I can't speak to the feminist portion of your question. I am not a feminist; more of a humanist, really. I could assume that having a related ideology might make her jokes more palatable, but it would be only a base assumption.

I asked my wife to view this clip on youtube, without reading the comments on this link. She is not a feminist either, so I simply asked her as a woman, did she find this funny? She said that clip was "mildly amusing" but she did not believe me when I told her that Amy was one of the top female comedians right now. Bear in mind that we don't watch cable, only Netflix and Prime, so she has not had exposure to her comedy skits on Inside Amy Schumer.

I do think Tina Fey is funny for the most part. I love Iliza Shlesinger. Kathleen Madigan puts me in stitches. I would say that this clip https://youtu.be/4wzpYDnqhiI is hilarious and meets your aforementioned criteria. The thing is, I personally find that clip hilarious, and I can't really say that about most of Ms. Schumer's work.

Agree that we disagree then.
I say statements about races are racist, since they are being divisionary by race. I say not all discrimination is discrimination against the target, but all discrimination is discrimination.
'Cry me a river' is not the same thing. If I heard him say 'little girls are all worthless bitches' but he really said 'some people think little girls are all worthless bitches, but they aren't' I would still think him a jerk for saying the offensive word to a little girl. I think that's closer to the topic. When a single word is the offensive remark, not the entire statement, context means less, and certainly not all.
When Mark Twain did it, yes it was racist, intentionally so, but also reflective of reality, so not wrong of him to portray racism as it existed.
As I said, most people tolerate a low level of racism, and intent also colors their response quite a bit. Because it's tolerable, even palatable, doesn't make a statement not racist.
Pryor was hilarious, and racist as shit! As I said, I think comedians get a 'pass' for being racist (EDIT: by which I mean SAYING racist jokes, not actually being racists) if they're funny enough. You are free to disagree, but you won't convince me his humor wasn't racist, not ever. That didn't make it not funny, or make him a bad person, it made him a comedian that used racism to expose and ridicule racism, as I see it. There's nothing wrong with that, unless you need him to be completely non-racist (a 1 on my earlier scale), then it's a big problem.
I don't need that from anyone, I just wish for a reasonable, non-hateful, non discriminatory (against people) level of racism from those around me (although even that can still be harmful, I know, but people are never perfect and I don't expect them to be).
Yes, I've heard people say that they would 'kill somebody', and didn't think they meant it. I tend to try and avoid those kinds of people, or at least correct them, as the unedited excessive anger is a sign of a lack of restraint. I wouldn't think them homicidal, anymore than I expect Pryor at a militant black panther rally, but I would think of them as lacking restraint and so possibly dangerous (at least somewhat unpredictable), just as I see Pryor as somewhat racist (ever hear him riff about honkeys? Hilarious...and SO racist!)

EDIT: BTW, Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman did a great episode about racism recently where they explained how even jokes between friends not meant or taken seriously can actually still tint how your subconscious sees race...making you (and those exposed) slightly subconsciously racist a little more each time you are exposed to negative portrayals, even when you know they aren't serious or realistic portrayals. It was a great and informative episode, I highly recommend it.

My arguments were only about what the argument of legal rights, nothing else. I actually have three friends in Guam and I feel I'm more educated about the situation there than most Americans on the mainland. So thank you for acknowledging the soundness of my arguments, and keep in mind that I wasn't touching the socio-economic aspects of the situation, just John Oliver's misguided presentation of the facts.

Personally I'd love to see PR and Guam join. As for "why"... there are two main camps that I think might be right.

1)They honestly don't care. This mixes somewhat with the "they prefer the benefits of living in a Territory over what they'd gain by becoming a state." For example, if you live in PR and all of your income is made within the bounds of PR, then you don't have to pay US Federal Income Taxes. To me that doesn't really seem like a big deal. I think the people in this group would lean towards statehood if they weren't given the option to remain a territory (i.e. statehood or independence only).

2)They seem the fact that the US is still there as a remnant of military imperialism and they don't want to reward the US. In 1899 Samoa was carved up between Germany and the US during the stupid Kaiser's chest-pounding Imperialism phase that led up to WW1. Puerto Rico and Guam were both taken from the Spanish in the Spanish-American war. Cuba and the Philippines were as well, and those two chose independence and are now independent nations (Cuba was a special situation). The Virgin Islands were bought from Denmark during WW1 and the Marianas were taken from Japan during WW2. So... maybe these places feel like they aren't fully American. But honestly, I think that (with a possible exception of a large portion of Puerto Rico) this isn't the case. Or maybe they simply don't think they'd be an economically viable nation if they left. Look to Nauru as a great example of how fragile a small island's economy can be.

