#CancelColbert

[bateman]

Really adding to the constructive conversation she started.

I used to respect and enjoy your work, @ColbertReport. Fuck you.

â€" Suey Park (@suey_park) March 27, 2014

http://www.deadline.com/2014/03/cancel-colbert-twitter-controversy-press-reaction-analysis/

[b_dubb]

Really adding to the constructive conversation she started.

http://www.deadline.com/2014/03/cancel-colbert-twitter-controversy-press-reaction-analysis/

Stay classy Asian Idiot Who Has No Grasp Of Satire

[albrecht]

Stay classy Asian Idiot Who Has No Grasp Of Satire

Though it could be a marketing ploy and orchestrated for ratings or something. Like the RT news girl "quitting" live on-air. Or maybe the classy girl is actually understanding satire and taking it to the next level poking fun at the political correctness ruining comedy (and the country?)

[bateman]

Stay classy Asian Idiot Who Has No Grasp Of Satire

Especially ironic considering she's a "writer". Someone needs a remedial literature class.

Oh, and if you want blood to come out of your eyes in rage, watch this:


http://youtu.be/MNK-e6nnFGY

[b_dubb]

Especially ironic considering she's a "writer". Someone needs a remedial literature class.

Oh, and if you want blood to come out of your eyes in rage, watch this:


http://youtu.be/MNK-e6nnFGY

Ok she's declaring a war on satire. Which is a form of protected free speech.

#CancelSuePark #WarOnSatire #FuckThisIdiot (not literally she's ghoulish and stupid)

[albrecht]

Especially ironic considering she's a "writer". Someone needs a remedial literature class.

Oh, and if you want blood to come out of your eyes in rage, watch this:


http://youtu.be/MNK-e6nnFGY

Well, I guess I was wrong in my slight hope that, maybe, that the protest was a form of satire also or an attempt to boost ratings via twitter.

[bateman]

#socialjusticebuzzwordsthatdontmeananything #angryasiangirlwithachiponhershoulderaboutwhitepeopleespeciallywhitemen

[Foodlion]

http://youtu.be/MNK-e6nnFGY

She can shake my king kong ding dong anyday. Wooops!

Actually I don't want to be accused of sexual discrimination but I like her 300% more than I would normally because she's a cute female..... and asain.... and she does got a point. If she felt offended by it even if it was satire, then she has her right to voice it. These guys are defending him only because they are liberals and their man Colbert is also a liberal. That's usually how media works.
So far nobody has been fired. It's all just a war of words and that's all it will be.

[Catsmile]

Ahhh... another angry little asian girl, a product of her tiger mother endlessly ridding her ass, even in her sleep.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much. The whole thing just smacks of her twisting the forbidden desire of the white devils cock.
But alas her Korean tiger mother has told her many times if she even looks at a man other than a Korean she will be disowned on the spot.
Fear not angry little asian girl your white knight is out there to quench your desires, nothing is sweeter than the forbidden fruit.

[West of the Rockies]

Suddenly I think I understand why Asian people are offended...

[Catsmile]

Suddenly I think I understand why Asian people are offended...

Funny thing about the interweb, you don't always know the race of who is typing.
Some asians can take a joke, and make a joke...
Really do feel for her, but she should learn to pick her battles, and quit with the attention whoring.
Maybe I could take her a little more seriously if she wasn't such an asian stereotype herself.
The pics in my above post are from and by asians, ... so I guess you can be offended at us, once you climb down from that high horse.

I play a white guy in real life, but little does whitey know there is a spy amongst them.
Damn sneaky happa, halfus.

[NowhereInTime]

#socialjusticebuzzwordsthatdontmeananything #angryasiangirlwithachiponhershoulderaboutwhitepeopleespeciallywhitemen

Translation: "I need publicity and I have found my niche."

[bateman]

Translation: "I need publicity and I have found my niche."

Ding ding ding. Suey Park, professional agitator.

[onan]

Ching chong ding dong. Suey Park, professional agitator.

Fixed it for you.

[SciFiAuthor]

That is an interesting perspective. I would argue that making everyone equal would make everyone lower middle class. No opulence but no starvation.

Perhaps extreme poverty does outweigh extreme wealth... hard to really say. If we could provide clean water and shelter for everyone on the Earth, I wonder how many would consider themselves "rich".

Considering the poorest 10% accounted for just 0.5% and the wealthiest 10% accounted for 59% of all the consumption.

It's unfortunately hopelessly complicated. If you go into a culture, say rural Uganda, where things are pretty primitive culturally, you end up with problems that aren't easy to solve. For example, if you drill a well and build a water plant providing clean water all it takes is one person to say "The water is full of AIDS, don't drink it!" and then most everyone is back to drinking river water and accepting the resulting disease as the will of god, or whatnot. Or, alternatively, the tribal regions of Pakistan where simple polio vaccines are proving extremely hard to administer because of local extremist and cultural forces are actively working to prevent it. You'd think that a polio vaccine and clean water would make someone feel "rich" in a third world country, but in the vacuum of real education it boils down to suspicion, paranoia and fear of the change to society that comes with the new affluence because they simply don't understand.

In a country like the US, ignoring the rest of the globe, I'd be skeptical that you could pull off lower middle class for everyone. To be consistent with views on environmental sustainability, it would have to be necessity only living, meaning no vacations, no cars, no air travel, and an overall focus on providing subsistence food, clean water and energy expensive enough to where it is not used frivolously. Air conditioning would be an outright absolute no, and kept only for those in medical need. In other words something on the level of the standard of living in Belize if you want to get everyone's carbon footprint down to sustainable levels. Of course, this would eliminate almost all of US industry other than agriculture, so you'd have to have some sort of subsidized communist-style living expense doled out to make up for it taking from anyone that's accumulating money above the average. There could be no savings, for example, as it would necessarily need to be subject to confiscation.

What you would have a rise in is media use. The carbon footprint of television and the internet would be miniscule in comparison to the benefits. But that would be the only beneficial thing I can think of, other than environmental sustainability.

Personally, I think the whole thing is insane. This period of "sustainability" is likely to be seen in 50-60 years the dumbest period of humanity since the stone age. We're 50-60 years from AI at most, 30 years from limitless fusion energy at most, in a period where the planet's carbon dioxide levels are far lower than they were when the dinosaurs were around and thriving, and yet we think we're somehow in danger. We're all sitting around watching technology advance at a breakneck speed, yet we think of ourselves as wholly unable to solve a global problem when all we've done for the last century is solve global problems. It's ridiculous. We'll be fine the way we are, the shit disturbers of our world have entirely too big of an audience. Income inequality is solved through economic growth and getting people back to work. Stop making 100 teachers for every teaching job through higher education subsidy, stop regulating business out of existence, and stop guilt tripping everyone over environmental problems that are much less pressing than we're led to believe. Teach everyone to consume as much as they possibly can, there is no resource shortage on this planet that isn't solvable and there won't be for thousands of years if we continue technological development.

[West of the Rockies]

Please, oh please, could this be true for Valley Girl talk.  It's spread like a dreaded virus throughout the land, infecting not only females but young males.  If only the incorrect and over-usage of "like" and " awesome" would die painfully and very rapidly.

Totally!  Oh my god, it's like valley girl talk is like everywhere!  Whatever...  Like I would ever talk like that or something... As if!

[Little Hater]

Mashable says that Colbert is the odds-on favorite to replace Letterman. I'm thinking Chelsea Handler, but would prefer John Stewart.

[NowhereInTime]

Mashable says that Colbert is the odds-on favorite to replace Letterman. I'm thinking Chelsea Handler, but would prefer John Stewart.

Tina Fey, if there's a snowball's chance in hell she'd leave NBC.  Otherwise STEPHEN, STEPHEN, STEPHEN!!

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

Tina Fey, if there's a snowball's chance in hell she'd leave NBC.  Otherwise STEPHEN, STEPHEN, STEPHEN!!

She'd be an excellent choice. So would Colbert, but I'd rather see him and Stewart stay with Comedy Central because they have so much more freedom there than they would have with CBS. 

[Little Hater]

Now I read that Craig Ferguson has a rider in his contract 'guaranteeing' him Letterman's job if he wants it, and $5 million if he doesn't get it.

[West of the Rockies]

Honestly, I'm surprised these shows survive.  The premise is very old -- chances are, all of our parents were watching these programs 50 years ago!  They never really have been my thing though.

[Zoo]

Honestly, I'm surprised these shows survive. 

Two things why in my opinion.

1. MSNBC owns Comedy Central. This is why you will never hardly see Colbert/Stewart bash MSNBC. They will bash CNN and FOX all the time. Do not get me wrong I hate both parties with all my heart and will never vote for anyone in those parties ever.

