|
raditts posted:Either way, if you're a SJW spamming that hash tag all over Twitter, not knowing the context at this point has to be willful ignorance, right? I can't find the tweet on the @ColbertReport twitter, so I dunno if the tweet linked to the full segment, but I mean if all you saw was that tweet, it's natural to take that as a really racist joke and not as the satire it was in the actual show. It's really presumptuous to assume that people are being willingly ignorant and looking for something to be mad about, when it's entirely reasonable that they reacted to what they saw and didn't look up the full segment.
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:09 |
|
|
That one segment he had with the Trans woman might not have helped in that regard either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Wind God Sety posted:I can't find the tweet on the @ColbertReport twitter, so I dunno if the tweet linked to the full segment, but I mean if all you saw was that tweet, it's natural to take that as a really racist joke and not as the satire it was in the actual show. It's really presumptuous to assume that people are being willingly ignorant and looking for something to be mad about, when it's entirely reasonable that they reacted to what they saw and didn't look up the full segment. Everyone has their own motivations for being a part of something like that. I'm sure a ton of people saw the ching-chong tweet and made drive-by comments about how lovely it was. They were well within their rights to do so; the tweet, divorced from context, was really bad. With how much time Internet Hashtag Activists spend online/on Twitter and with how easy the original material was to find, there's no way they (meaning a good number of #CancelColbert people, including Suey Park and almost anyone else with SJ Twitter-cachet - they literally tweet all day) didn't discover that the joke was 100% at the expense of Dan Snyder. And they doubled down. They still are. I find that fascinating, like so many other things I do not understand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
Wind God Sety posted:I can't find the tweet on the @ColbertReport twitter, so I dunno if the tweet linked to the full segment, but I mean if all you saw was that tweet, it's natural to take that as a really racist joke and not as the satire it was in the actual show. It's really presumptuous to assume that people are being willingly ignorant and looking for something to be mad about, when it's entirely reasonable that they reacted to what they saw and didn't look up the full segment. Yeah, but by the time a couple days have passed, normal people would say "Now why would Colbert post something so mind-bogglingly racist? Maybe I should look up more about this." I fully admit that I may be giving your average person on the internet too much credit, though. Justin_Brett posted:That one segment he had with the Trans woman might not have helped in that regard either. I don't remember him saying anything particularly offensive in that segment, did he?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Fat Lowtax posted:With how much time Internet Hashtag Activists spend online/on Twitter and with how easy the original material was to find, there's no way they (meaning a good number of #CancelColbert people, including Suey Park and almost anyone else with SJ Twitter-cachet - they literally tweet all day) didn't discover that the joke was 100% at the expense of Dan Snyder. And they doubled down. They still are. I find that fascinating, like so many other things I do not understand. I agree with this. I think Park probably had a kneejerk reaction to reading the tweet out of context, and then her ego basically caused her to ante up on the outrage. I can understand feeling offended by the joke, even in context, but come on. "Cancel Colbert?" gently caress you, Suey - it's people like you who give social justice activists a bad name.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Where Suey really hosed up is aligning herself with supercool racial profiling/internment apologist Michelle Malkin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
I'm kind of worried this situation will have Colbert step out of character and and explain the joke for people who didn't get that he was mocking the racially insensitive "Oh we'll just give these guys a backhoe, that will excuse our continuing with a horribly outdated racist football team name!". Though I'm not surprised they have no desire to change the name, idiot spots fans would freak out if they had to remember something new. It's hard enough remembering who's on what team.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:I'm kind of worried this situation will have Colbert step out of character and and explain the joke for people who didn't get that he was mocking the racially insensitive "Oh we'll just give these guys a backhoe, that will excuse our continuing with a horribly outdated racist football team name!". I expect him to say how can he be racist he has an asian friend.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
