• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Stephen Colbert - Racist

Corsair 115 said:
Let's accept that premise as correct. Would you not agree that sometimes that effort to foster good relations and sensitivity towards others may go too far or otherwise veer into ridiculousness?
Click to expand...

I would sometimes, but it's normally very noticeable. In this case, I'm not so sure...
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
They gave this woman the status of a columnist at Time?:eek: Her POV is very immature, and she is not that articulate.

Statements like this: "The marginalization of other voices is now complete," are just ignorant.

"We are not the problem. Your stereotypes and narrow roles for us are the problem." No, the problem is confusing satire meant to illustrate that stereotype with actual discrimination. Colbert is on your side, Suey.:rolleyes:

"Some Asian Americans were quick to protect the myth of our being a model minority. They disowned us and said we do not speak for them." Or they disowned you because you are ignorant.


It's sad. Women like this are the ones that give feminism a bad name, and Time is doing nothing more than selling controversy and scandal elevating this tripe instead of doing something to bring light to the difference between satire and actual discrimination.
Click to expand...

Suey Park is dangerous. Not because she's wrong - I actually think she's more correct than politically correct. But because she is immature and for someone who's supposed to be a communicator, organizer or writer has the worst time in, of all things, communicating! Her first Time piece on this topic was a horrid mishmash. The second piece is not that much better. And then blowing the interview with HuffPost is just inexcusable. Suey's little world centers far too much around Suey. That was her opportunity to stop playing to the sycophants and explain herself, even if the interviewer was hostile.

The only time she did a good job of explaining herself was in the Salon article, but in that she said things which are going to rile some people up, of course. Why? Because she stopped dancing around and actually answered questions. If those are her thoughts on these topics then at least we now have them available. But it shouldn't take two columns, seventy-five tweets and two interviews to figure it out. She reminds me of people like Abbie Hoffman who did things instinctively and then figured out later just what the hell he meant when he did or said whatever. Post Hoc rationalization.

I concur that she has a lot of growing up to do. But she has more work to do in refining her communications skills, too.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Suey Park is dangerous. Not because she's wrong - I actually think she's more correct than politically correct. But because she is immature and for someone who's supposed to be a communicator, organizer or writer has the worst time in, of all things, communicating! Her first Time piece on this topic was a horrid mishmash. The second piece is not that much better. And then blowing the interview with HuffPost is just inexcusable. Suey's little world centers far too much around Suey. That was her opportunity to stop playing to the sycophants and explain herself, even if the interviewer was hostile.

The only time she did a good job of explaining herself was in the Salon article, but in that she said things which are going to rile some people up, of course. Why? Because she stopped dancing around and actually answered questions. If those are her thoughts on these topics then at least we now have them available. But it shouldn't take two columns, seventy-five tweets and two interviews to figure it out. She reminds me of people like Abbie Hoffman who did things instinctively and then figured out later just what the hell he meant when he did or said whatever. Post Hoc rationalization.

I concur that she has a lot of growing up to do. But she has more work to do in refining her communications skills, too.
Click to expand...

I don't know the woman, but maybe she has a bit of the performance artist in her and uses the media as her canvas. It would explain a lot.
 
Allow me to vent.

As someone who knows Suey Park only from interviews and tweets, I can't help but perceive her as the epitome of everything I hate about the way the social justice movement oftentimes chooses to interact with the rest of the world. She's all about slogans, hashtags and important-sounding, but ultimately vacuous jargon. She puts forth her personal (and perpetual) state of offense as both an argument for and evidence of the validity of her position, and she bluntly, not to say *proudly* declares to have absolutely zero interest in anything resembling diplomatic action. She said she doesn't want to educate, even that she doesn't want the opposition on her side at all. Antagonizing "the enemy" doesn't seem to be a means to an end, but an end in itself in her effort to perpetuate and facilitate an incredibly senseless anger, while calling for a "revolution" she refuses to properly define.

Maybe she's putting on an act, like that time she changed her Twitter persona into a "dudebro" to make fun of the responses she got over #CancelColbert, but even if so, it's not an act that's actually helping anyone. Sure, being provocative and demanding the cancellation of a popular show got a conversation going, but it didn't lead to anything constructive. I feel like everyone involved only got more entrenched in their already held beliefs (myself included, shamefully enough), because she conducts herself in such a self-righteous, disagreeable manner while consistently failing to outline a specific goal she might be working towards.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Suey Park is dangerous. Not because she's wrong - I actually think she's more correct than politically correct. But because she is immature and for someone who's supposed to be a communicator, organizer or writer has the worst time in, of all things, communicating! Her first Time piece on this topic was a horrid mishmash. The second piece is not that much better. And then blowing the interview with HuffPost is just inexcusable. Suey's little world centers far too much around Suey. That was her opportunity to stop playing to the sycophants and explain herself, even if the interviewer was hostile.

The only time she did a good job of explaining herself was in the Salon article, but in that she said things which are going to rile some people up, of course. Why? Because she stopped dancing around and actually answered questions. If those are her thoughts on these topics then at least we now have them available. But it shouldn't take two columns, seventy-five tweets and two interviews to figure it out. She reminds me of people like Abbie Hoffman who did things instinctively and then figured out later just what the hell he meant when he did or said whatever. Post Hoc rationalization.

I concur that she has a lot of growing up to do. But she has more work to do in refining her communications skills, too.
Click to expand...

I don't think becoming a better communicator will make her any less crazy, hateful or racist. The lady is bat **** insane in the vein of a fundy teabagger.
 
Atwill said:
Allow me to vent.

