Main Menu

Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 10:50:55 AM

Login with username, password and session length

#CancelColbert

Started by jutl, March 28, 2014, 10:24:03 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Squink

Quote from: Subtle Mocking on April 01, 2014, 10:35:36 PMGood comedy generally has to punch up rather than down.

He is punching up though, that's the thing. He's essentially punching down to punch up. I think the issue here is more in a sloppiness of the telling rather than the intent behind what he's saying. The joke or jokes, in this case, aren't as incisive as we've come to expect from someone like Colbert and his writing team. And that's definitely a dangerous mode to be in with this stuff: if you're going with big-issue satire and have a large audience in front of you, it needs to be razor sharp, especially if you're doing the punching-down-to-punch-up thing.

Still, it's definitely a big, complicated issue. Like this Salon article says: "you can't make Asian people collateral damage on your way to proving a point about racism toward Native people."

Urinal Cake

The thing is Dan Snyder is Jewish. Why couldn't he make it relevant to Dan? Why drag another minority into the issue?

Why not say something like, 'I hear the Polish Soccer League is creating a new team in Auschwitz. It's going to be called the 'Gas Ovens' etc'.

It most have come up in the writer's room. Is being an anti-semite seen as worse as anti-Asian?

Sexton Brackets Drugbust

Quote from: Urinal Cake on April 02, 2014, 09:03:02 PM
The thing is Dan Snyder is Jewish. Why couldn't he make it relevant to Dan? Why drag another minority into the issue?

Why not say something like, 'I hear the Polish Soccer League is creating a new team in Auschwitz. It's going to be called the 'Gas Ovens' etc'.

It most have come up in the writer's room. Is being an anti-semite seen as worse as anti-Asian?

I think that it is one of those weird areas where it's considered marginally more acceptable to be racist against certain nationalities than others - possibly because Asia is seen as being on the rise as a world power, despite the inherent problems?

Also, in your example, isn't infant-level mockery of language-sounds considerably less offensive than mass genocide?

Zetetic

Quote from: Urinal Cake on April 02, 2014, 09:03:02 PM
It most have come up in the writer's room. Is being an anti-semite seen as worse as anti-Asian?
The point I've seen made is that, previously at least, Asians are a goto for ironic racism because they're a relatively voiceless minority compared to African Americans, Jews, Hispanics, Native Americans and so on.

Urinal Cake

But that's sort of the point. Native Americans suffered a gradual genocide (whole tribes and cultures being wiped out) being driven out of the lands of America while Hitler decided to get rid of Jews and other undesirables more quickly because he had the technology.

Sexton Brackets Drugbust

Quote from: Urinal Cake on April 02, 2014, 09:25:46 PM
But that's sort of the point. Native Americans suffered a gradual genocide (whole tribes and cultures being wiped out) being driven out of the lands of America while Hitler decided to get rid of Jews and other undesirables more quickly because he had the technology.

I see your point about the like for like comparison in terms of genocide, but as the issue is to do with the childishly racial term 'Redskins', it seems more appropriate to illustrate the immaturity with playground level insults.

Urinal Cake

Quote from: Sexton Brackets Drugbust on April 02, 2014, 09:36:41 PM
I see your point about the like for like comparison in terms of genocide, but as the issue is to do with the childishly racial term 'Redskins', it seems more appropriate to illustrate the immaturity with playground level insults.
The problem is that the targets of these insults don't seem to get  a say about what constitutes 'childish' or 'antiquated'. That's not accounting for what individuals think. Apparently people who are mostly observers in race relations decided this.

I mean I've heard a few older, white men refer to Asians as 'Orientals'. And for one I think it was simply a placeholder for Asian. But the others with their attitudes especially towards women there was some sort of fetishization.

MC Root

Quote from: Urinal Cake on April 02, 2014, 09:25:46 PM
But that's sort of the point. Native Americans suffered a gradual genocide (whole tribes and cultures being wiped out) being driven out of the lands of America while Hitler decided to get rid of Jews and other undesirables more quickly because he had the technology.

And it was that use of technology that is one of the explanations for how post-modernism came about. One of them.

Subtle Mocking


Urinal Cake

Atleast he can't hide behind his right-wing persona.

Kishi the Bad Lampshade

So I've had a think about this and although I don't think Colbert hates Asians or should be banned from the world or whatever, I feel Park did have a legitimate point. Here's my thinking:

If you're going to use slurs of whatever kind in your humour, you have to accept that some people are always going to feel hurt by that. Obviously I'm sure there were lots of Asian people who didn't care or thought the joke was hilarious, but if you use a slur against X group some people in X group are going to feel hurt, even if your intentions are good, even if they know your point is anti-bigotry rather than bigotry, and furthermore I feel those people are not necessarily stupid or missing the point if they do feel hurt.

