[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.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
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.

Not to be a social justice dragonwarrior, but 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?

Which is why I said "Both options seem too cut and dried" There does need to be discussion about it but I don't think it is unacceptable to ask if the discussion is no longer discussing but simply continuing to fight.

farley3k wrote:

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.

We're not talking about the original joke or Colbert, for the most part. We're talking about the absurd defenses of the jokes that people who are not Colbert won't stop making. Colbert apologizing sounds good to me, I'm not really upset with him at this point. I am upset with people trying to deny the homophobia and claim false outrage and mock people for thinking they could possibly laugh at something inappropriate.

I am especially upset about telling gay people what is and isn't homophobic.

Edit: Oh he didn't really apologize. At all. So that's a bummer, but still not really the story here.

farley3k wrote:

There does need to be discussion about it but I don't think it is unacceptable to ask if the discussion is no longer discussing but simply continuing to fight.

I would say we're not even close to reaching any kind of tipping point. (edit) really, I don't even think there are things called 'discussions'. There are just fights. Some make the world better, some make the world worse. That's the only question worth asking.

Alright, so once again people are cherry-picking things I wrote, so I'll answer this then step away.

SixteenBlue wrote:
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?

Performing Fellatio isn't gendered-- guy or girl or any other gender, anyone can do it. The fact that Colbert was talking about two men is gendered, though. I was only latching on to the BJ joke, and so didn't initially consider it a gender-specific joke-- especially given that I was considering the old power dynamic pretense of jokes about blowjobs (and also that he didn't seem to denigrate Trump or Putin for being gay, just that Putin held power over Trump).

What I was thinking was inferred was the homophobia of the joke. In my mind, the implication wasn't that it was two men, it was that one person was subservient to the other. That's why I said that on second thought, that inference is obvious enough that I agree that the joke shouldn't have been said, and is indeed deserving of being called homophobic.

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.

See above. I was just explaining my thought process and why I asked the question to begin with, since I considered the joke in a different light.

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.

I still see Stephen Colbert as "Colbert Report" Colbert, in which we were absolutely required to think critically to understand what the satire was implying. Sorry, I could have worded that better.

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

Please! Explain to me how I'm avoiding anything, since I already articulated my thought process, how I missed what should have been so obvious, and how Colbert shouldn't have missed it either. Bonus points if you can tell me how my opinion is forcing anyone else to agree to a thought process that I already wrote off as wrong-headed.

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

If anyone here is implying that oral sex specifically requires a power dynamic, I missed it. I'm saying that jokes about oral sex usually imply a power dynamic as a denigration of the person performing oral sex. I don't personally believe oral sex itself has the same implications, and I would hope that you get that.

WipEout wrote:

Alright, so once again people are cherry-picking things I wrote

No, I think people are trying to point out to you that "the old power dynamic pretense of jokes about blowjobs" isn't free from considerations of gender and sexual orientation--the power dynamic pretense that joke is built on involves equally old ideas about gender and sexual orientation.

In other words, I think you're trying to say "it's not built on ideas A and B, which are objectionable--it's built on idea C, which isn't." What people are trying to tell you is that idea C gets its meaning from ideas A and B in the first place.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
WipEout wrote:

Alright, so once again people are cherry-picking things I wrote

No, I think people are trying to point out to you that "the old power dynamic pretense of jokes about blowjobs" isn't free from considerations of gender and sexual orientation--the power dynamic pretense that joke is built on involves equally old ideas about gender and sexual orientation.

In other words, I think you're trying to say "it's not built on ideas A and B, which are objectionable--it's built on idea C, which isn't." What people are trying to tell you is that idea C gets its meaning from ideas A and B in the first place.

Which would be warranted if I hadn't already agreed and explained how I understood that point. Instead what I see is SixteenBlue swearing at me for articulating how exactly I reached a wrong conclusion (apparently they skipped the part where I said the homophobic reference is obvious once I gave it more thought and it should have been avoided), and RoughneckGeek is repeatedly implying that I'm defending homophobia (in spite of the fact that I agreed the joke was homophobic, I approached it with a wrong mindset, and that it shouldn't have been made in the first place).

So, again: cherry-picking. Thanks, though, for considering the rest of my post before explaining to me AGAIN how wrong I was.

WipEout wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:
WipEout wrote:

Alright, so once again people are cherry-picking things I wrote

No, I think people are trying to point out to you that "the old power dynamic pretense of jokes about blowjobs" isn't free from considerations of gender and sexual orientation--the power dynamic pretense that joke is built on involves equally old ideas about gender and sexual orientation.

In other words, I think you're trying to say "it's not built on ideas A and B, which are objectionable--it's built on idea C, which isn't." What people are trying to tell you is that idea C gets its meaning from ideas A and B in the first place.

Which would be warranted if I hadn't already agreed and explained how I understood that point. Instead what I see is SixteenBlue swearing at me for articulating how exactly I reached a wrong conclusion (apparently they skipped the part where I said the homophobic reference is obvious once I gave it more thought and it should have been avoided), and RoughneckGeek is repeatedly implying that I'm defending homophobia (in spite of the fact that I agreed the joke was homophobic, I approached it with a wrong mindset, and that it shouldn't have been made in the first place).

So, again: cherry-picking. Thanks, though, for considering the rest of my post before explaining to me AGAIN how wrong I was. ;)

I don't think you understand the difference between "cherry-picking" and "a critical step in your explanation is flawed."

I certainly don't understand how an explanation of my own thoughts and how wrong I realized they were is flawed, but okay.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

SixteenBlue wrote:

Edit: Oh he didn't really apologize. At all. So that's a bummer, but still not really the story here.

Well, crap. If it was a non-apology apology (I haven't read/seen it), then that kind of throws all my benefit of the doubt out the window. Telling a homophobic joke in the middle of a rant like that now seems more like an attempt to see what he could get away with.

BadKen wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

Edit: Oh he didn't really apologize. At all. So that's a bummer, but still not really the story here.

Well, crap. If it was a non-apology apology (I haven't read/seen it), then that kind of throws all my benefit of the doubt out the window. Telling a homophobic joke in the middle of a rant like that now seems more like an attempt to see what he could get away with.

“Now, if you saw my monologue Monday, you know that I was a little upset at Donald Trump for insulting a friend of mine. So at the end of that monologue I had a few choice insults for the president in return. I don’t regret that. He, I believe, can take care of himself. I have jokes; he has the launch codes. So, it’s a fair fight. So while I would do it again, I would change a few words that were cruder than they needed to be.”

He apparently thinks the problem is that he was too harsh on Trump. No acknowledgement whatsoever of the actual people hurt by it or anything remotely like an apology.

Squirrel!

I wanted to find the text of the entirety of his comments, but everyplace I looked ended the comment in the same spot SixteenBlue's post does. I can't find the rest of it printed anywhere, which is interesting to me. He goes on to express admiration and support for all forms of expression of love. To me that goes beyond the words "I'm sorry". Again, I do agree that the joke is homophobic, but I also I think he apologized. I also thought it was offensive to sex workers since my original take on it was that 45 performs sexual favors in exchange for Putin helping him win the Presidency. If he had said it about a female POTUS, it would have been misogynistic. As a female, I guess my POV is that of someone who's been the recipient of BJ jokes rather than homophobic jokes. This is not a funny joke to me.

Most wrote:

Squirrel!

Most, just because we're having this discussion, which has enlightened me quite a bit, doesn't mean we're completely distracted by this topic. It's one of many things going on. I'm wishing I hadn't poked my head out of the woodwork to post on it, but since I did, I thought I should clarify that where I thought the apology came was the part where he called people who express love for one another in any form or fashion American Heroes. (I would quote it but I can't find it and don't feel like transcribing, it's in the video up thread) Too subtle of an apology, maybe, but everyone is cutting off the quote before he said it, so I wanted to make sure it was out there.

The joke is vulgar, sexual, and probably over the line for mainstream television. That doesn't mean that it described homosexual relationships as being bad, any more than it would have described heterosexual relationships as bad if Hillary had been the object of the joke.

I assumed, if anything, the joke was misogynistic. c*ck holster was, in my experience, a sexist term guys would use about women. It is degrading, and mocks the perceived power dynamic. If he had instead said that Trump was Putin's bitch, it would be making the exact same point, but it would be clearly misogynistic.

But the focus was on the act, not the genders. If Hillary was subbed into the joke, it would be considered massively misogynistic, but the joke itself would work on the exact same level. It wouldn't fly because women have historically been viewed as subservient to men, and the joke could really only be understood as a mocking that status.

Colbert's joke was to emphasize the despite the fact that both men occupy the same elite leader status, Trump is viewed as subservient to Putin. Just like the case with Hillary, the joke elevates Putin's status, while it demeans Trump's. But it is not that Trump is gay, it's that he is subservient to Putin. And while some gay relationships may indeed have the same negative power dynamics that affect many heterosexual relationships, I don't believe it is a feature of gay relationships.

And like it or not, this "controversy" was 100% fed by the alt-right who just wanted to see progressives fight. It worked. Look at every story that has tweets of outrage, and then look at their tweet history. They gaslighted us, and it pretty much worked perfectly.

SillyRabbit wrote:

I wanted to find the text of the entirety of his comments, but everyplace I looked ended the comment in the same spot SixteenBlue's post does. I can't find the rest of it printed anywhere, which is interesting to me. He goes on to express admiration and support for all forms of expression of love. To me that goes beyond the words "I'm sorry". Again, I do agree that the joke is homophobic, but I also I think he apologized. I also thought it was offensive to sex workers since my original take on it was that 45 performs sexual favors in exchange for Putin helping him win the Presidency. If he had said it about a female POTUS, it would have been misogynistic. As a female, I guess my POV is that of someone who's been the recipient of BJ jokes rather than homophobic jokes. This is not a funny joke to me.

Most wrote:

Squirrel!

Most, just because we're having this discussion, which has enlightened me quite a bit, doesn't mean we're completely distracted by this topic. It's one of many things going on. I'm wishing I hadn't poked my head out of the woodwork to post on it, but since I did, I thought I should clarify that where I thought the apology came was the part where he called people who express love for one another in any form or fashion American Heroes. (I would quote it but I can't find it and don't feel like transcribing, it's in the video up thread) Too subtle of an apology, maybe, but everyone is cutting off the quote before he said it, so I wanted to make sure it was out there.

I appreciate the clarification, thank you.

I wonder why every report cuts the comment off at that same spot.

Jayhawker wrote:

But the focus was on the act, not the genders.
...
Just like the case with Hillary, the joke elevates Putin's status, while it demeans Trump's. But it is not that Trump is gay, it's that he is subservient to Putin.

The implication is that bottom = subservient, that being on the receiving end is by definition demeaning. It's absolutely a slur, in a way that wouldn't be possible were the 'joke' about Hillary. Directly, if you're the receiver (and as I type this, I realise that I don't know if there is a specific term for the person - male or female - who is being penetrated) in homosexual sex, you're subservient and being demeaned.

Never mind. I've tripped over my dick enough on this subject.

Amazing how so many republicans/conservatives can pick up that this was probably not a great joke but can't figure out how any of the stuff their politicians/fellow Rs do is sexist/racism/hurtful??

How about some more Net Neutrality?

karmajay wrote:

Amazing how so many republicans/conservatives can pick up that this was probably not a great joke but can't figure out how any of the stuff their politicians/fellow Rs do is sexist/racism/hurtful??

Oh, they get it. It's just that they justify it because those are people on their team, and if they're on the same team, they can't be bad people.

You should hear my mom talk about all the (non-existent) Medicaid & Social Security fraud, and how rampant it is, and how so many people are gaming the system and taking advantage. This, in spite of the fact that my oldest sister takes complete advantage of these same social safety nets, even though she could get by just fine on alimony payments and our upper-middle-class parents' help. She was even mooching off our parents while taking Medicaid and Social Security checks, staying with her 3 children at our parents' house rent-free and they were paying for her school. All the while she's burning her money on booze and parties because she caught a second wind of the college party life and decided to leave her husband for it.

But she's one of the good ones who is just and noble in using a national safety net, and will totally stop once she can get back on her own two feet.

This is all to point out that a crap ton of people (D & R alike) will regularly perform mental gymnastics to justify the actions of those with whom they align themselves. Otherwise they'll have to "waste time" reflecting on the individual policies and people (and those peoples' actions) in order to come to their own conclusions. It's easier to compartmentalize and move on with life.

Jon Stewart Ribs Stephen For His Recent Language

Trump Asked Comey to End Flynn Probe, Gave Russians Intel: A Closer Look

A Special Prosecutor Steps In & Fox News Doesn't Get the Comey Memo: The Daily Show

Donald Trump Warned Us About Himself: A Closer Look

This week's Last Week Tonight was outstanding. I don't know how much they'll put on YouTube, because nearly the entire episode was spent going over how crazy the last week has been.

The main segment of Last Week Tonight is always put up on Youtube the next morning, which is how I watch it on Mondays. They never put up the rest of the show though, and you have to go find bootleg versions if you want it.

BadKen wrote:

This week's Last Week Tonight was outstanding. I don't know how much they'll put on YouTube, because nearly the entire episode was spent going over how crazy the last week has been.

Now!