The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

I always love when conservatives get their panties in a twist and create something like... ohhhh #cancelcolbert

Ban that movie... Boycott that... literally NOTHING that idiot could have done to make Colbert more popular.

I'm not sure that #cancelColbert was created by a conservative. I think they just jumped on it as an opportunity to get rid of Colbert.

I won't call this vid dead, but there is just nothing rendering in the video window for me.

Anyone link to another site that I can try and view it?

???????

And that's exactly why I don't use Twitter.

@BoneRemake's source has the full segment and is much better. The "pretend cancellation" intro with the audience's laughs in the background was the best comeback possible.

Also, BD Wong.

Since when is Suey Park a conservative? She's the one who started it, which is what cracks me up. I love it when these progressives play it too clever by half and get beat up by other progressives. Progressives are the ones who want to control everyone's speech. A black conservative, for instance, is no longer a black person. They are an 'uncle tom'. Progressives will shut you down faster than the Department of Groupthink.

George Orwell, call your office.

"Progressives are the ones who want to control everyone's speech."

Said absolutely zero of the liberals on SCOTUS today.

What a maroon.

leaving work early to drink beer*


(*real Canadian** beer tho)


(**Molson Canadian, which most Canadians ironically don't consider beer but whatevs)

*length=7:22

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 7:22 - length declared by blutruth.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

This clears the whole thing up.

And Huff Post Interview with Suey Park

Man, you Americans with your black and white thinking. Even in these comments its clear that you guys cant even grasp your own simplification of colors and gray shades...
And neither do I for that matter...

uhh.... wat?

Yeah sorry, I forgot 2 Ts.
Though I doubt that was the problem for you...

Suey Park aside (she acts crazy), I personally believe many of you would be well served by thinking about this situation more critically before you jump on the defend Colbert bandwagon. Colbert is a funny satirist, but is not without flaw, and in my mind this bit on his show was at best a shitty joke and at worst completely unnecessarily racially insensitive (i.e. even as satire, it did not serve his point well). An article here talks about it in a more articulate way than I probably can:
http://www.blackgirldangerous.org/2014/04/colbert-white-racial-satire-dont-need/

This is somewhat tangential (I'll tie things together later), but based on my readings it seems Chappelle may have grappled with whether some of his skits were having net positive social impact, especially near the tail end of the show's run. From Chappelle's wikipedia entry (way more context there) --- "Chappelle said that he felt some of his sketches were "socially irresponsible." ... "According to Chappelle, during the filming of the sketch, a white crew member was laughing in a way that made him feel uncomfortable and made him think. Chappelle said, "It was the first time I felt that someone was not laughing with me but laughing at me."
--- For me, coming from somebody like Chappelle, that's pretty heavy stuff. if Dave Chappelle -- IMO quite brilliant both comedically and otherwise, and has personal experience being an oppressed minority -- struggles with what makes good socially responsible satire, that probably means it's hard. Really hard. Yet there are many people far less qualified than Chappelle in the area of satire creation and firsthand experience of racial oppression using "Colbert is satire, don't you know what [good, socially responsible] satire is?" (I'll answer that rhetorical -- No I don't, nor do probably most people) as a bit of a rubber stamp for Colbert being totally justified in doing this bit.
In my opinion, if there were ever a time for Stephen to totally break character for a second and just say "I'm sorry. Satire can be very difficult at times and we make mistakes. This was one of them. We've got to try harder.", now would be the time. As Chappelle pointed out, some people could be comfortable in laughing for the wrong reasons and not realizing it ... those people need a bit of a reality check. As the person everybody is rushing to protect, Colbert would be the best one to deliver it. In doing so, this could even more powerfully (than his satire) make people come around to the idea that racism is not just a switch you can turn off and be done with it (a la Stephen Colbert the *character*), it's a constant maintenance process like brushing one's teeth ( a la Jay Smooth -- Great talk here by Jay on just this topic ). "Wait.... even Stephen Colbert (the person) satirist master extraordinaire needs to think about race issues!? Hmmmmmmm..."

@andyboy, I still don't get why you think Colbert should apologise. Ok, you didn't think the joke was funny, that's fine, I didn't think the ching chong ding dong joke itself was particularly funny and the tweet out of context even less so. But why should he apologise?

Let's get this clear... satire of X is not X. Colberts response was reasonable (he even asked people not to attack Park on twitter over this).

