THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => ENJOY => Topic started by: bryntheskits on 10 Apr 2014, 09:14
-
(http://i.imgur.com/sWCY6Za.jpg) (https://twitter.com/CBSTweet/status/454289049344176128)
-
I'm hoping he'll do both.... :-\
-
the end of Stephen Colbert the character
Gods willing!
-
Personally, I like the Stephen Colbert character. He really points out the bull shit in both politics and the media.
-
I'm more a John Stewart kinda guy, so whatever.
-
Valdis's issue with Colbert - and also Stewart, in both cases if I am remembering rightly - is that their material can frequently be quite transphobic. I've never personally seen any examples of it, but Valdis doesn't tend to miss the details on such things.
-
I've never seen it from Stewart, I have seen it from Colbert.
-
I will miss Colbert's character. I'm hoping Comedy Central replaces him with Samantha Bee as a Nancy Grace parody.
-
Satire rarely fails to offend.
Though I would have liked Jon to host more than Stephen, I'm still OK with this.
-
Valdis's issue with Colbert - and also Stewart, in both cases if I am remembering rightly - is that their material can frequently be quite transphobic. I've never personally seen any examples of it, but Valdis doesn't tend to miss the details on such things.
Yes, they're unapologetically and loudly transphobic (with no element of "satire" so no one even fucking start that shit). For the record, it's not "just" blatant transphobia. I'm not fine with the "I said racist things! *Wink*" for privileged consumption either, really. Not intending to be racist and "they're just jokes!" are pretty piss-poor excuses when it comes down to it and it frequently veers into problematic. Also it's pretty gross just how much shit he gets away with by (other people) labelling it satire. Not in a million years would person of colour or a trans person be able to "joke" like that in the media about dominant groups (y'know, actual satire) without being roasted alive.
You haven't seen any examples of it, though, Gareth? Forgotten these posts + list I assembled at a moment's notice? [1] (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php?topic=28457.msg1152710#msg1152710)[2] (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php?topic=28457.msg1152724#msg1152724)
Note: Old post, so it doesn't include the more recent examples.
Satire rarely fails to offend.
Satire is supposed to punch at power, not repeating bigotry at oppressed groups "but saying it with a dumb smile on your face".
He has 'contributed' to thoroughly warping what it even means to be satirical in the eyes of this generation.
I've never seen it from Stewart, I have seen it from Colbert.
Ahem..
Jon Stewart: But, as always in these debates, it’s left to the longest shot to say the craziest thing. (smugly) I give you Ohio Representative, Dennis Kucinich.
Clip of Dennis Kucinich: I’d nominate any gay to the Supreme Court, or lesbian or bisexual or transgendered person to the Supreme Court (as long as they were ready to uphold Roe v. Wade)
Jon Stewart: Yes, Yes. All rise for the honorable Justice Chick with Dick!
_____________
(Jon mocking and dehumanizing a japanese trans woman for daring to protest an ID law that could potentially out and endanger her.)
Jon Stewart: But Cow and Chipmunk are not alone! They are joined by Transvestite, who worries that her true gender will be revealed by this new system.
Voiceover with fake translation: I am afraid that when I lumber out of my apartment in a tight dress with my scrotum taped back and my large hands covering my adams apple, somewhere, some bureaucrat will know I am a dude.
_____________
Samantha Bee: Until the order is given to invade America, keep your eyes open for insurgents. The profile is simple; he’s a young white male …or black …or asian …possibly hispanic …or old …or female …or whatever this is.” *Shows image of trans woman*
Well, it's there regardless. In fact I consider Jon Stewart to be far worse and more dehumanizing than Colbert, who is just endless tranny "jokes".
-
So we can only dehumanize the dominant groups?
-
:roll:
Not only did I not say anything of the damn sort, but no, because that's not even a thing. Because power dynamics. Nor are "Cisphobia/Reverse racism/Misandry" real things that could possibly be equivalent. If a trans person says they're cisphobic, for instance, then that's in all likelihood a rational fear borne out of self-preservation against constant attacks, not dehumanizing hatred of a disempowered social class. But usually they're just things that said dominant class throws out there to shield themselves from criticism (For instance Piers Morgan's whining about how a trans woman saying "Don't say I used to be a man" was 'cisphobic' against him).
-
Power dynamics? Really?
So when Jonathan Swift suggests population control can be achieved through English cannibalism of Irish children, it can't be satire because the English started off in a position of power?
-
First off, Swift was an Irish patriot and such choices are not accidental, so.. eh? Not even remotely the same thing. What you are saying is that such works ~dehumanize~ the English because it paints them as baby-eating exploiters of Ireland, not the other way around.
Secondly, you claimed I was proposing dehumanization of any kind, but furthermore I disagree with the premise that a marginalized group can dehumanize the dominant group. It is not within their power to marginalize the dominant at their say-so, or else, well.. words mean things. :-P
-
First off, Swift was an Irish patriot and such choices are not accidental, so.. eh? Not even remotely the same thing. What you are saying is that such works ~dehumanize~ the English because it paints them as baby-eating exploiters of Ireland, not the other way around.
Well if the jack boot fits...
-
I didn't know that Colbert had done that (and I never watch Stewart) I apologize for my post.
-
Yeah, it always annoys me when either of them go for the cheap laugh poking at transfolk. I see it though as more that though.. they are going for the cheap, easy laugh rather than any animus towards trans people. I don't know either of them or their writers personally though, so of course I could be wrong. The problem then I see isn't so much that they are saying transphobic things. Though they are, and should be called out on it as always. It's that it's still acceptable to say those sorts of things because we are an oppressed minority.
In fairness for the other hand though, they also make similarly offensive jokes about Jews, Hispanic people, African Americans, women.... However it feels somewhat different in those cases. Then it seems they are making the joke to emphasize how absurd someone's bigoted views are, or how absurd the views themselves are. When making transphobic jokes though, it's usually just 'Guy in a dress, chick with a dick am I right? nudge nudge'.
-
I think you hit the nail on the head there. As prejudiced as society still may be, racism is generally perceived as a minority asshole's attitude these days and so those jokes can be made satirically. Even though racism still exists, it is technically illegal in some ways, and so satirists have kind of 'earned' a right to be able to use racism for satire.
But transphobia is still super-prevalent, and there has yet to be a perceived 'right' and 'wrong' that lets it be used for satire. Honestly, I think you're right - the 'racist' jokes made by both are at the expense of idiot racists. The transphobic jokes they make are just straight up transphobic.
-
I find it amusing how the trans topic bled into this one about a new late night show host. Bled is too light a term, more like flooded.
Moving on: He's replacing Letterman if I am correct, I just hope he doesnt decide to come back out of retirement like what happened with the tonight show to Conan O'Brien. It'll be interesting to see Colbert run a show not as a character but more closer to his actual self.
-
Well, I didn't have a lot to say about his appointment to the Late show. :) I mean it's a good career move for him. I'm sure the Stephen Colbert character will mostly be left behind. Cobert Report and the Late Show are different shows, and the whole satire-laden right-wing caricature won't fly for a talk show. I am a bit sad to see the Cobert Report go off the air. I do like it most of the time. Sometimes he gets to offensive to me and I have to turn it off, but I enjoy his show and John Stewart's.
-
I find it amusing how the trans topic bled into this one about a new late night show host. Bled is too light a term, more like flooded.
Well, it wouldn't have if it wasn't for the fact that said "Late night show host" won't stop being vehemently transphobic. I fail to see the amusing thing about that.
-
Your examples hardly shows Colbert being "vehemently transphobic." To be vehemently transphobic would be spouting angry emotional rhetoric against transgendered. I hardly see a pun used for (not against) rights equality as being "vehemently transphobic." Again this seems hardly the place to discuss such things in my honest opinion. Ergo the "amusement." I will discuss this no further.
On topic: On the Colbert Report he always seemed to have entertaining interviews with writers, actors, and other people of interest so I think the transition from show to show won't be too bad. At least he can keep a straight face when delivering a line unlike Jimmy Fallon who always cracks up (I know that I probably would too though, but I'm no talk-show/actor host). I was never really a fan of David Letterman nor Jay Leno but Jimmy Fallon and Conan O'Brien have been my favorite late night talk shows.
-
...
Yeah, you just cissplain away his constant degrading slurs and transmisogynistic "jokes" and unapologetic responses, sure. Clearly I just don't understand why it isn't transphobic.
And what fucking "pun in support of trans rights" would that be? And how come you're framing it as "that one thing" rather than a constant pattern of behaviour for years and years?
Edit: Are you seriously saying "trans people are disgusting untouchables that I don't want near my property" is in SUPPORT of us?!
-
Well of course that's the difficulty with having separate threads for separate issues - most things overlap issues. Do we put this thread in the Enjoy section because it's about TV, or in Discuss because it's about bigoted views?
-
To be honest it seems like most of this could be pulled into the Trans thread about Comedy Central's "news shows" being transphobic as its off topic about Stephen Colbert joining The Late Show.
-
The trans thread isn't the only place where we're allowed to talk about the rights of trans people. You are welcome to talk about other aspects of The Late Show and Stephen Colbert (I can't contribute to that because I don't know what or who either of them are) but the posts so far all seem relevant to the topic to me.
-
Fair enough :-) its what I was trying to do.
-
Secondly, you claimed I was proposing dehumanization of any kind, but furthermore I disagree with the premise that a marginalized group can dehumanize the dominant group. It is not within their power to marginalize the dominant at their say-so, or else, well.. words mean things. :-P
Every joke at someone's expense is dehumanizing.
I find it amusing how the trans topic bled into this one about a new late night show host. Bled is too light a term, more like flooded.
Persecution complex will do that.
-
(with no element of "satire" so no one even fucking start that shit)
:meh:
-
I have an issue with this whole discussion. I would consider the Colbert from the Colbert rapport a character in a ... work of art? A performance ... whatever. And as such I find it hard to blame the writers of the show for what the characters says and does. The character's words are necessary to drive the narrative.
I don't think I'm explaining myself very well. Let me try this in a different way.
Gerard Kornelis van het Reve (14 December 1923, Amsterdam, Netherlands – 8 April 2006, Zulte, Belgium) was a Dutch writer. He started writing as Simon van het Reve and adopted the shorter Gerard Reve in 1973.[1] Together with Willem Frederik Hermans and Harry Mulisch, he is considered one of the "Great Three" of Dutch post-war literature. His 1981 novel De vierde man (The Fourth Man) was the basis for Paul Verhoeven's 1983 film.
Reve was one of the first homosexual authors to come out in the Netherlands.[2] He often wrote explicitly about erotic attraction, sexual relations and intercourse between men, which many readers considered shocking. However, he did this in an ironic, humorous and recognizable way, which contributed to making homosexuality acceptable for many of his readers. Another main theme, often in combination with eroticism, was religion. Reve himself declared that the primary message in all of his work was salvation from the material world we live in.
Gerard Reve was prosecuted in 1966 for allegedly breaking a law against blasphemy. In Nader tot U he describes the narrator's love-making to God, a visitor to his house incarnated in a one-year-old mouse-grey donkey. In April 1968 he was acquitted by the High Council.
Basically, they said: you, the author cannot be held responsible for the thoughts and actions of your characters. And it would lead to an absurd situation in which one would not be able to create anything.
Now, I feel that something similar is happening to the Colbert writers and the actor Colbert himself. He is being blamed for the words of his character. And maybe the same is happening to John Stewart, perhaps to a lesser extent?
Am I seeing this wrong?
-
Puppy, I do see your point, but I refer you back to my own post on almost exactly that, namely in the distinction between what are obviously 'satirical' remarks and what aren't.
I think you hit the nail on the head there. As prejudiced as society still may be, racism is generally perceived as a minority asshole's attitude these days and so those jokes can be made satirically. Even though racism still exists, it is technically illegal in some ways, and so satirists have kind of 'earned' a right to be able to use racism for satire.
But transphobia is still super-prevalent, and there has yet to be a perceived 'right' and 'wrong' that lets it be used for satire. Honestly, I think you're right - the 'racist' jokes made by both are at the expense of idiot racists. The transphobic jokes they make are just straight up transphobic.
-
So ... you're point is 'too soon'?
-
I guess so, but that's oversimplifying it. My point is transphobia is not really something most people are that aware of yet, and so you can't really satirise transphobics because most people just are transphobic even if they don't realise they are.
-
But everything he says is satire. Surely people will realise that nothing that he says makes sense so the transphobia is wrong too? Or am I making too big an assumption about the ability of people to 'read' this show?
-
I think you're being far too optimistic Beo sad as that is to say. I agree with you in many respects on this subject otherwise though.
(Side note: WTF I keep agreeing with Beo and Snalin on stuff and it's way too late for April Fool's Day...)
-
Especially in the case of John and Stephen, they are fully responsible for what their characters say. As I understand it, they are part of the writing staff, and as the stars and focus of the show especially they can veto jokes they feel are offensive. John Stewart especially, since he doesn't play a character the way that Stephen Colbert does.
And I will point out that Stephen often has guests and viewers on his show who don't understand that he plays a satirical caricature of an ultra-right wing talk show host. They think he really being serious, and don't realize he's mocking those kinds of people. So expecting people to 'get' that it is meant to mock transphobia. Especially since there is no indication that is what they are doing, or that their transphobic jokes are meant satirically.
-
Stepping in the minefield... I am willing to accept that Colbert and Stewart aren't sufficiently enlightened on trans issues, and their ignorance has led to jokes that hit the wrong mark. However, as much as they may have screwed up, I will NOT consider either of them anywhere near as an enemy of the movement we need to make toward true equality for all. They continually and effectively nail those who act daily and without remorse out of pure hate, and to make them out as exactly the same because they don't meet a particular set of standards is extremely counterproductive. In fact, I'd call that kind of attitude one of the greatest moral failings of my side of this fight. I've seen people I know savaged in online fights over minor discrepancies in right-thinking, and it both sickens and saddens me because it gives credence to all of the reactionary bullshit the real bigots spout into society as they desperately try to stifle progress in the name of their own insecurities.
There are REAL monsters out there. Call out mistakes of allies, or mistakes I make, because we will all make them from time to time, but if anybody ever tries to tell me I'm on the wrong side, I'll know they're full of shit and anything they have to say after that has no meaning.
-
Especially in the case of John and Stephen, they are fully responsible for what their characters say. As I understand it, they are part of the writing staff, and as the stars and focus of the show especially they can veto jokes they feel are offensive. John Stewart especially, since he doesn't play a character the way that Stephen Colbert does.
[...]
That's exactly the point I have trouble with: to what extend are you responsible for the words your characters utter in a work of fiction? You are writing words that drive the narrative and the narrative dictates what a character says and changing the words would hinder the narrative being told.
I am apparently all for the artist's right to speak his/her bloody mind. I am not yet sure where the line should be drawn.
-
Persecution complex will do that.
Yeah, that's nice. Go away now, troll.
But everything he says is satire. Surely people will realise that nothing that he says makes sense so the transphobia is wrong too? Or am I making too big an assumption about the ability of people to 'read' this show?
No it fucking isn't. That's excuse-making. In no way does he punch at transphobes with his "jokes"; he's only attacking trans people and trans women in particular. Repeating verbatim the widespread transmisogyny of society for cheap, bigoted laughs is in no way "satire". Stop instantly leaping to accusing people who object for supposedly having a poor grasp on reality.
Furthermore what fucking point would such supposed "satire" have anyway? If it only makes transphobes laugh and enthusiastically support you and the people it's actually about hurt and turn off your show? How is that not just being a transphobe, regardless of any supposed "intent" (which isn't there, just stop already)?
because they don't meet a particular set of standards is extremely counterproductive. In fact, I'd call that kind of attitude one of the greatest moral failings of my side of this fight. I've seen people I know savaged in online fights over minor discrepancies in right-thinking, and it both sickens and saddens me
Oh, you mean it's counterproductive to cis people's problems if we don't shut up and take it when someone is being overtly harmful towards us? Because we're "minor discrepancies"? Fuck right off with this shit.
Call out mistakes of allies, or mistakes I make, because we will all make them from time to time,
How about you stop being a presumptive ass, okay? They aren't fucking "allies" just because you like to consider them to be in your liberal bubble. It isn't "from time to time", it's "on every occasion". It isn't that they aren't called out - they are, constantly - it's that they don't care and ridicule us for doing so.
Never, ever, ever confuse someone being supportive of homosexual people with being an ally to trans people. Or even L or BQ people. Or whatever. Stop assuming people support groups they don't just in general. And especially don't tell that group to shut up about these imagined "Allies".
but if anybody ever tries to tell me I'm on the wrong side, I'll know they're full of shit and anything they have to say after that has no meaning.
So, if someone says you're consistently acting oppressively you'd rather dismiss them and all their concerns because it hurt your feelings? Quality Allying, right there. That view that you hold the right, over the affected group, to define what counts as "The REAL monster out there" worthy of objections.. Sheesh (http://hulderin.tumblr.com/post/81274647220/what-basic-white-people-think-racism-is).
-
Can all the cis people here stop pretending that most cis people aren't transphobic and cissexist as fuck, please? Please? No? ..Okay. :meh:
They aren't some outlandish minority view of sign-waving bigots, alright?
I am apparently all for the artist's right to speak his/her bloody mind.
MAH FREE SPEECH
Seriously, this is always just derailing. Free speech isn't freedom from consequence etc. They can be as transphobic and cissexist as they like. Just stop pretending they aren't already.
(As if they don't make it abundantly clear that there aren't really any consequences for being transmisogynistic in this society.)
-
I think we disagree with each other about the nature of these tv shows, and that's fine. But I'm not making excuses, I have a different view of art, apparently. And I see their utterances different. I guess that's the luxury I have and you do not, I assume, because of our vastly different experiences in life which I cannot begin to comprehend. I do not feel competent enough to enter into the whole trans* discussion. So, since I have no new arguements to add here I'm going to leave it at this and wish you all the best.
-
I think we disagree with each other about the nature of these tv shows, and that's fine.
No, we don't. I have no doubt that he's not serious about a lot of things. That doesn't mean that that also applies to his verbatim repetition of transmisogyny. Someone can't just say or imply "Oh, sometimes I joke about stuff!" and have that excuse all their shitty, oppressive behaviour ever on the basis of other people, incredibly eager to defend him for some damn reason, assuming that "He was joking!!". Nor that it'd be okay even if he was.
But he isn't. He really, truly, honestly isn't. There is a clear, distinct difference in how he acts regarding it and different material.
But I'm not making excuses, I have a different view of art, apparently. And I see their utterances different.
No, just excuse-making, actually. Especially since you're now also including Stewart, who doesn't even have that bullshit excuse people use for Colbert. But sure, trans women are just the most absurd disgusting things ever. Ha Ha aren't jokes swell.
~Art~
-
I thought I'd see more about #CancelColbert here :o I kinda like the Colbert persona, but I don't really like many of his writers. They're frequently lazy and go for cheap laughs at things that aren't really all that funny. Many of his utterances don't qualify as "satire". He's not some sort of ally who's helping to further any socially progressive agenda. His job is to entertain Democrats by making fun of "the other side" and honestly it often doesn't seem to amount to anything more than throwing custard pies. At best it qualifies as parody.
So... I guess I find it a little surprising that people get up in arms when Colbert is criticized, like he's supposed to be universally super-funny, the most skilled comedian ever, you just have to understand his jokes, here let me help you understand. Then I realize it's not really about that. It's just what you do when someone attacks someone you like and kinda identify with a little.
-
I don't think Letterman is all that funny either, but he had a way with his guests that was impressive. I dunno if Colbert can pull that off
-
[...]
Sure. Have a great day.
-
I never was into #CancelCobert because in that case, it was a satirical statement taken out of context that got people up in arms. In specific, he was making fun of the racist owners of the Washington Redskins. We knew it was racist because he was running a story about them opening a charity in support of Native peoples, then he turned around and said he was opening his own racist charity. It was clearly satire, but people only focused on the second part, and it made HIM look racist.
When he makes transphobic comments though, he's talking about a story that features or in some way affects trans people, then tells a joke that hurts THEM, not making fun of people who say, want to fire us or strip away our rights. That is not satire, that is taking an easy pot shot at a group that is systematically repressed, and is 'okay' in society's eyes to mock.
And no, with this show 'he's just playing a character' is not an excuse. Nor is it okay to give his writers a pass. They went in for the cheap laugh at the expense of an oppressed minority. Not to expose inequality, but just for that cheap laugh. He's not playing a character in a movie, this isn't Twelve Years a Slave here. And he's never gone out and said 'I know I've made some offensive comments towards trans people. But they were part of a role I was playing, and I do not really feel that way.' Notably, he DID say that over the whole #CancelColbert racist thing.
-
#CancelColbert was the first example of so-called hashtag activism I could get behind because it was a satirical response to bad satire that successfully highlighted problematic attitudes without even intending to. It started off with the problem of focusing on "worse racism" and then moved on to the problematic way in which some people are always seen as deserving of explanation and consideration of context while others are taken literally with no regard for context in the most uncharitable manner.
But what I meant with my remark is that, when I entered this thread, I expected to see something about #CancelColbert but instead found this discussion about Colbert's transphobic utterances. It was unexpected to me because I hadn't thought much about Colbert recently beyond the aforementioned hashtag.
-
I like it when he does "The Word" on his show. Great Hyperbole. Though I doubt that will transfer well to the new show unless he still does news (other than the opening monologues most talk show hosts do). Same with the "Hat Tip of the Week." Because of a new show format it will be interesting to see what new things we'll see. He may even be better than Conan (my favorite late night show for the past century). Any news on when the transfer will take place and he takes late night?
(https://jasonfeldman.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/1253527727_colbert_obrien_stewart_bottle-jpg.gif?w=614)
-
Next year.
-
Succeeding downward (http://www.avclub.com/article/stephen-colbert-succeeding-downward-taking-over-la-203387)
-
So here's a solid example of the real Stephen Colbert.
-
I saw him being interviewed a year or so ago, out of character.
-
-
"YOU COME INTO MY HOUSE? YOU COME INTO MY HOUSE? HOW DARE YOU, JAMES FRANCO?" :parrot:
-
Craig Ferguson is leaving The Late Late Show. Now all bets are off!