I always got the impression that Colbert enjoyed doing the Ching Chong Ding Dong impression more than he really should have. (Not the biggest fan of it, to be honest.) And I do think it's strange that Colbert keeps referencing "Asian Media Watch", which isn't a real organization as far as I can tell. But this week's bit though is hardly a "last straw" bit, considering how he didn't actually do the impression; but only played a clip of it. I'll admit I follow Suey Park on Twitter, and agree with her more than the typical goon. I'm reluctant to dismiss her despite her really short fuse. (I really liked the #NotYourAsianSidekick hashtag she started, for example.) I hope this controversy can die down with as little bad blood as possible. It's already a "trending" story according to Facebook and Bing at least. I guess it's a tough spot to be in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:I'm kind of worried this situation will have Colbert step out of character and and explain the joke for people who didn't get that he was mocking the racially insensitive "Oh we'll just give these guys a backhoe, that will excuse our continuing with a horribly outdated racist football team name!". From what I've seen, Colbert's usual response to this sort of thing is to ignore it and move on. Which is the correct response, IMO. But then I don't follow Twitter, so I've probably missed things in the pass.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:I always got the impression that Colbert enjoyed doing the Ching Chong Ding Dong impression more than he really should have. (Not the biggest fan of it, to be honest.) And I do think it's strange that Colbert keeps referencing "Asian Media Watch", which isn't a real organization as far as I can tell. Did he do Ching Chong Ding Dong more than once? I only remember it from one occasion, the clip he played on this week's show. I was under the impression that "Ching Chong Ding Dong is a regular beloved character" was part of the joke, and the fictional "Asian media watch" hounding him about it was part of said joke (I figured that the Ching Chong Ding Dong letterhead thing was a giveaway) but it's been years, I could be forgetting things. VVV ah. My mistake. Ainsley McTree fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Mar 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:Did he do Ching Chong Ding Dong more than once? I only remember it from one occasion, the clip he played on this week's show.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
raditts posted:I don't remember him saying anything particularly offensive in that segment, did he? No, I don't think so, other than his usual devil's advocate type of role. He was very forthcoming and affable, even towards stuff like her insistence that you shouldn't use gendered pronouns around children. (note: I don't mean to open a  over that, I don't feel strongly about it, I just thought it was kind of an absurd thing to say)
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
As a Chinese guy, "Ching Chong Ding Dong" has made me uncomfortable before, but this tweet I immediately understood as being targeted at Dan Snyder and his lovely defense of the Washington Redskins team name. I don't think I'd even be offended by this one without an understanding of the exact context, it's so transparently a take on lovely right-wingers making nonapologies when getting caught saying something offensive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:
She comes across as a total twit. She got into an exchange with Steven Yeun and basically said, "How can it be satire if people on the internet are threatening to rape and kill me  " as if she doesn't understand how the internet works. Just because bad people online say bad things to her doesn't make her point valid, but she's literally spent the entire day arguing this and retweeting everyone who supports her. I mean, I guess someone who spends their whole day on twitter is bound to be a self-aggrandizing publicity monger, and it definitely comes across she is more interested in defending herself than whatever cause she was trying to start here.I love her interview with Huff Post Live: "I feel like it’s incredibly patronizing for you to paint these questions this way, especially as a white man. I don’t expect you to be able to understand what people of color are actually seeing with regard to #CancelColbert." "Just because I'm white doesn't mean I'm not able to think." "White people are entitled to talk over me, to minimize my opinion." "No one is minimizing your opinion, It's just a stupid opinion". 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
I don't disagree that this might be the best way maintain the peace. And if this happens, it's probably best if Stephen doesn't aggressively stay in character and he lets her speak.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