What's really sad is Park's overt racism in the response. So yeah, funnily enough when you start talking about how "white men can't talk about this" people stop taking you seriously.

Actually, one more thing while I'm on this soapbox...

If you're a "hashtag activist"... that is a synonym for "doing fucking nothing". Posting on fucking twitter is not activism, it's posting on fucking twitter, and it's an insult to people who are out doing real work in aid of their causes.

As a Canadian of Asian descent, I just want to back up Colbert, here. If satire is "the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues," then I think he knocked this one out of the park. A lot of folks don't see "Redskins" as an offensive term because they grew up with it being everywhere; exaggerating and applying the same idea to the Asian population really highlights how ridiculous the name of this foundation is, but only because Western culture has only just recently started to agree that phrases like "Ching chong ding dong", "orientals" (unless you're Rob Ford), "gook", "slant", "chink", etc, are actually really offensive. If a pro sports team came up with the name "Vancouver Chinamen" or "Detroit Negroes" today (coupled with stereotypical logos) there would be a massive and immediate outrage. The only reason the Redskins have gotten away with their name is that the team was named long enough ago that the racial slur was widely acceptable to the non-First Nations public.

And really, this parallels racial awareness in North America; although racism is still very much a thing for people of all races, the First Nations population is still being outstandingly and horribly marginalized with very little support or attention being paid to them or their (still appallingly denied) rights. Here in Canada (in which we boast great racial and cultural diversity, the "cultural mixed salad" vs the US "melting pot"), we still haven't done anything to amend the fact that when we got here we took brutal advantage of a trusting and helpful culture, booted them out to the worst parts of the country and stranded them there.

I don't disagree with your comments about Suey Park, as I said I think she acts crazy and I don't support her approach in any way. I think it's unfortunate that she's leading the charge on the other side of this thing, because I think she's doing a horrible job.

As I see it, Colbert is using Asian Americans (a minority that is also most definitely not atop the social power structure) as an example or prop to try to educate people about racism that's happening toward another group of people. Cool! We're helping out Native Americans. It's not really engaging Asian Americans though, who very commonly have racism directed at them as well. In my readings on this, it would seem a fair number (but NOT all) of Asian Americans grew up being ridiculed by things like "Ching chong ding dong", and it is steeped in an extremely negative racial connotation for that group of people.

I'm stretching to an extreme with this analogy, but I think it's necessary. What if Colbert instead called it the "The Cotton-picking Nigger Foundation for Racial Sensitivity"? I don't know about you, but I think that feels quite a bit more problematic.

But why does that cross a line where "Ching chong ding dong" doesn't? To be honest, while I think I could come up with some ideas that seem quite reasonable to me off the top of my head, I'm not *exactly* sure. Because at the end of the day, here's my reality -- I'm not an Asian American that was ridiculed with that saying and things like it, so I didn't have that firsthand personal experience. For all I know, for a large subgroup of Asian Americans, maybe it *is* very similar to the other example I mentioned would be for blacks.

So rather than thinking I have some magical grasp on what is offensive toward certain groups, I listen very carefully to what they're saying, and what their experience is. I think everybody should do that, and continue thinking about it and conversing about it. Instead, everybody seems to be rushing to Colbert's defense.

I would maintain that in order for the satire to be effective, it actually needs to use offensive terminology. Clearly folks are already upset about the word "Redskins" (otherwise we wouldn't be hearing any of this), but not enough folks that anything is being done about it. To draw attention to how offensive it may be to those affected, he's using other, very offensive terms as a direct comparison. It simply wouldn't have any effect if he joked about "The Stephen Colbert Culturally Good at Math Foundation".

Also, on a personal note, I grew up with all the terms I mentioned in my first comment, and found them hurtful and offensive. I haven't, however, encountered them used as anything but clear satire for a very long time (a handful of exceptions in the past 15 years), and I personally find it takes a lot of the sting out hearing the phrases themselves made ridiculous, hearing people publicly accept that they're ignorant and offensive, and seeing people who would use them to sincerely hurt someone quickly ridiculed and shamed. So, still backing Colbert on this one.

No arguments there on the good at math idea not being funny... I never suggested such an option. What would have been good funny alternative bits for Colbert to have done could be a separate conversation I think (good satire punches up, etc).
I appreciate your personal note. It indeed jives with what one of my Asian American friends told me- they don't find particularly offensive either. This friend also mentioned that their experience is not equal to every Asian American experience though. For others, it seems that it stings quite significantly. So I don't think this is case closed.

The question I posed with my analogy still stands -- while this is not true for yourself or my friend, for some people of Asian descent, "the Ching Ching ding dong foundation for cultural sensitivity" might be offensive on a level similar to how it would have been for Blacks if he had used "The cotton-picking nigger foundation for cultural sensitivity". How many? Maybe that number is at 10%. Maybe that number is at .1%. Maybe that number is at 50%. I have no idea. How do we as a society figure whether that is the case? I think we do it by having a big old dialog where a lot of people of Asian descent are involved.

Instead what I see is a whole lot of posturing, sabre-rattling, and band wagon jumping from people that are not of Asian decent and therefore have no personal experience with this particular form of racism to bring to bear on the matter. Those people should be primarily listening and asking questions, not posturing and sabre-rattling.

@ChaosEngine You had a completely viable excellent reason to make a back up addition with the youtube associated embed. I smack your face with my leather glove for not taking appropriate care of your post.

*backup=[...snipped...]


Now I can go to bed feeling like I did something today. Hurruh.

Added alternate embed code for this video - backup requested by BoneRemake.

I am shamed

You're missing the point. It should be offensive. If you're not offended by the ching chong foundation, the cotton picking nigger foundation or the actual "Redskins Original Americans" foundation, there is something wrong with you.

And that's the equivalency Colbert was making. He could actually have gone further and made it the cotton picking nigger foundation and the point would have been even stronger, but there's no way that would have been allowed to air.

I understand exactly what he's doing. I'm pointing out that it's possible to cross lines, even with racial satire, and that those lines are gray and fuzzy and worthy of our thought, attention, and dialog. You seem to think that when it comes to racial satire, there shouldn't be any lines, whatsoever. That there's always some 100% correct answer to this kind of question, and that answer is "Colbert is righteous".
You're right, my example wouldn't air. Let's say it did though, and there was an uproar from a portion of the black community. Would you still be saying those folks essentially have their panties in a bunch and need to lighten up?

I view it as similar to "rape jokes". It's the target of the joke that matters, not the content as such.

Buts let's say the cotton picking version did air. I wouldn't be telling the black community to "lighten up" anymore than I'm telling the Asian community to lighten up now. It's not about taking a joke, it's about understanding the context of a joke, and realising that you are not the target.

Eh. Ultimately, satire can offend, but its goal is to enlighten people. If it's good satire, there should be a net positive societal gain.

I'm arguing that if you end up offending more than you enlighten, there's no net positive societal gain there. Especially if you offend a subset of the very group (targets of racism in this case) than you're trying to uplift with the satire.

It's got to be case-by-case, and it's often a very tough call. As I mentioned above, Dave Chappelle himself, by most accounts a comedic genius, struggled with it immensely in his material. And figuring all of this out is a tricky, ongoing process of discovery and dialog which requires a more nuanced viewpoint and empathy than you're showing a willingness to take on. Honestly it's a lot to process and I often wonder and question my own ability to navigate these issues.

Ultimately, I feel like you and many others just want win an argument and not really have to think about things like this anymore in the future. You want your racial satire and you want your rape jokes without talking about or thinking about any boundaries or grey areas for the purveyors of that comedy, and that's that. Black and white.

If something like this comes up again, welp, you already have an answer for that. You can just pull out your rubber stamp that says:
"It's satire people! Those offended don't get the context of the joke."

Colbert's character is a satire of just that kind of black and white way of thinking, so it's highly ironic for his viewership to mimic it.

Wow, not only have you missed the point, you have taken the exact opposite of the point I made. For what seems like the 500 millionth time on this site, CONTEXT MATTERS ( seriously, look at my comment history, it's practically my fucking motto at this point). The whole point of this entire situation was Parks inability to read context and her pathetic attempt at justifying that when she realised how stupid her point was.

When something like this comes up again, I will judge that situation on its merits, as I did this one. You have to look at both the context and the intent. It's blindingly obvious to all but the most simple minded to Colberts intention was anything but racist.

I've addressed that I understand the context several times above and given the reasons that I still think it's problematic even considering its context.

I'm feeling the same astonishment toward your interpretation of the things I'm saying, like you're totally missing the point I've been repeatedly trying to make. I think I'll leave it there. I just don't think anything more productive can come from this dialog unfortunately.

Dumb reactions to funny things always end up making it all the funnier.