#CancelColbert

[Squink]

Firstly it wasn't actually him or anything he said, it was some Comedy Central bod aping his style.  Just learned that.

Yeah, I've mentioned this on here before, but I know a guy who used to run a few of the Comedy Central Twitter accounts, including the Colbert one. None of it is actually written by Colbert. And they've tweeted to confirm that as well. Many celebrity Twitter accounts aren't actually them. But surely people are aware of that by now?

[Famous Mortimer]

Doesn't make it any better though, does it?

[up_the_hampipe]

Michael Richard's career appears to have recovered from this extraordinary outburst.

It really hasn't, but I suppose his self-imposed exile hasn't helped. He's only popped his head out a couple of times since that blew up.

[Noodle Lizard]

Doesn't make it any better though, does it?

Makes it more even ridiculous that people are rallying to have Colbert's show cancelled over it though.

[chand]

Yeah, I've mentioned this on here before, but I know a guy who used to run a few of the Comedy Central Twitter accounts, including the Colbert one. None of it is actually written by Colbert. And they've tweeted to confirm that as well. Many celebrity Twitter accounts aren't actually them. But surely people are aware of that by now?

It was an actual Colbert quote though, albeit shorn of context.

[Ant Farm Keyboard]

But of course!

IIRC, it was mentioned in the interview that I was talking about, Richards had become incredibly wealthy from Seinfeld – which is one reason why I thought it was plausible that he was happy doing very little work.

During season nine, every member from the main cast earned at least $600,000 per episode. However, the cast members got zero from syndication (apart from the residuals), because they weren't producers. Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David, as producers and creators, got at least $200m each for the syndication rights. All in all, David and Seinfeld made together more than one billion dollars from the show.

That's why Jason Alexander and Julia Louis-Dreyfus refused to have any part in the DVD extras (interviews, audio commentary), for which they were also offered a flat fee, until Alexander, Louis-Dreyfus and Richards got a cut of the DVD sales. That's why the DVDs were delayed.
Louis-Dreyfus hardly needs the money (her family estate is valued at $3b), but it was a matter of everybody getting a fair share from the golden goose.

Nick Kroll's father is also incredibly wealthy.

[Subtle Mocking]

The 'joke' itself is absolutely dire, just a sort of mish-mash of Asian racial slurs. A bit like when Colbert makes a joke by shouting the word TRANNY mid-sentence as if that's all there is to it.

Calling for the show to be cancelled is a bit pointless and won't happen. Calling for Colbert (and to a lesser extent, Stewart) to be less shit is definitely in order.

[jutl]

It's maybe interesting to compare another of today's twitteracism controversies around Ebony magazine's Senior Editor Jamilah Lemieux:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/27/ebony-magazine-editor-attacks-black-republican-compares-to-roaches/

In short

(a) Lemieux batted away a criticism from a black Republican whom she had mistaken for a white guy: "Oh great, here comes a White dude telling me how to do this Black thing."
(b) She is attacked over
  (i) not considering the guy's view because she mistakenly thought he was white
  (ii) accusing him of not being 'black enough' in the tradition of divisive arguments over light/dark skin among black people
  (iii) only apologising for not looking at his avatar closely enough, not any of the above
(c) a hashtag #standwithjamilah is begun, attached to a lot of arguments that racism against white people is essentially impossible
(d) someone attacks the hashtag for being divisive because some people can't stand, no matter how much they agree with the sentiment

[Pancake]

So apparently satire is sometimes a way for white males to get away with racism.

Is this satire?

[Pancake]

Even if you're offended, how is cancelling his show an appropriate reaction? Especially in the context of some of the shit O'Reilly and that other baby-faced jackass got/get away with.

After this mornings 5Live phone in on gay marriage I have such a massively low opinion of humans, hoping a curry will cheer me up

boring myself now

[terribleidiot]

I thought the joke was good.

Twitter is so right on and humourless it pisses me off sometimes. And I vote Green!

[thugler]

The 'joke' itself is absolutely dire, just a sort of mish-mash of Asian racial slurs. A bit like when Colbert makes a joke by shouting the word TRANNY mid-sentence as if that's all there is to it.

Calling for the show to be cancelled is a bit pointless and won't happen. Calling for Colbert (and to a lesser extent, Stewart) to be less shit is definitely in order.

The joke isn't the asian racial slurs, it's mirroring the actions of the redskins. That's the entire point of it, pointing out how unacceptable what they were doing is.