Puerto Rico had a really weird vote in 2012 that seemed to indicate statehood... but the ballot was horribly illegal (you can't have multiple, dependent questions of differing types on the same ballot)... so we'll have to wait til they redo it again with competence to see if they really mean it.

Add to all of this the comfort of the status quo. There's a certain philosophy of finding the sucky stuff that you're used to more palatable than the unknown.

But honestly... I don't know.

I read somewhere that there's a difference in the tastebuds of men and women that makes whiskey more palatable to men. Something about mens tastebuds not being as affected by the bold flavor. I'm pretty sure I cringed as bad as these women after my first shot. Even now it can give me the willies sometimes.

And how exactly does it dismiss it? I no where said that gay men must be flamboyant. I said that suggesting that gay men must look and act straight or face the consequences is deeply problematic. I have no problem with gay men who feel they only differ from straight men with respect to who they like to date. I do have a problem with someone suggesting that ALL gay men need to look and act that way. To me that seems like trying to manage difference so it's palatable to mainstream norms.

Full disclosure: I'm a transsexual, and unless you were extremely lucky or started transitioning before the onset of puberty, that means spending part of your transition, or in the worst case the rest of your life, looking visibly "not normal" to everyone else. I was not flamboyant, I was polite, unassuming, and did my best to fit in, but for a few years my mere existence was, to many people, as obnoxious and offensive as the flamboyant man in this video. Does that mean I deserved the hate and discrimination I got? I sure hope not. The fact that this video seems to say don't look different or you'll get what's coming to you, hits a nerve for me because for several years I COULDN'T look "normal" however much I wanted to. I'm just thankful I'm past that phase and people now see me as I see myself, treat me how I want to be treated, and I can live a "normal" life, because if this video is anything to go by then that's the hurdle you have to clear before you've earned the right not to be hated or discriminated against.

I wonder what sort of stuff would be on american television if they were imprisoned and illegally settled by another people? Are we also to call le resistance terrorists too? Polish ghetto uprising? They are similar to Hamas. But fortunately, that occupation didn't last long enough for children to grow into lifeless, soulless terrorists who had every shred of humanity ripped from them when they saw their childhood friends, pets, family ripped to pieces by indiscriminate shelling. God, if you didn't hate "the people" who did that beforehand, you would after. I don't support Hamas, but you can't possibly try to suggest they wouldn't exist anywhere else given the same circumstances. And furthermore you can't act like Israel's death tally is anything but an investment in MORE TERRORISM.

The numbers matter though - the numbers you see represents a massacre. If you took time to look it up, you'd find the majority of those killed in Palestine were women and children - something like 700, and it's rising, so even if you counted every Palestinian male above 18 was a terrorist using a child as a literal human shield, that's still more Palestinians than terrorists. This "human shield" thing hasn't been proven in any kind of article i've seen anyway, and i suspect it's simply to dehumanise them for western palatability.

It's the world's biggest concentration camp. Even the UN are beginning to say words to the effect now, do you think they go against American interests for fun?

Given the balance of women and children killed to men, and even allowing every man to be considered a terrorist, how can you think that 700 women and children to two is a matter of equality in everything but weaponry, and how can that be used to justify continuing on this path of destruction? Surely 700:2 has to be a good argument for a different approach?

I'm not after an argument here man, i'm trying to explain the other viewpoint.. More PEOPLE are dying by Israeli weapons than combatants, that is not a good way to end the hatred that leads to terrorist attacks..

This sort of thing is just a function of knowing what components of vocal tone you can manipulate, how to manipulate them, and engaging in careful, recorded practice until you can routinely reproduce the correct mix. Some vocal strengthening also has to occur over time, much like a singer gradually extending his or her range. The average female voice is only an octave higher in pitch than the average male voice, i.e. a pitch which with practice can easily be reached and maintained by nearly all men. The bigger problem is that men's voices are far more resonant, i.e. rumbly and full, than women's voices. What a man would need to do to reproduce a "girl voice" would be to raise his pitch, and then partially pinch his upper throat and palate, while simultaneously keeping a relaxed throat through which breath can easily flow. If you just pinch the throat without raising pitch, you sound like a nasally drag queen. If you raise the pitch and overly pinch the throat, then you get an artificially thin voice. Merely raising the pitch would just sound like a guy whose voice didn't deepen terribly.

