Hyde Parker

Like 3/5's of Spanish-language media in the United States is presented by blonde hispanophones whiter than I am.

Anal devastation.

I hope you see how harmful it is that you're ignoring my emotions and lived experiences. (((

Cool it, bro. We all do shit we should have stopped doing at fifteen (like argue with salty anti-racists on the internet).

Yes, after you called me a Klansman and I realized you were only interested in engaging with straw men. Yet here I am again.

It's not even a valid comparison. Ti is demonstrably wrong about something and somehow that's exactly the same as wondering whether there's more than one reason some guy in a cowboy hat looked at you funny.

Requesting information of ST will result in two things: 1 ) He is going to imply (and by "imply" I mean "state") that you are a literal Klansman, and 2 ) He is going to wonder why you're persisting in this discussion when you have his unimpeachable Person Of Color perceptions to rely upon in determining whether something is racially correct or not. Just google "white privilege."

I can barely even believe you're a real person.

The five day a week format is the only reason people notice it. At any given time there are like three episodes of it on the front page while other, lesser shows (Ronna and Beverly? The Reality Show Show?) pass mostly unnoticed and unremarked upon.

A series of embarrassing neologisms coined on tumblr.

Taking someone's own line of reasoning to its natural conclusion in order to highlight inconsistencies within it is an old trick of rhetoric. Of course, so is playing oblivious to make other people look like assholes. Dude, it's times like these where you seem genuinely imbalanced - If not for the fact you're convinced millions of your fellow countrymen are literally out to kill you then because you think something like this obtains in a non-dialectic argument. White people question things because they aren't accustomed to discussing them in entirely credulous, experiential terms. If you don't think they should in discussions with you then, as I've said before, you should make clear your biases and first principles. Downplaying or questioning the fact of racism in specific instances only to bring it up and point it out in others isn't inconsistent unless every perceived instance of racism is indistinguishable in terms of validity and gravity. This attitude establishes a dangerous all or nothing dichotomy that degrades discussion into a one-way sounding board for grievance. If that's what you want, fine. Just say so.

I sense a ploy to get someone with more credits to his name than an Asian-identity blog that updates every three weeks on the show.

Admittedly, no one should be listening to metal after he turns fifteen, but racial attitudes espoused by a minority of its fans have little to do with that. Gotta hand it to Ti, though. If he's out to issue blanket dismissals of anything tangentially related to, used, or enjoyed by racists he's really expanded his options for future episodes. I'm looking forward to topics like "Opera," "The Internet," and "Books," in particular.

I'd like to see this week end with an episode on whether bourgeois, Asian-American web-literati who adopt hip-hop personae to host the podcast equivalent of social justice tumblr blogs are racist or can be racist according to whatever unnamed prejudice/power scale those of us following along at home are expected to grasp and respect.

Yes, probably. But there are multiple instances in the Comedy Bang Bang archives where ethnic slurs, accents, and stereotypes are used to comedic effect so I guess Ti is also racist by association.

In my twenty some-odd years of having private conversations with Boston-Irish racists of the old school I can't think of a single time where criticisms of "those people" dallied into hair-styling.

Viets are odd sorts. My (Italian) buddy hung with a crew of them in middle and high school and his stories range from brawls in front of the million dollar houses their restaurateur parents owned to walking around with guns (a full-sized replica katana, in one instance) shoved into their pants in case they beefed with kids in whatever shitty arcade they were hanging out in. 3.5+ GPA's were maintained throughout, of course. On topic (the topic of this thread, I don't listen to the podcast): I don't know that white people typically know or care enough about black hair to "lash out," as you put it. I guess we sense something distinctly proletarian about "product" discourse when we're privy to it but we're only aware of it when: 1 ) a discussion among black people breaks into the broader media environment (see: Gabby Douglas debacle), or 2 ) that Chris Rock documentary plays on HBO at two in the morning. Other than that I guess the Jheri curl is kind of silly?