[choie]

This is the stupidest thing I've read in ages. (I'm lucky, apparently.)  And I know I lost brain cells just reading the comments to that Blaze article. (I don't know anything about that site, and I rather wish I had continued that ignorance.)

Colbert has been playing this character for ages, there's nothing new about what "Stephen Colbert" said. It's quite obviously a satirical comment from a satirical creation who mocks right-wing political pundits, and is pointing out the absurdity in the Washington Redskins' owners' typically flaccid reaction to justified irritation over their use of an offensive term.

So how the fuck is this obvious satire remotely offensive?  Who is taking it seriously instead of realizing what it's parodying?  Is this whole thing a PR ploy from Comedy Central?   Jesus wept.

[Subtle Mocking]

The joke isn't the asian racial slurs, it's mirroring the actions of the redskins. That's the entire point of it, pointing out how unacceptable what they were doing is.

Like fighting fire with fire, really. Plus, it helps if people can understand it without the context.

[Sexton Brackets Drugbust]

Like fighting fire with fire, really. Plus, it helps if people can understand it without the context.

There's the context that it's supposedly being tweeted by famous satirically right-wing character Stephen Colbert.

[Subtle Mocking]

It's weak satire. There's no getting around that. 

[Sexton Brackets Drugbust]

It's weak satire. There's no getting around that.

But you're aware it is satire.

No one's argued that it's ground breaking or rib tickling.

[Old Thrashbarg]

Like fighting fire with fire, really. Plus, it helps if people can understand it without the context.

Does it? OK then, let's try an experiment:

TRANNY

Now, you see, plenty of people find that word offensive. And despite you decrying the use of that word, when taking it out of context that meaning is lost.

[Thomas]

S'all a load of bother, I reckon. I'm sure there are loads of lines from Brass Eye you could condense into 140 characters and tweet, out of context, to an audience of offence.

Colbert, in character, uses an absurdly racist term to mirror some real-life bad racism. Satire - weak or otherwise - happens.

Then Twitter happens. This is the way the world ends: Not with a bang but a hashtag.

[Thursday]

Yes, but:

Bet it was a white person that made this, probably one of the white people contributing to the #cancelcolbert hashtag

[Mark Steels Stockbroker]

Colbert should just do Robin Hood parodies. That's proper satire.

[Noodle Lizard]

Plus, it helps if people can understand it without the context.

Like I did (see earlier posts before I knew the specific context).  Its intentions are obvious.

[George Oscar Bluth II]

http://time.com/42174/we-want-to-cancelcolbert/

The Cancel Colbert people explain why. Not very well.

Protip: saying "white liberals" and mentioning men a lot isn't a substitute for an argument.

[Sexton Brackets Drugbust]

http://time.com/42174/we-want-to-cancelcolbert/

The Cancel Colbert people explain why. Not very well.

Protip: saying "white liberals" and mentioning men a lot isn't a substitute for an argument.

Blimey. I'd really put an emphasis on the 'Not Very Well'.

[Urinal Cake]

I think she does a bit better here and makes the host looks like a cunt
http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/obama-tries-to-mend-ties-with-saudi-arabia/532b1c8cfe344439180006de
from 32:00 on

As someone said earlier Colbert poking fun at the transgendered is a bigger transgression. I've had it with 'rich liberals' offer nothing but a shit joke and some subpar commentary.

[Subtle Mocking]

Yeah, for a pair of comedians that seem to want to be seen as progressive and liberal and right-on, their mockery of trans women leaves a nasty taste:



I did notice that Colbert has had Janet Mock as a guest and has called out Piers Morgan on transphobia in the past few months, but that kind of ignores the fact that he is perhaps the biggest perpetrator of transphobia on US television.

[onthebeach]

Totally agree on going after him for his trans jokes. As a joke on the Redskins owner thinking he can evade controversy about their name by just helping some Native Americans out, it has worth. Read out of context it's definitely offensive but so are many other things that aren't actually offensive - his 'tranny' jokes are offensive in context.

[gabrielconroy]

Huh? Surely that transgender tweet is doing the opposite to mocking transgender people, since it's in the context of his character?

[Subtle Mocking]

His character also uses the T-slur an awful lot. Perpetrating that stuff in character is perpetrating it nonetheless.

[Squink]

he is perhaps the biggest perpetrator of transphobia on US television.

That's heartening news. It suggests transphobia is not at all a problem on US television.