Stephen Colbert Makes Joke, Twitter Outrage Ensues

KaiserElectric

Total Freakin Besties
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
3,461
Because it doesn't always take a zoo in Copenhagen to spark off a misguided social justice crusade.

http://www.thewrap.com/stephen-colbert-fire-ching-chong-ding-dong-asian-tweet/

The original joke can be found here at around 6:10. Not a big issue, but one I find amusing and worth sharing. My only real comment is that if you're offended by the joke, you clearly haven't seen anything else Colbert has done. :p
 
probably anywhere from 1/4 to 1/2 of any tweets saying #cancelcolbert would be done by colbert fans sarcastically

twitter should not be taken seriously for anything
 
Well, the joke was pretty much an average monty python series one, and quite soft next to pretty much all decent british late 90s comedy, but given this is 'Merica in the post 2001 era, it would create an "outrage".

That said, the article in the OP is far dumber than the joke. Maybe they could have also mentioned that Colbert is having a split personality while on the show, as another defence. Colbert is a comedian, but a number of fans of his appear to be morons...

(btw i think he is a good comedian, and i like that he focuses on economic greed so much now. But if his fans tend to see him as some tv persona who is there as a projection of their own knee-jerk idiocy, that is hardly his fault- although it is indeed his problem now).
 
I would support the Ding-dong Ching-chong Foundation. I really would.
 
I laughed the first time, and I laughed upon reading it again.

Well, the joke was pretty much an average monty python series one, and quite soft next to pretty much all decent british late 90s comedy, but given this is 'Merica in the post 2001 era, it would create an "outrage".

That said, the article in the OP is far dumber than the joke. Maybe they could have also mentioned that Colbert is having a split personality while on the show, as another defence. Colbert is a comedian, but a number of fans of his appear to be morons...

(btw i think he is a good comedian, and i like that he focuses on economic greed so much now. But if his fans tend to see him as some tv persona who is there as a projection of their own knee-jerk idiocy, that is hardly his fault- although it is indeed his problem now).

reverse-1305865316_cute_girls_reaction.gif
 
That said, the article in the OP is far dumber than the joke. Maybe they could have also mentioned that Colbert is having a split personality while on the show, as another defence. Colbert is a comedian, but a number of fans of his appear to be morons...

I think there are a number of people who do not believe that in satire what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I do not think that fact implicates their general intelligence, however.
 
^Many ways to see the above comment.

Not sure if you focus on the angle of Colbert being "liberal" and a comedy persona in most of his act, so he should not be seen as offensive when he says such stuff,

OR

that Colbert (or any other comedian) is ok to make a joke like that against one 'race', but not the same/analogous joke against another 'race'.

In any of the two above i do not agree at all with such a position (provided that the same freedom to satirise is not allowed to other comedians).

*

Or you could mean very different stuff, which you should elaborate given that on my part i had to bother looking up the bad goose/gander idiom :(

;)
 
Colbert is the pope of American Comedy and Stewart the Patriarch. Any attacks on them will be met with a righteous army of laughter!
 
I understand where Colbert's coming from. At the same time, as an Asian-American I can understand the outrage, especially for those who are unfamiliar with Colbert. However I'm not so uneasy about the "Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation" part as much as I am about the "Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever" part. A big thing in the Asian-American community is precisely getting people to be more sensitive to the fact that we exist and are normal people. In my experience and from what I've seen and heard it's more acceptable to make fun of Asians and portray them as "others" in ways that most people would question for blacks and latinos or even whites, I think.

There was a SNL skit a while back during the whole Jeremy Lin hype that dealt with this, basically a bunch of sports commentators were throwing out a bunch of Asian stereotypes and puns while discussing Lin, but when one of them started doing the same for a black athelete, he immediately got lampooned by his (clearly hypocritical) colleages.

Anyhow I don't even know where I'm going with this. I'm aware of the satirical point Colbert was trying to make, but I think it was one that would easily go over the head of anyone who doesn't know much about him.
 
From what i understand, the joke is a reference to the Redskins, isn't it? Why haven't they changed their names yet?
 
I laughed the first time, and I laughed upon reading it again.



reverse-1305865316_cute_girls_reaction.gif

strange to see this in reverse, is it displaying your initial scepticism but eventual agreement?
 
