If the creator of the video didn’t want me to jump to conclusions like that he (I’m just guessing – it was a guy, right?) should have used a better title.
above a quote from another on this page.
If suey park in the video didn’t want me to jump to conclusions that she was racist against white males in particular like that then she should have used different words and explained herself to the interview when she was given a chance by the interviewer instead of immediately going on twitter to spew lies about him as she “was being silenced” when she basically ended the interview not him.
You quote someone else in your reply to me, but I read her quitting of the “interview” differently. He wasn’t talking to her as a white man sincerely interested in hearing and understanding an Asian American woman’s point of view. Instead, he acted like a snarky asshole, bent on telling what he saw as a clueless minority woman how stupid she was being. His combination of mansplaining and whitesplaining was insufferable, and in her situation, I would have left too.
I understand you seem to have a little bit of a creepy man crush on me, but I’d still prefer if you stopped slightly altering my comments to use as your own.
I don’t consider him EDGY per se like the other guy, but I did like watching him do stand up on Carson and Letterman when that was all he did.
But I agree, I’ll take Bill Hicks over old Leno. Current, I’ll take Louis CK or Patton Oswalt.
I’m not convinced the narrator’s comments are satirical. He may be taking a ‘humurous’ approach, but I think what he’s saying accurately reflects his views.
He was interviewing her as an interviewer he is supposed to ask her to explain her point of view. Instead, she acted like a snarky asshole, bent on telling him that his opinion does not matter or is invalid because of his penis and amount of melanin in his skin and it is is ironic that he is called a clueless racist for telling her how stupid she was being for not understanding context of the satire because Colbert was a supporter of her cause.
“in her situation, I would have left too.”
no she refused to answer the question at all. Her opinion is empirically stupid even without the fact that he did no make the tweet.
You clearly don’t understand that she DID understand the context of satire (you really think she’s that stupid? for gods’ sake, she otherwise LIKES The Colbert Report, because she likes and understands his satire), nor the point she was trying to make (if that jerk would have just let her) that satiric regurgitation of racist caricatures is still racism – it regurgitates and recirculates racist ideas and imagery, and he made his satiric point about racism by using more racism. Not a good move, and for many, a hurtful one. How ironic for you to call her response stupid when yours shows so little comprehension of what she’s been saying.
Imagine, for instance, if Colbert had made his point about the racist team name with the n-word and associated imagery and caricatures instead. I’ve never seen Colbert in blackface – he knows its wrong. So why is yellowface okay? Oh right, because Asians supposedly don’t complain; actually, it’s more that people – people like you – don’t bother to listen when they do. So, when they do complain, they have to do so loudly, in exaggerated ways, like calling for the cancellation of Colbert, just to get attention to the cause of abolishing anti-Asian racism.
I don’t know, though, why I’m bothering to explain this to you. You clearly have white stuff clogging your ears. And btw, if you are a white guy, those two social statuses and how people react to them matter in your life, not your actual penis or the amount of melanin in your skin.
Do you honestly think the maker of the video had any intention of trying to understand Park’s point of view or helping others to understand that point of view? That is typically how interviews work. Or do you think his intention may have been to be adversarial from the beginning? That is, do you think it likely that the maker of the video already had a predetermined opinion about Park’s erm…advocacy or whatever it is and the whole thing was an effort to make Park look bad (worse, whatever)?
I’m not going to waste 12 minutes of my life figuring that out but it’s something for you to think about. If someone invited you to an interview in bad faith with the intention of making you look bad/stupid (worse/stupider than you did already, whatever) do you think you would sit through the whole thing?
Yeah, I do. There’s a difference between mocking bigots by satirizing their behavior (which IMHO Colbert did successfully on the recent show, e.g. “The transgendered community are never satisfied. Apparently, it’s not enough to treat them like women, now we have to treat them like human beings” worked really well), and using your conservative satire to get laughs from liberals on a non-gender-related topic by drawing on the supposedly-universal belief that transpeople are ridiculous.
I do understand what satire is, and you’re certainly free to interpret some of those jokes differently, but that’s what it looked like to me.
I’m not going to waste 12 minutes of my life figuring that out but it’s something for you to think about.
ahhahah you sir or madam lack context and content thus won’t enact the labor as suey put it. you really ought not respond someone calling them this and that till you atleast watch the video below there is no commentary just 5 minutes the person with plenty of time to write comments and not watch videos. you just keep saying the same thing over and over without knowledge of what transpired.
If someone invited you to an interview in bad faith with the intention of making you look bad/stupid (worse/stupider than you did already, whatever) do you think you would sit through the whole thing?
I have no idea what that picture is, or what “SJWS” stands for.
Not arguing with anything anyone’s saying, just saying that that part of the reply is just a big non-sequitur to me.
Not to endorse any particular point of view, but I believe SJWS is meant to be a plural of SJW, which is an acronym for “Social Justice Warriors” a (I believe) usually intended derogatory term for those who jump onto causes of social justice to (in the mind of people who use it, at least the ones who use it derogatorily) to an exaggerated and ridiculous degree.
The picture is a famous meme picture of a guy who’s point of view boils down to “I don’t understand it, therefore aliens.”
I believe the combination is either meant to indicate that these supposed SJW are equally ridiculous as aliens, or mock those CALLING OUT SJWs as doing it much like this guy does aliens. Sadly, those are two rather contradictory messages and I’m not sure which is intended (I believe it’s the latter, based on the post replied to), and I may be way off the mark.
Huh. I honestly thought I was more up on my “famous meme pictures.” Fail to pay attention for like 5 minutes and this is what happens…
(Also, the last time I paid much attention to anything involving “pseudoscience bullshit on the History Channel” was when I heard a narrator ask if some vanished Nazi had escaped in a time machine in a supposed “WWII Documentary.” I muttered, “no, he pretty definitely didn’t” and changed the channel.)
It seems that I’d know what SJWS stood for if I kept tabs on people similar to those who like throwing around the term “misandrist.” Not sure I regret not making that effort…