Finally, all of the above would just produce female tone. Much of what we identify as "female" about a voice, isn't tone, but cadence, word choice, and inflection.

Ahhh, but to determine if one is racist, usually one examines that persons words, and if those words are racist, the person is usually labeled racist.
Technically, yes, you are being racist singing about 'niggas'.
I am not throwing a fit, only pointing out that the words used are racist, even though said by a black man in jest. I don't have a problem with that, as long as it's admittedly racist. It's when people try to claim it's not racist that I take issue.
I would agree mostly that it's intent and action that make one truly racist or not. That does not make speech less racist however, but can make that low level racism far more palatable.
I'm far from politically correct, but I also admit that fact and don't argue that my incorrectness isn't an issue for many.

I just wrote the following in a PM, as part of a much longer message. Thought it belonged here:

But if more energy was spent by you guys who say "I've never seen this, I don't know what you are talking about, prove it, say it differently, convince me" ... well, if instead you just said -- Huh. How about that. Look how this stuff is affecting these women. Why IS it that the men they encounter feel it is okay to intrude on their lives this way, when they are just walking down the street? Where do these guys get the idea that this is okay? Why do they get offended when the women don't respond? What WOULD it feel like if it were me, 4-5-9 times a day being told -- smile, nice ass, hey pretty lady, when all I am trying to do is go buy a pint of milk for my morning coffee? Yeah, I don't do that, you could say. These guys are clearly out of line. But how am I like that, in smaller ways, you could ask?

Maybe when you don't listen and insist that this video has to be softened into being palatable to you. Maybe that is how you are like those other guys.

These women are straight forward and very very clear. And yet you say they aren't. Why is that?

Christie and his ilk deserve their heads on pitons along that bridge they unilaterally shut down-Politics = poison in the, 'parlance of our times.'

Yes Stewart, this DOES make their evil evident and palatable to all fans of playing the game created for cattle.

All for amping-up the civil disobedience phase of a revolution before more social meltdown and a slow, ugly decline. Larry Wilkerson's perspective seems the most palatable though, unlikely. Arms embargoes, diplomacy and discussions about details of scenarios that have already been set into motion won't change the push forward into that direction I suspect.
The best form of civil and economic disobedience peeps can flex is through collective boycott/embargo/non-participation in failed or toxic systems. Stop watching television firstly and groom a thinking generation off the teat of their programming. Change the shit-think and the obvious answers appear. Welcome to planet earth it's a dangerous place, don't panic.

Well, I guess we disagree. To me, the supernatural and magic are for those without the experience or intelligence to comprehend that they don't exist, or those that wish to live in a fantasy. To me, that mindset is infantile.
I feel that adding magic to a great historical story is like putting sugar on broccoli, it's done to make something good palatable to non-adults, but it ruins it for adults and destroys what was good about it in the first place. This is an adult story with adult themes and adult actions, it didn't need magic, dragons, or 'The One', and the additions only degrade and confuse the amazing facts.
Would you have liked to see a Muslim dragon guarding Osama in Dark Thirty? (I know, not a historically accurate film, I'm just making a point). Wouldn't you have found it out of place in a movie about our (recent) 'history'? How about if Lincoln had to fight a confederate dragon in Lincoln (not Lincoln vampire hunter)? I feel like that would have infantilized those stories, as it does to any factual story.

This is not true, a hamburger for example is a experience of its parts. The toppings on a burger define it as much as the meat used, which is why we have burger joints littering the US with each having its own unique take on the burger.

Sushi is an experience of the fish, it is defined at its core by the delicate preparation and the art that goes into creating it. Each piece is created to stimulate the palate, and slopping on soy and wasabi would be the equivalent of saying the Mona Lisa would look better touched up with finger paints.

Eat it however you "like it", but don't begin to argue that its the right way to eat sushi.

Also Hipster implies that sushi is not mainstream, which isn't true, its very common in any areas with an ounce of culture and is easier to find that foods of other cultures (turkish and indian food are actually harder to find in my neck of the woods).

I'm not sure how any likes it when you lay it on that thick. To spread it thinly enough to be palatable you really need to mix it with melted butter. Toast and toasted muffins are perfect. Crumpets are less than ideal since a lot of marmite tends to get trapped in the holes. Anyway, these cats are doing it wrong.

-Source: 25years of being British.