I get the sense that Colbert knows full well that his "Ching-Chong Ding-Dong" bit crosses the line. He's trotted it out only rarely in recent years. Here he felt he could do so under the cover of "I'm just showing how offensive the Washington Redskins are being toward Native Americans; if you're offended by Ching-Chong, why aren't you more offended by Redskin?" That is to say, the bit's satirical focus depended on being offensive to Asians. Risky. I'm not sure where I myself come down on the question of whether one is warranted in offending one minority in satirical service to another. Dicey.

In context of the Redskins satire, he's protected, since his opposition to racial stereotyping is clear. But the Ching-Chong part of the skit will be removed from that context, and this might be one he can't slip out of just by invoking the satirist's exemption. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

In this connection, it's worth reading Key and Peele's piece in the recent issue of Time magazine, claiming that not making fun of particular groups is a form of bullying. Here's a snippet:

To not make fun of something is, we believe, itself a form of bullying. When a humorist makes the conscious decision to exclude a group from derision, isn’t he or she implying that the members of that group are not capable of self-reflection? Or don’t possess the mental faculties to recognize the nuances of satire? A group that’s excluded never gets the opportunity to join in the greater human conversation.

Maybe Colbert felt he could get some cover from this article if his own bit was deemed as having pushed too far.
 
^Many ways to see the above comment.

While your ideas may be valid, I was thinking more that the waterfowl are the comedian's audience.
 
That is to say, the bit's satirical focus depended on being offensive to Asians. Risky. I'm not sure where I myself come down on the question of whether one is warranted in offending one minority in satirical service to another. Dicey.

I hope other people read this, because this is essentially the entirety of the discussion. I would daresay that, most people here on this forum, in a vacuum, would not repeat what Colbert said, for reasons that are fairly clear. Taken out of context, I'd imagine most people here would call it racist, stupid, etc. Some people, obviously, would give it protection as a piece of satire that they wouldn't give to it if it was not a part of an attempt at humour, such as is the case with Colbert. I would also say that, most people on this forum would never say the n word even under the guise of satire, not out of some feeling of self-preservation, but because of a moral stance. Everyone certainly has a sort of 'grade scale' of risqué material, where one's limits are, etc., but I do have to wonder if, like cybrxkhan says, there is a tendency to accept jokes about Asians out of the constant "model minority" narrative that people - mostly white America - can't seem to drop once and for all.

The point Colbert was making certainly could have stood well on its own before the Asian line. He had pretty well ripped into Snyder's "generosity" and ignorance with regards to his efforts to stymie outcry over the Washington Redskins name.

Like Gori the Grey, I'm not sure I have a good answer. I think there is a tendency to jump to quick conclusions here, especially by fans of the show, and not take a step back and view the entirety of the discussion around it. Many fans of the show being white males in their 20s and 30s. I also find it hard to see it as a reason to entirely cancel a show (and, thus, have many people lose their jobs as a result), but I am not really in a position of authority to speak on discrimination in America, seeing as how I'll pretty much never have to deal with it.

I guess, mostly, I wrote an superficially long post that boiled to an argument that we shouldn't casually dismiss the complaints levied at Colbert's joke, which seems pretty reasonable.
 
In my experience and from what I've seen and heard it's more acceptable to make fun of Asians and portray them as "others" in ways that most people would question for blacks and latinos or even whites, I think.

You are definitely right that certain ethnic groups are more equal than others, in terms of the "okayness" of making fun of them and making stereotypical statements about them.

But I think that's the only reason Colbert is here able to do this with asians, whereas he would not be "able" to do it with say blacks.
 
I'm aware of the satirical point Colbert was trying to make, but I think it was one that would easily go over the head of anyone who doesn't know much about him.

Likely so.

strange to see this in reverse, is it displaying your initial scepticism but eventual agreement?

More like "uhh... okay... somebody has problems... just nod and walk away..."
 
This is like the Irish getting outraged at Jonathan Swift.
 
This is like the Irish getting outraged at Jonathan Swift.

Be careful, eating Irish babies can lead to gingervitis.
 
Back
Top Bottom