As someone who knows Suey Park only from interviews and tweets, I can't help but perceive her as the epitome of everything I hate about the way the social justice movement oftentimes chooses to interact with the rest of the world. She's all about slogans, hashtags and important-sounding, but ultimately vacuous jargon. She puts forth her personal (and perpetual) state of offense as both an argument for and evidence of the validity of her position, and she bluntly, not to say *proudly* declares to have absolutely zero interest in anything resembling diplomatic action. She said she doesn't want to educate, even that she doesn't want the opposition on her side at all. Antagonizing "the enemy" doesn't seem to be a means to an end, but an end in itself in her effort to perpetuate and facilitate an incredibly senseless anger, while calling for a "revolution" she refuses to properly define.
Click to expand...

And yet I love her with a love that will not die.
 
marplots said:
From the link:
"The entertainment industry has perfected the development of white, cis, straight, male characters."

What does "cis" mean in that sentence? Her code words are sometimes hard to parse.
Click to expand...

Wait until she finds out he is a devout Catholic. Her head will explode.

I had to look cis up the other day.
 
Atwill said:
Allow me to vent.

As someone who knows Suey Park only from interviews and tweets, I can't help but perceive her as the epitome of everything I hate about the way the social justice movement oftentimes chooses to interact with the rest of the world. She's all about slogans, hashtags and important-sounding, but ultimately vacuous jargon. She puts forth her personal (and perpetual) state of offense as both an argument for and evidence of the validity of her position, and she bluntly, not to say *proudly* declares to have absolutely zero interest in anything resembling diplomatic action. She said she doesn't want to educate, even that she doesn't want the opposition on her side at all. Antagonizing "the enemy" doesn't seem to be a means to an end, but an end in itself in her effort to perpetuate and facilitate an incredibly senseless anger, while calling for a "revolution" she refuses to properly define.

Maybe she's putting on an act, like that time she changed her Twitter persona into a "dudebro" to make fun of the responses she got over #CancelColbert, but even if so, it's not an act that's actually helping anyone. Sure, being provocative and demanding the cancellation of a popular show got a conversation going, but it didn't lead to anything constructive. I feel like everyone involved only got more entrenched in their already held beliefs (myself included, shamefully enough), because she conducts herself in such a self-righteous, disagreeable manner while consistently failing to outline a specific goal she might be working towards.
Click to expand...

It is largely performance art... with a purpose. She's just not real good at it. Personally, I think she's pimping herself for a job as one of Colbert's writers. She fancies herself a comedy writer (no references to where/when she wrote comedy or for whom... anyone know where this comes from). She and Colbert probably agree on more than they disagree. Ironically, she proved her point about the lame racist joke by making a lame fake protest. Both fell flat and apparently no one got either one. Time to move on. Try something else if your material's not working, kids.
 
arthwollipot said:
See, here's the problem. You're attributing motives that aren't in evidence. You are saying that the purpose of so-called "political correctness" is to stifle art. It isn't.
Click to expand...

I agree with you there. That might be the result sometimes, but it isn't the intention. Now I wonder if you can agree that the motive behind opposition to so called "PC policing" (e.g. trying to someone fired or a show cancelled over a joke or opinion that offended some people) is not the desire to offend people and receive no negative feedback for it.
 
arthwollipot said:
See, here's the problem. You're attributing motives that aren't in evidence. You are saying that the purpose of so-called "political correctness" is to stifle art. It isn't. The purpose of so-called "political correctness" is to foster good relations and sensitivity towards other people. Art (and comedy) have nothing at all to do with it. People like you take this idea of sensitivity and turn it around so that it becomes a personal attack on you. It isn't.

I'm not trying to stifle art. I have never tried to stifle art, and I would never do so. I do, however, think that people should be more understanding of other peoples opinions and beliefs, and, yes, feelings.

Why do you feel that this is an attack? Have I hit a nerve?
Click to expand...

How is "#CancelColbert" not an attack?

It is clearly and obviously an attempt to limit the scope of comedy away from racial humor. That is stifling art. When was the last time you went to a comedy show? If you are okay with racial humor being part of the comedy spectrum come out and say it so we can be in agreement.
 
Last edited:
Travis said:
Yes, well how are you to bring attention to hypocrisy regarding racism through humor without a tool such as this?


In other words: how does Suey Park think concerned people should be tackling the "Redskins" issue? What is her road map to cultural awareness and change on this issue?
Click to expand...

If you don't strain to perceive a philosophy beyond self-promotion, you'll see that there is no spoon.
 
Last edited:
ThunderChunky said:
How is "#CancelColbert" not an attack?
Click to expand...
I wasn't referring to that. You seemed to be taking my words personally. Apologies for presumption if that was not true.

ThunderChunky said:
It is clearly and obviously an attempt to limit the scope of comedy away from racial humor. That is stifling art.
Click to expand...
No, it is not clearly and obviously that. It is clearly and obviously the action of a whackaloon with very little grasp on reality, the motive of whom isn't terribly clear. Or rational.

ThunderChunky said:
When was the last time you went to a comedy show?
Click to expand...
That's the second time you've asked that. The first time, I declined to answer because I didn't feel that it was relevant, and there was a chance that my answer would have been misleading.

I have never been to a comedy show (except Tim Minchin, once). But that's not because I don't like comedy. It's because I don't like going to any kind of shows. I don't go to concerts or movies either. They're not my thing. I don't like being around lots of people.

Like I said, you're likely to misinterpret this statement, but you seemed extra-keen on the answer, so there you go.

ThunderChunky said:
If you are okay with racial humor being part of the comedy spectrum come out and say it so we can be in agreement.
Click to expand...
Like I said, my opinion isn't particularly relevant to the discussion. And like most questions, the answer to this one is "it depends on how it's done". Most of the time I'd say that I don't find racial humour to be all that funny. But there are bound to be exceptions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom