[News] Satirical News Show Clips

I decided to just put a John Oliver clip in this thread and change the name and scope rather than start a separate thread for Oliver's stuff.

So just put any video stuff in here; Samantha Bee, John Oliver, Seth Green, etc.

I wouldn't go that far. Samantha Bee and Jon Stewart are both guilty of homophobic and transphobic jokes.

In this case, I don't think the problem was with Colbert's audience. His audience liked and shared the joke. It's conservatives looking for a gotcha that feigned offense that made this a story. I don't believe the liberals that watched and shared this joke took at homophobic, because that doesn't make sense, even if it would just to be avoiding the conservative gotcha.

Jayhawker wrote:
RoughneckGeek wrote:

The joke isn't funny. It is homophobic.

I don't think the joke was homophobic.

Don't do that.

OG_slinger wrote:

I like the part where the Trump supporters who called everyone who didn't agree with them cucks are now clutching their pearls over Colbert's comment.

I'm not sure if it's worse that you equated casual kink shaming to outright homophobia or that you managed to do so in a sexist way.

RoughneckGeek wrote:

The response has been a far cry from it's okay because a liberal did it as Norman is implying.

Hmmmm... Well, let's just say the clip wasn't originally posted here as a cautionary tale about well meaning jokes, was it?

Plus, I have the feeling that we wouldn't even be discussing it right now if I hadn't said something.

I may have erred a bit, but better to do so in defense of progressive thought, I think.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

"LOL TRUMP IS TOTALLY GAY HE'S A BUTT PIRATE LOL"

*liberal audience cheers and high fives*

I mean, we can try and take issue with this, but this is literally what happened. The audience went wild. Not really going to #NotAllLiberals on this one, it's just a real bad look all around.

Norman gets a very high ROI from his trolling.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

Norman gets a very high ROI from his trolling.

Exactly my thinking. You guys are like "Squirrel!" now.

I'm just shocked that everyone in the real America (Continental 48) let Colbert's callous slur against the Heartland slide.

Spoiler:

Prick-Tater?! Really Colbert? Shame! I stand with Idaho.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

Norman gets a very high ROI from his trolling.

Most wrote:

Exactly my thinking. You guys are like "Squirrel!" now.

Hey guys there's a report button at the top of each post, feel free to use that instead of posting about it.

Although the idea that calling out a disgusting joke that hurts an already marginalized group of people would be considered "trolling" on this board seems a bit out of character - perhaps something about the underlying message touched a nerve.

Colbert's joke was in poor taste and he shouldn't have said that. It's kind of hard to get the outrage going over that when, you know, the House voted yesterday on a bill that would kill thousands if passed and provides no benefits other than more money to the richest. One that's pretty much openly discriminatory towards marginalized classes. But yeah, a joke is bad too.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

Norman gets a very high ROI from his trolling.

Most wrote:

Exactly my thinking. You guys are like "Squirrel!" now.

Hey guys there's a report button at the top of each post, feel free to use that instead of posting about it.

Were the report buttons missing over their posts?

House Republicans Pass Trumpcare: A Closer Look

NormanTheIntern wrote:
H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

Norman gets a very high ROI from his trolling.

Most wrote:

Exactly my thinking. You guys are like "Squirrel!" now.

Hey guys there's a report button at the top of each post, feel free to use that instead of posting about it.

Although the idea that calling out a disgusting joke that hurts an already marginalized group of people would be considered "trolling" on this board seems a bit out of character - perhaps something about the underlying message touched a nerve.

Meh. I will tell you when I care enough.

I like it when those who gripe about "Political Correctness run amok" get the vapors when it suits their purposes. My general rule of thumb when it comes to outrage is to know the source and intent ... in this case I know enough of Colbert to know that he has nothing but love for the gay community so I keep that in mind when I listen to what he says. I am aware that my white male privilege clouds my judgement so I try to be aware of the impact of my words when mouthing off but people will take offense if that's what they are looking for regardless of your intent. So in the case of Colbert it was funny as hell and in no way directed at the gay community.

PissedYeti wrote:

I like it when those who gripe about "Political Correctness run amok" get the vapors when it suits their purposes. My general rule of thumb when it comes to outrage is to know the source and intent ... in this case I know enough of Colbert to know that he has nothing but love for the gay community so I keep that in mind when I listen to what he says.

Varying degrees of outrage and/or acceptability for the same statement based on the partisanship of the speaker is literally the definition of "political correctness run amok". Applying those standards inconsistently is ultimately detrimental to the reason speech should be thoughtfully considered.

Yeah, my perspective on the joke is pretty much in line with what Jayhawker described-- fellatio isn't a gendered action, but it does imply a power dynamic between participants, and that was what I inferred from Colbert's joke. Any gendered read on the comment is inference, not implication-- in other words, if the takeaway is that the joke is homophobic in nature, that's on the audience, not the comedian.

Even by the fact that he referred to Trump as a "holster" (as in a "gun holster," "gun" being a pretty obvious symbol of power, and a gun holster being subservient to the gun), I personally missed the homophobic reference, though the string of logic leading to that idea is obvious now that I think about it.

That said, yeah-- Colbert as well should have seen that line of thought and maybe avoided it before he made the joke, but I don't fault him for expecting some critical thinking from his audience of adult humans.

RoughneckGeek wrote:

I'm so glad a handful of straight men can tell me that their isn't additional degradation aimed at gay men who are the receptive partner during sex and that this joke doesn't reinforce that while putting Trump in that role.

I'm so glad no one ever actually reads what I write.

I didn't say there isn't additional degradation-- I said I didn't see it, but that on further thought I do and that Colbert should have as well.

So thanks for putting words in my mouth.

As someone who both enjoys rolling my eyes a bit at the right-wing pearl clutching that sprouts up from time to time and as someone who has been known to smoke a pole or two (as the kids say), let me please remind everyone that it's in really poor taste to tell someone that their offense is fake. Colbert's joke didn't really offend me. It surprised me a bit, because it was a bit of a jolt from his usual tone and style. But that's me. I'm not going to tell other people who have been ridiculed all their lives for being "sissy boys" or "not real men" or "foghats" (watch me slip the filter!) because of which sorts of genitalia they prefer to play harmonica on.

You don't get to make comments like that and say, "there's no homophobia there". You don't get to defend those comments and say "hey that's on you if you see homophobia" especially when comments exactly like that one have been thrown at the person you're talking to all their lives. Serious or not. What I do find likely is that the joke was aimed more at the idea of Putin using Trump as a tool, but that intent doesn't obliterate any very obvious, very well-worn associations.

I personally give Colbert the benefit of the doubt on intent here, given his track record. I'm not going to fault someone else for not doing that, though, and it's kinda crappy when people who don't have to deal with this sort of thing start to judge just how real the offense is.

If you want to say "you aren't really that upset", you better have actual reasons to say that. People who cry "what about the children" but set fire to orphanages have a legitimate reason to have their concern questioned. People who have been repeatedly mocked, othered, pushed aside, and demeaned for just being how they are in a way that hurts no one have a very legitimate cause to be upset about this.

Plus Foghat was a great band!

Bloo Driver wrote:

As someone who both enjoys rolling my eyes a bit at the right-wing pearl clutching that sprouts up from time to time

They're acting so feminine and frail.

WipEout wrote:

Yeah, my perspective on the joke is pretty much in line with what Jayhawker described-- fellatio isn't a gendered action, but it does imply a power dynamic between participants, and that was what I inferred from Colbert's joke. Any gendered read on the comment is inference, not implication-- in other words, if the takeaway is that the joke is homophobic in nature, that's on the audience, not the comedian.

Even by the fact that he referred to Trump as a "holster" (as in a "gun holster," "gun" being a pretty obvious symbol of power, and a gun holster being subservient to the gun), I personally missed the homophobic reference, though the string of logic leading to that idea is obvious now that I think about it.

That said, yeah-- Colbert as well should have seen that line of thought and maybe avoided it before he made the joke, but I don't fault him for expecting some critical thinking from his audience of adult humans.

Literally every single part of this post blows my mind.

First paragraph: Gender is inference? He's literally talking about two men. What the f*ck are you on about?

Second paragraph: Yeah, c*ck holster absolutely was referring to the power of a gun. Again what in the world are you talking about? It's 100% about sex.

Third paragraph: The idea that Colbert's act requires critical thinking is laughably off base. The entire point of comedy shows like that is to reduce complex things down to amusing sound bites that don't require thought.

The amount of effort you will go to avoid to the idea that maybe you thought something homophobic is funny is astronomical.

Side note: The oral sex requires a power dynamic thing multiple people have referenced worries me too, but that's a whole other thing.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

As someone who both enjoys rolling my eyes a bit at the right-wing pearl clutching that sprouts up from time to time

They're acting so feminine and frail.

I understand what you're trying to do, here, but really even you should be able to see how bad you're reaching.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Varying degrees of outrage and/or acceptability for the same statement based on the partisanship of the speaker is literally the definition of "political correctness run amok". Applying those standards inconsistently is ultimately detrimental to the reason speech should be thoughtfully considered.

And you seriously believe that both sides don't do this almost constantly?

RoughneckGeek wrote:
PissedYeti wrote:

I like it when those who gripe about "Political Correctness run amok" get the vapors when it suits their purposes. My general rule of thumb when it comes to outrage is to know the source and intent ... in this case I know enough of Colbert to know that he has nothing but love for the gay community so I keep that in mind when I listen to what he says. I am aware that my white male privilege clouds my judgement so I try to be aware of the impact of my words when mouthing off but people will take offense if that's what they are looking for regardless of your intent. So in the case of Colbert it was funny as hell and in no way directed at the gay community.

Yes, I spend my days hunting through content just looking for something to be offended by. Doesn't everyone?

Speaking as a gay man and as I already stated above, the joke was homophobic. I also didn't find it funny... mostly because I don't find much of anything Colbert does funny. You can find it hilarious, but attempts to handwave away that the joke is homophobic are insulting at best.

The bolded part directly contradicts your statement about being aware of how your privilege impacts your judgement.

Making a joke with a gay connotation does not equal homophobia, in my opinion. Apologies if what I said offended you but I don't take much too seriously. You may not find Colbert funny and if you already have your defenses at the ready (and for very good reason, I know) then there is nothing I can say that will make you understand where I am coming from on this. If I know the person making the joke does not actually believe in what they are saying then I have a hard time finding offense in it. But I personally make a lot of self-deprecating jokes so I may not be the best judge of this.

Serious question - at what point do we stop arguing about this issue? He said a joke, the next day he apologized for it and we are still debating it. Is there an expiration on being outraged? Does it just last until the next celebrity says something offensive?

farley3k wrote:

Serious question - at what point do we stop arguing about this issue? He said a joke, the next day he apologized for it and we are still debating it. Is there an expiration on being outraged? Does it just last until the next celebrity says something offensive?

Yeah, people are just "outraged" and not exasperated about having to deal yet the f again with legitimate concerns being dismissed.

Jesus, what even is this thread?

/jetpack

Bloo Driver wrote:

As someone who both enjoys rolling my eyes a bit at the right-wing pearl clutching that sprouts up from time to time and as someone who has been known to smoke a pole or two (as the kids say), let me please remind everyone that it's in really poor taste to tell someone that their offense is fake. Colbert's joke didn't really offend me. It surprised me a bit, because it was a bit of a jolt from his usual tone and style. But that's me. I'm not going to tell other people who have been ridiculed all their lives for being "sissy boys" or "not real men" or "foghats" (watch me slip the filter!) because of which sorts of genitalia they prefer to play harmonica on.

You don't get to make comments like that and say, "there's no homophobia there". You don't get to defend those comments and say "hey that's on you if you see homophobia" especially when comments exactly like that one have been thrown at the person you're talking to all their lives. Serious or not. What I do find likely is that the joke was aimed more at the idea of Putin using Trump as a tool, but that intent doesn't obliterate any very obvious, very well-worn associations.

I personally give Colbert the benefit of the doubt on intent here, given his track record. I'm not going to fault someone else for not doing that, though, and it's kinda crappy when people who don't have to deal with this sort of thing start to judge just how real the offense is.

If you want to say "you aren't really that upset", you better have actual reasons to say that. People who cry "what about the children" but set fire to orphanages have a legitimate reason to have their concern questioned. People who have been repeatedly mocked, othered, pushed aside, and demeaned for just being how they are in a way that hurts no one have a very legitimate cause to be upset about this.

This I get ... and if I know something I say will hurt someone then I will absolutely avoid saying it. And I'm not accusing anyone here of purposely looking to take offense although I have met people just like that. My main point was that I love when those who talk about PC gone wild turn around and get the vapors when it is something they care about or have an axe to grind.

Bloo Driver wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

As someone who both enjoys rolling my eyes a bit at the right-wing pearl clutching that sprouts up from time to time

They're acting so feminine and frail.

I understand what you're trying to do, here, but really even you should be able to see how bad you're reaching.

No, I feel ashamed at my faux and womanly misuse of emotional hysterics, as you intended.

Bloo Driver wrote:

Yeah, people are just "outraged" and not exasperated about having to deal yet the f again with legitimate concerns being dismissed.

Jesus, what even is this thread?

/jetpack

I am sorry you took offense, seriously. But I do think it is a ligit question. When someone says something stupid, then apologizes what happens? We keep bashing them for saying something stupid? We just say "fine" and move on?

Both options seem too cut and dried. We should discuss it, we should try to point it out so others know more about how offensive it is. But at some point I think it is fair to ask when it ends.

farley3k wrote:

I am sorry you took offense, seriously. But I do think it is a legit question. When someone says something stupid, then apologizes what happens? We keep bashing them for saying something stupid? We just say "fine" and move on?

Both options seem too cut and dried. We should discuss it, we should try to point it out so others know more about how offensive it is. But at some point I think it is fair to ask when it ends.

(edit) There's a whole lot to unpack when it comes to the intersection of power and sex and gender.

How much is someone's apology really worth without an understanding of what that someone is actually apologizing for?