DutchDupe posted:She comes across as a total twit. She got into an exchange with Steven Yeun and basically said, "How can it be satire if people on the internet are threatening to rape and kill me Twitter has to be the worst possible medium for this. I mean, if she had come out and said "Now I know this is meant to be satire, but I have an issue with the the language being used regardless" then maybe something could have come of it. But that wouldn't get enough retweets, so it goes straight to #CancelColbert. Then she's an Asian women and the internet is the internet, so of course there's going to be mountains of horrible poo poo piled on top of her, and by that point there's no turning back. There are only people who agree with her and people who support the people who send rape/death threats to her. Reasonable, thoughtful activists like Steven Yeun and Jeff Yang have tried to walk her back but by the time reasonable thoughtful people catch wind of Twitter explosions it's too late.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
DutchDupe posted:She comes across as a total twit. She got into an exchange with Steven Yeun and basically said, "How can it be satire if people on the internet are threatening to rape and kill me ...If that is her logic, that partly seems like an inability to distinguish Colbert from his fanbase as well. Which, admittedly, can be a bit understandable - since by the base logic of it, to be a fan of something, it must appeal to you in some fashion. The inverse however, is not true, in that just because Colbert's fans may think or feel something, doesn't mean that Colbert himself does. And in this case, his original remark would be satire, whilst the more aggressive of his 'defenders' would likely get a stern talking to from the man himself if he found out about it. Probably the thing that more irks me than anything else about this, and admittedly its a bit on a tangent from the actual subject matter itself, but how she claims that a 'white man' can't understand how a person of colour feels with regards to her issues. Because clearly, all minorities of a different skin colour must feel the same about racially satire based on a particular sub-culture and ethnicity within the very, very broad definition of 'asian'. And that anybody who has white skin couldn't possibly understand being made fun of by a stereotype that mocks the way they speak. Not as if there's a whole continent of them with differing cultural backgrounds and accents with a decent amount of immigration...
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:I don't disagree that this might be the best way maintain the peace. The best way would be not to dignify idiots on twitter who are screaming for your show's cancellation because they refuse to understand satire.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
raditts posted:The best way would be not to dignify idiots on twitter who are screaming for your show's cancellation because they refuse to understand satire. I've defended Stewart and Colbert against the D&D critics. I highly doubt Colbert wanted the "controversy", for lack of a better word, to escalate this much. And even if someone was wrong to call you out, it wouldn't hurt to tell your worst defenders (people making rape threats or turning this into another faux free speech "limits of comedy" issue) to disarm. Echo Chamber fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Mar 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
DutchDupe posted:I love her interview with Huff Post Live: Jesus this was almost painful to watch. I feel bad for this lady. Someone needs to get it through her head: Yes racism exists. Yes racism targeting asians is real and wrong. Admitting you hulked out on twitter because of a tweet with no context makes you look like less of a jackass than doubling down on your outrage. Echo Chamber posted:I also see plenty of people "refusing to understand" her point. What is her point? Not a snarky question, honest - from what I've read, I just can't discern if she has a cogent point to make.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
UltraShame posted:What is her point? Not a snarky question, honest - from what I've read, I just can't discern if she has a cogent point to make. This, and no good has ever come out of a TV show acknowledging its internet following (except maybe to mock it). The last time Stephen acknowledged the internet, he did a shout out to bronies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
UltraShame posted:What is her point? Not a snarky question, honest - from what I've read, I just can't discern if she has a cogent point to make. Colbert creates organization with a racist name it's obviously understood as satirical, but calls to cancel Colbert is read as literal. And Colbert isn't above criticism anyway. And the combine that with how Suey Park doesn't have the habit of sanitizing her opinions to make them more palatable with white liberals. People like Michelle Malkin (gently caress that lady) have contorted it to her agenda. Other bloggers who want their paycheck also escalated the story with headlines like "Gook doesn't understand comedy".