If it's overwhelmingly white males turning the conversation to bullshit then why are you the only one here caricaturing the other side as an AM radio pastiche? Don't get your Dashiki in a twist, bro. We're just having an internet conversation like two maladjusted adults. CK is an aberration, Jeselnik is a hack hanger-on. It was interesting to see some of the mental gymnastics left-bloggers (mostly Slate guys) had to go through to reason why it was okay for CK to do rape material but not for Tosh (to whom Jeselnik owes nearly his entire career). Comedy Central is interesting in that it just doubled down when the concern trollers came for their Danegeld, which speaks to my point that the agitators in question enjoy an influence disproportionate to their numbers (although I think someone might have proffered a fake and undeserved apology). No action was taken, no one was fired, and regardless of the number of online petitions started and signed there was no significant loss in ratings or revenue. This is actually a good question but I'm going to hold off on engaging with it fully because this conversation is already off-track. I really just wanted to needle ST for jumping on race-argument dilettantes when they don't immediately grasp his first principles. I don't think I have to explain the difference between ball-breaking and opprobrium. In fact if you just admit that the Onion guy is a talentless shithead and not guilty of some unspeakable act of verbal defilement I don't think we have any real dispute. People wont to get angry about that kind of thing got angry. Most people either didn't hear about it or didn't care. And yeah it's difficult for me get into a mindset where I would get angry at anything the Onion says because the semantic crux of most of its comedy is outrageous headline belied by inverse subtext, i.e., the actual joke of calling a nine year old girl a cunt is that no reasonable person would call a nine year old girl a cunt (like the joke of calling Joe Biden a skateboard riding bon vivant is that Joe Biden is sometimes gaffe-prone but generally a fairly serious political personality). But everyone's entitled to an opinion. I just wish corporations weren't so happy to kiss the ring whenever the most sanctimonious members of the public come a'callin' (and maybe this is my white-maleness speaking but 1850's street racism is fucking hilarious).

Legalistic and ideological free speech are different animals. It's nearly always a bad thing when expression is suppressed, whether by government or by vocal agitators with influence disproportionate to their numbers.

Garret is a wacky social-justice type who shies away from even typing out the word, "cunt." Conflating the both of us probably isn't going to do your argument any favors. Anyway: A joke is unsuccessful when no one laughs at it, an attribute to which most comics must be fairly well attuned. Whether a joke is "bad" or not is mostly subjective, and depending on who you are a joke can be "bad" and uproariously funny at the same time (so long as it isn't merely bland). If you don't like a joke, that's fine, you can even get mad about it online or whatever. The only thing I really have a problem with is what I perceive to be your desired end-state. There is a chilling effect in comedy caused by the (mostly) manufactured outrage of the last few years. You can act likes it's not serious, I guess, but I don't much hear about Tracy Morgan doing stream-of-consciousness material on stage anymore. I guess (hypothetical) gay people might feel safer now that people are too nervous to joke about (hypothetically) stabbing them but if you actually value comedy I think you can recognize that there might be funny things left unsaid because comics who rock the boat are in danger of having their careers derailed. That the jokes you mentioned are (arguably) bad doesn't do anything for your position, either, because every joke – before its made – is a potential failure, and if you're forced to grovel for forgiveness every time you fail you're going to make fewer, safer jokes. Critical (Race) Theory is more specific than what I had in mind, as “gendered slurs” are in the mix as well. My Google skills are – in fact – top notch (thank you for noticing!). They are not responsible for my knowledge of the subject, however, novitiate though it may be. Try as I might, I could not entirely avoid it through the course of my liberal arts education.

I can't say for certain how noted twitter comedian Voltaire would have reacted to cunt-gate, but I doubt very much he would still be scowling in resentment weeks and months after the fact. Bad jokes are part of comedy, integral to the comedic process, and if writers and performers don't have the leeway to make them the apparatus falls apart. Get serious, man. I'm not even denying you your negative feelings. You like comedy with clearly delineated limits and those limits are near-always congruent with your politics. I don't know why you're so reticent to admit to Critical Theory opinions when you're posting on forums dedicated to the discussion of a Critical Theory podcast.

I mean, come on, dude. Just drop the scare quotes. We get it: Nothing is funny if it runs afoul of Critical Theory. It's all well and good if you want to wage dialectic warfare on every joke that falls flat but be explicit in what you're doing.