2. This is how most of the youth get the news. This is what I hear from the youth.

[onan]

Two things why in my opinion.

1. MSNBC owns Comedy Central. This is why you will never hardly see Colbert/Stewart bash MSNBC. They will bash CNN and FOX all the time. Do not get me wrong I hate both parties with all my heart and will never vote for anyone in those parties ever.

2. This is how most of the youth get the news. This is what I hear from the youth.

It is my understanding that those getting their news from CC are actually better informed than those watching CNN,FOX, and MSNBC.4

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

Two things why in my opinion.

1. MSNBC owns Comedy Central. This is why you will never hardly see Colbert/Stewart bash MSNBC. They will bash CNN and FOX all the time. Do not get me wrong I hate both parties with all my heart and will never vote for anyone in those parties ever.

2. This is how most of the youth get the news. This is what I hear from the youth.

I'm pretty sure Viacom owns Comedy Central.  As for your second point, I've heard that before and it gives me hope for the future.

[Lunger]

Because actions speak louder than words.
Liberals do make the same mistakes (like Baldwin's angry homophobic taunts) but we own up to them and know they are wrong and we actually do things like promote legislation for equality that you cons aggressively oppose.
That's the difference.

You mean like the Civil Rights Act?

[NowhereInTime]

You mean like the Civil Rights Act?

That and Affirmative Action, HEAD Start, the Voting Rights act (you know, the one your SCOTUS just gutted), the end of Don't Ask and DOMA.  Yes. 
I know, heresy to you but so what.

[Lunger]

That and Affirmative Action, HEAD Start, the Voting Rights act (you know, the one your SCOTUS just gutted), the end of Don't Ask and DOMA.  Yes. 
I know, heresy to you but so what.

It was Eisenhower who sponsored both Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act and it was a LBJ-lead Senate who fought tooth and nail against them?

“I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” â€"Lyndon B. Johnson

“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.” â€"Lyndon B. Johnson

[NowhereInTime]

It was Eisenhower who sponsored both Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act and it was a LBJ-lead Senate who fought tooth and nail against them?

“I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” â€"Lyndon B. Johnson

“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.” â€"Lyndon B. Johnson

Great job parsing history, but no dice.  I give Eisenhower credit for caring about the issue and wanting to bring change but, really, we are talking about 1964, and you know it.
LBJ was another late convert to the Progressive movement, but he bought in whole hog, outlawing racial discrimination. (let alone the War on Poverty).
A long way from "young bucks and welfare queens", isn't it? 

[Lunger]

Great job parsing history, but no dice.  I give Eisenhower credit for caring about the issue and wanting to bring change but, really, we are talking about 1964, and you know it.
LBJ was another late convert to the Progressive movement, but he bought in whole hog, outlawing racial discrimination. (let alone the War on Poverty).
A long way from "young bucks and welfare queens", isn't it?

Apparently, you are ignorant of the fact the the '64 bill which LBJ signed was a much watered down version that Eisenhower wanted.  Like all good liberals LBJ hid behind the progressive label with one focus in mind.  Success at the expense of lives.  He was a cold-hearted political animal whose policies have doomed millions to poverty and misery.  Leaving nothing but young bucks and welfare queen in his wake.

[NowhereInTime]

Apparently, you are ignorant of the fact the the '64 bill which LBJ signed was a much watered down version that Eisenhower wanted.  Like all good liberals LBJ hid behind the progressive label with one focus in mind.  Success at the expense of lives.  He was a cold-hearted political animal whose policies have doomed millions to poverty and misery.  Leaving nothing but young bucks and welfare queen in his wake.

Well, I cannot find any documentation to support your assertion.  And I wish I could.  I liked Ike, even though he was before my time.
The truth is he opposed Brown V. Board of Education and only opposed school desegregation as a function of his constitutional duty (how's that for a "strict constitutionalist?") to enforce the laws of the land.  He thought desegregation should be a slow unwinding rather than a product of law.  The 1957 act somewhat supported Brown but was mostly a voting rights act.  Important, but not the sweeping change of 1964.
This from the University of Virginia:

http://millercenter.org/president/eisenhower/essays/biography/4

I don't think he was racist; in fact I believe he was disgusted by it but also understood the historical ramifications of sweeping change.

You, on the other hand...