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
Tarezax posted:As a Chinese guy, "Ching Chong Ding Dong" has made me uncomfortable before, but this tweet I immediately understood as being targeted at Dan Snyder and his lovely defense of the Washington Redskins team name. I don't think I'd even be offended by this one without an understanding of the exact context, it's so transparently a take on lovely right-wingers making nonapologies when getting caught saying something offensive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:And the combine that with how Suey Park doesn't have the habit of sanitizing her opinions to make them more palatable with white liberals. What part of her opinion would need or benifit from "sanitizing"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
I have been following this nontroversy since it started and I don't really get all of the hand-wringing over whether Beloved Internet Activist Suey Park Has Gone Too Far This Time. Suey Park is and has always been a disingenuous, self-aggrandizing outrage peddler. The only people who really should be surprised about this are people outside of the Twitter activist sphere who are maybe only passingly familiar with her prior to now. This is what she does and I can't fault her for it. Suey Park is developing herself as a brand, and her brand relies on ratcheting up the noise. She can't admit she was wrong about anything because constant escalation is the only way to distinguish herself from the legions of identical bloggers waiting in the wings to supplant her the second she says or does something "problematic" enough to lose a critical mass of followers. Whether or not she understood the satire is irrelevant. She's certainly smart enough to know that Colbert is satire, but for the purposes of her brand she doesn't (can't) care about that. All of this is a means to an end, the end being the continued promotion and elevation of Suey Park as an opinion leader. She's combative and hair-trigger because, again, constant escalation-- she needs to keep her followers from getting bored or used to her and moving to a new flavor of the month, so she has to find bigger and bigger targets and make more and more noise. I think perhaps she does have some interest in issues of social justice, but like most social justice activists on the Internet, actually working towards that justice plays a distant second fiddle to self-promotion, acquiring power and influence, and turning the hose of public opinion against anyone who looks vulnerable or slips up. In a universe much like ours where a butterfly in the Amazon flapped its wings a second later, Suey Park is an iconoclastic music critic for Pitchfork who gave Yeezus a 1.2 as a way of daring the music blogosphere to talk about her. Or maybe she's a lit critic who wrote an article on how Khaled Hosseini is the "most overrated author of the 2000s." She knows that a large number of not-terribly-reflective people judge your argument based on who's on "your side" (nobody wants to be nodding along to the guy in the Klan hood) and so being as intentionally provocative as possible, and picking targets beloved of the white male Redditor demo, is sure to draw tons of seethingly hateful and racist criticism down on her head-- buoying her argument and building her cred. She certainly didn't anticipate being lauded by the reactionary right, who have hated Colbert for a while but not had any "in" to safely burn him until now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:A Very Good Post You have both educated me and hardened my heart. We should both feel conflicted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
This thread enlightened me that people still look to Park as anything but an embarrassing pure outrage machine. The only thing cares for is her status as a Twitter activist (very prestigious), so yea I doubt she cares that she took the side of a chick that said the Japanese camps were good. I'm not saying she straight doesn't care about Asian community representation, but it's been second to her own e-fame for a bit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
I've never heard of this woman until now, what else has she done like this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 13:47
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I've never heard of this woman until now, what else has she done like this? Well, her most famous "accomplishment" is the #notyourasiansidekick movement. Which was... basically, 24 hours of anger about tokenism, with no solutions proposed and no viewpoints on progress entertained. The whole thing has sort of entered leftist popular consciousness as some watershed moment of intersectional feminism, when in fact it was the furthest thing from it-- Park spent most of it trying to pick fights with feminists who were supporting her ("I don't want a seat at the white feminism table"). And while that's a valud statement against tokenism, the starkness of her position basically makes any engagement with anyone who's not already part of her following impossible, which is of course the goal. "[T]his country was created for and by rich white men … We need to lean away from seeking recognition from white people and instead think ‘How can we create something new?'" A true statement about institutional racism, but couched in a way to prevent any kind of engagement with the system. It's no coincidence that she always talks about her campaigns as "a starting point" for discussion, but never seems interested in going beyond that point, she just creates starting point after starting point with increasingly confrontational language and themes (#blackpoweryellowperil). Her lack of commitment to actual issues of justice is borne out by her seeming lack of interest in joining any of the discussions she seems so interested in creating. Finally, she's also basically just straight up out of the tumblr culture-- she's verbatim tweeted "only white people can be racist," and has the bizarre fantasies of persecution that seem common to that community-- she believes that Twitter has it out for her personally and doesn't like it when her hashtags trend, and she views her time in twitter jail as a conscious attempt by admins to silence her brave voice. She is not a good person. Hell, palling around with Aura Bogado, Amanda Levitt, Mikki Kendall et al speaks volumes about her integrity as an activist, none of it good. EDIT: Further evidence: Park doesn't honestly care if she's advancing issues of justice, only if she's getting attention. She doesn't just happen to be on the same side as Michelle Malkin, she actively associates with her. If she genuinely cared about social progress she'd be putting as much distance between herself and Malkin as possible by explaining what exactly differs about their views on Colbert, race and social justice. NOPE. Malkin's got a huge twitter following, and Park wants summa dat. 
