape joke, he lost a demographic, full of people who might otherwise have given him money.

I find it hard to believe that he lost an entire demographic. I don't know what demographic you're referring to, but since you referenced alienating "half the audience" earlier, are you suggesting that Tosh has no female fans?

This is not about comedy, or about my personal tastes. This isn't even about political correctness. A joke that was reasonable (and yes, even funny) in context was taken out of context. In context, no-one with even the slightest understanding of satire should have been offended. Notice that no-one is talking about the Washington Redskins, which is what the joke was all about. But somehow, so-called "political correctness" got dragged into the argument like a cat drags a dead bird into your bed, and now that's all people are talking about.

The thread is about Colbert being a racist (or not), Suey Park's hashtag campaign and so on. We could talk about the Redskins, but this may not be the thread for it. *shrug*

If you are arguing against political correctness, then you are simply complaining that people don't like you when you're mean.

You're wrong. And I'm tired of this "argument", if it can even be called that. I argue against PC policing often and I very rarely offend anyone with my jokes or choice of words.

 

[arthwollipot]

I can see that I'm making zero headway here, so I will respectfully withdraw from the conversation.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Ironically, she proved her point about the lame racist joke by making a lame fake protest. Both fell flat and apparently no one got either one.

I suspect far more people got Colbert's "lame racist joke" than those who did not.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Related to the earlier discussion about the difference between the real Colbert and Colbert the character, here's an interesting video of Colbert interviewing Neil deGrasse Tyson in which he is very much being the real Stephen Colbert.

 

[OneShotKi11]

Shes just a damn racist. I wish more people would speak up about this.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^RACISM!

 

[Jono]

I took the comment (from the show, later out of context-given in a tweet) as a satire of conservative attitudes which... well, is what Colbert's idea of the show is all about no?

 

[epepke]

I took the comment (from the show, later out of context-given in a tweet) as a satire of conservative attitudes which... well, is what Colbert's idea of the show is all about no?

Trying to explain that which would neither be effective nor necessary if you could explain it is a bit of a non-starter.

It's quite a good thing that there are a lot of people offended by this, calling Colbert a racist. That's one of the functions of burlesque, which this is. Not really satire; the Daily Show has more of that, the difference being that there's a kind of a wink and a nudge in satire, whereas burlesque appears serious. Though Colbert sometimes blends into satire, he's best when doing burlesque.

It's not straightforward, but it's great that people are getting offended, that is, if they are not doing offensiveness burlesque themselves, which probably some are. That's a win for burlesque.

 

[mike3]

I disagree. That quote references only comedy, not free speech. And I don't read it as a statement about obligation, but rather about good comedy vs bad comedy. I don't think it's even a statement suggesting that comics should try to offend people, but more of an observation that if no one is offended by your comedy then it's probably not thought provoking, probably not challenging any norms, probably not tackling any difficult subjects, etc. I don't agree that comedy must be those things to be funny, but that is how I would interpret the statement.

In which case, what is this joke intended to provoke thought about? About racism? But why then do you need to offend the group who's been the recipient of racism? What norms is it challenging? Challenging racist ones? By offending the recipient of racism? Challenging norms that we shouldn't say racist things? Wouldn't that be a big step backwards, to making racism more acceptable?

 

[Meed]

In which case, what is this joke intended to provoke thought about? About racism? But why then do you need to offend the group who's been the recipient of racism? What norms is it challenging? Challenging racist ones? By offending the recipient of racism? Challenging norms that we shouldn't say racist things? Wouldn't that be a big step backwards, to making racism more acceptable?

Huh? The quote you're responding to was my interpretation of what is meant by the phrase "If nobody is offended [by your comedy], you're doing it wrong." It had nothing to do with Stephen Colbert or any specific joke. I don't even agree with the phrase, I just disagree with arthwollipot about what the phrase is intended to mean.

As far as Colbert's joke goes, I don't believe there was any intention to offend recipients of racism. The butt of the joke was clearly the racist behavior of the Washington Redskins owner.

 

[Jono]

In which case, what is this joke intended to provoke thought about? About racism? But why then do you need to offend the group who's been the recipient of racism? What norms is it challenging? Challenging racist ones? By offending the recipient of racism? Challenging norms that we shouldn't say racist things? Wouldn't that be a big step backwards, to making racism more acceptable?

Isn't that situation (the given Colbert one) comparable to when Sasha Baron Cohen sang "Throw the Jews down the Well" in one of his alter-ego spoofs (Borat) of goading up anti-semitic sentiments??

 

[Meed]

Not really the same thing at all. Stephen Colbert's joke was a critical satire of something very specific.

 

[Jono]

Not really the same thing at all. Stephen Colbert's joke was a critical satire of something very specific.

Yes but I wasn't being that exact, just comparitively the humour comes across as spoofing with prejudice by emulating it in a burlesque fashion.