I'm on a Chris Morris forum so clearly I love me some satirez, but if someone makes a joke to me using 'slut'/'bitch'/'whore' etc.[nb]for the sake of simplicity I'm just talking about using specific slur words here, but this could also apply more broadly to any form of satirical bigotry[/nb], even if they're clearly being ironic, I feel a bit of a sting. Why? Because you've reminded me that there are lots of people out there who DO use those words and DO genuinely think those things. Indeed, that's the only reason the joke works; otherwise it would be too random to make sense. Depending on the person or situation it could also bring back specific memories of being bullied, abused or harassed using those words. So in order for the joke to work you have to accept that you are reminding the person of something that sucks about humanity in a way which specifically (and possibly very majorly) affects them. In many cases great comedians can use this tension to make brilliant points or really make people laugh or both; however often when people make those kind of jokes the point is just either:

1) Look how much I'm not a bigot!
2) Aren't bigots silly?

or some combination thereof.

If the reasoning behind a joke is mainly (1), one has to question how much the joke is just self-indulgence. Park got at this a bit I think, but basically it's bringing up a nasty thing for the sake of showing how right-on you are. This is a shite analogy but it's what I can come up with at this time of night: it's a bit like saying "hey, remember when your grandparents were murdered in that pogrom? That was awful, the people who did that were terrible!"[nb]In the case of Colbert's joke it wasn't speaking directly to Asians so I guess it's more like "Hey, remember when Mike's grandparents were murdered in that pogrom?" while Mike is in earshot; dunno whether that's better or worse[/nb] You might think you're doing good by showing support but that might be balanced out by the fact that you reminded the person of the shitty thing in the first place and potentially bummed them out for a bit.

(2) can of course be valuable when done well, but can get gradually more lazy and tiresome the more popular ironic bigotry becomes as a tool of humour. Plus there's the added element that loads of the people making these jokes, and especially ones who are in the spotlight, tend to be straight white middle-class men i.e. people who get to mock bigots as observers whilst not being in too much danger from them in their day-to-day lives. That doesn't mean they're evil or wrong, but it does mean that it can feel a little bit tiresome seeing them[nb]I say "them"; I'm not in that group in that I'm A WomanTM but I basically fall into all the other lucky categories[/nb] say "LOL, aren't bigots dumb?" when bigots can also be depressing, demoralising, terrifying, and much more commonplace than anyone would like. Sometimes it can just feel like a bit of a luxury to be able to just laugh at them, rather than worry they might turn you down for a job or ruin your day or literally actually murder you. [nb]Of course the existence of bigots can depress, demoralise and terrify every non-bigot, not just the people of the minority they hate, but it's not as intense or personally hurtful of a feeling and if you're not of that minority you're not at that direct risk of getting fucked over by them[/nb][nb]laughing at something and being scared of it are not mutually exclusive, but if something's really shitting you up you can't exactly be blamed for not reacting with laughter[/nb]

I'm not even going to come up with a conclusion on whether Colbert should have done the joke or not or whether it should have been tweeted; it's not really my point. My point is more that this whole area seems pretty nuanced to me and definitely a balancing act, which isn't as simple as having good or bad intentions.

So, those are my thoughts on why "but it's satire" isn't a catch-all defence, even if the comedian is someone trustworthy like Colbert (compared to your friend's dickhead flatmate who claims all his shitty jokes are satire).

Sexton Brackets Drugbust

Quote from: Kishi the Bad Lampshade on April 20, 2014, 04:03:28 PM
So in order for the joke to work you have to accept that you are reminding the person of something that sucks about humanity in a way which specifically (and possibly very majorly) affects them.

Isn't this the essence of satire in a nutshell?

Famous Mortimer

Quote from: Kishi the Bad Lampshade on April 20, 2014, 04:03:28 PM
Plus there's the added element that loads of the people making these jokes, and especially ones who are in the spotlight, tend to be straight white middle-class men i.e. people who get to mock bigots as observers whilst not being in too much danger from them in their day-to-day lives.
This is the crucial point, I think.

Kishi the Bad Lampshade

Quote from: Sexton Brackets Drugbust on April 20, 2014, 04:16:37 PM
Isn't this the essence of satire in a nutshell?

Yes?

Edit: to SBD, not FM. I'm not sure what the point of your question is.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

The balancing act in considering whether certain material is worth performing, in the knowledge that people who don't get it, (or worse- will be offended by it) will be watching rests on a few key things in this context.

Does the artist have money in the bank? This doesn't excuse a particularly obnoxious joke, but do they have a proven track record which bolsters them against any accusation of bigotry? If you have trust in a performer they can take you to dangerous places because they have that level of command, and they are placing trust in you to understand their intentions. I find Colbert does this a lot, and has such a huge fanbase almost because his act is cliquey and antagonistic to a certain viewpoint, but in a way that inspires genuine confusion in his enemies. Jon Stewart and Maddow on the other hand are explicit where they stand and what they think about the other side.