DAD LOST MY IPOD fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Mar 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
Can't stop laughing at the assertion that Michelle Malkin is a "reasonable person." If anything should prove you shouldn't give a poo poo about this Suey Park lady, that's gotta be it right there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
Seriously, anyone who even remotely takes her serious when she chooses to align herself with these kind of people are a joke themselves. Malkin doesn't care about Asian-American issues. She cares about finding new ways to attack liberals, and using the "race card" has always been a conservative favourite since they feel the left does that to them all the time. Suey Park and Michelle Malkin both have ulterior, self-serving motives and they both appeal to two different kinds of morons on the political spectrum. A part of me really wants Colbert to address this, because this would be a perfect thing to make fun of and satirize. This social media, ignorance fueled void where everyone is yelling at each other and accomplishing nothing on twitter is a sad state of affairs of how online popular discourse takes place. Yet again, if he just ignores it the whole thing will die down within days. Which really is another critique on this whole hashtag activist bullshit. It literally accomplishes nothing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
It would almost be worth having Suey on the report, just to drag her out of her twitter safe zone, but overall I think it would be better if he didn't have her on or spend too much time addressing it, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I've never heard of this woman until now, what else has she done like this? I've never heard of her either, but she sure did accomplish making me think she's an attention whoring idiot with this. The Redskins skit wasn't even anything remarkable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:I don't disagree that this might be the best way maintain the peace. Why? This will be gone in a week. Park's entire ladder-climbing agenda requires her to find bigger and bigger fish to fry. Suey got her name out there, which was the entire point, and now a few more people know who she is: Mission Accomplished. Colbert gains nothing by having her on the show.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
The whole thing feels like getting upset at say, Mississippi Burning for using the N word regularly. Or anyone else that gets upset that something that bigoted in some way is used in a context thats attacking said beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
I remember my first exposure to Suey Park when she was doing an interview on NPR, right after the asian sidekick thing took off. I ended up having to forcibly eject most of what she was saying because I knew it would just make me angry if I dwelled on it. I make it a rule not to change the station just because I disagree with a guest (although I will change it if I just find them uninteresting), but drat if she didn't make it hard. Edit: I'm pretty sure she used the 'only white people can be racist' line on the air, as well. Downside of NPR is they have the softest interviews in the business, unless the guest is specifically asking for a fight (i.e. Bill O'Rielly). Paper Kaiju fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Mar 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
I didn't want to know any of this. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:I don't disagree that this might be the best way maintain the peace. The best way to handle idiots on the internet is to ignore them, not give them a massive platform. The idea of them agreeing to have her on the show is laughable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:09 |
|
|
ComposerGuy posted:Why? This exactly. She got what she wanted, which is a wider audience. Witness: all of these people in the thread going "I'd never heard of Suey Park, but she sure is an idiot!" Well, now you've heard of her, and maybe the next time she pulls a stunt like this you'll angrily tweet back at her followers, or discuss her on a message board like we're doing here. So groweth the brand of Suey Park. She is like a leftist Sarah Palin-- media-savvy enough to target her appeal tightly at a specific market, and conscious of her value as a brand. Whether she believes in what she's saying is irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 20:33
|
|