Does the joke directly inspire prejudice or discrimination against a minority? US comedy is notoriously heavy with stereotype humour about minorities- recently this has become less race-based and more nationality based, but because of America's cultural history it has a tradition in breaking down the barriers between the racial groups. I often think there is more latitude over in the States to perform that sort of material. Even safe dinnertime standup comedians use stereotype humour as stock fodder. I find it very, very tedious, personally, but have to accept that even my most admired comedians from North America use it.

Even if the dissection of the joke is potentially hugely offensive to a certain audience, comedy is still tailored for a certain audience. It's extremely difficult if a portion of the audience it isn't intended for happen to belong to the minority group used in the joke, especially as a white, middle class male. However it still doesn't make it necessarily a wrong thing to do (and nor am I trying to argue one way or another with Kishi's post which got me thinking about it).

If a joke requires the audience to step up to the plate intellectually then for me that supplants superficial interpretations from any offended minority for whom it isn't necessarily intended for, if the joke itself is delivered securely by someone with a clear track record, and is clearly justifiable within the context of a certain routine.


Sexton Brackets Drugbust

Quote from: Kishi the Bad Lampshade on April 20, 2014, 04:30:37 PM
Yes?

Edit: to SBD, not FM. I'm not sure what the point of your question is.

It was just an innocent question; I was just considering what you'd written.

So satire requires the satirist to confront their audience with life's unpleasantness and, in doing so, they're almost certainly going to offend someone.

Regarding the issue of satirists being straight, white, middle class men - isn't much of that down to the dominant archetype that they're satirising being comprised of the same group? Those are the people in power, so in order to mock them, you tend to need a comparable figure.

Kishi the Bad Lampshade

Quote
So satire requires the satirist to confront their audience with life's unpleasantness and, in doing so, they're almost certainly going to offend someone.

Yes, though I suppose it's particularly noticeable with ironic bigotry because it's taking something that's particularly targeted and hurtful towards one particular group, rather than satirising something universal like love or politics.

QuoteRegarding the issue of satirists being straight, white, middle class men - isn't much of that down to the dominant archetype that they're satirising being comprised of the same group? Those are the people in power, so in order to mock them, you tend to need a comparable figure.

I'm not sure if that's necessarily the case. I would say it's more due to straight, white, middle class men being the predominant figures in most spheres of life generally. In the case of Colbert I guess it makes sense, since he's satirising bigotry by taking on the character of a bigot - so it makes sense that a white guy is being played by a white guy. But playing a character is only one way of doing satire. Having a gay person write a satirical book about straight men's homophobia would work perfectly fine, for instance.

Sexton Brackets Drugbust

Quote from: Kishi the Bad Lampshade on April 20, 2014, 05:22:50 PM
Yes, though I suppose it's particularly noticeable with ironic bigotry because it's taking something that's particularly targeted and hurtful towards one particular group, rather than satirising something universal like love or politics.

I'm not sure if that's necessarily the case. I would say it's more due to straight, white, middle class men being the predominant figures in most spheres of life generally. In the case of Colbert I guess it makes sense, since he's satirising bigotry by taking on the character of a bigot - so it makes sense that a white guy is being played by a white guy. But playing a character is only one way of doing satire. Having a gay person write a satirical book about straight men's homophobia would work perfectly fine, for instance.

Yes, sorry, my comment only really applies to performing character comedy in satire.

Kishi the Bad Lampshade

Quote from: Shoulders?-Stomach! on April 20, 2014, 04:48:09 PM
If a joke requires the audience to step up to the plate intellectually then for me that supplants superficial interpretations from any offended minority for whom it isn't necessarily intended for, if the joke itself is delivered securely by someone with a clear track record, and is clearly justifiable within the context of a certain routine.

Mm, couple of things that intrigue me about that statement though.

What does it mean for a joke to "not be intended for" a minority? Colbert has millions of fans so it's a reasonable guess that there's some Asians in there. Is the comedian aiming the joke over the heads of his minority listeners, or presuming they'll treat it in the same way as a non-minority does, or...what?

Also I'm not sure if this is what you intended, but the phrase "superficial interpretations from any offended minority" seems to imply that the only reason a minority could dislike a joke is because they don't understand it. (Also I'm not a fan of the term 'offence'/'offended' for reasons I've blathered on about in previous posts but that's going into a slightly different issue). I wasn't even really following this story until recently but when it's cropped up on my various Internet feeds the thing that's most irritated me is the way loads of Colbert's defenders have treated his critics as if they were idiots who literally don't know what satire is. The idea that maybe there's more that can be discussed besides "Colbert is joking and doesn't appear to punch any Koreans in his spare time" doesn't seem to occur. 

Edit: unless you're referring to a hypothetical joke which is so complex in its edginess that lots of minorities don't get it. In which case lots of non-minorities would probably not get it either. Either way I don't think Colbert's joke falls into that category.