Faithful reader and commenter Dienne was offended by Stephen Colbert’s vulgar language about Trump. I was not, as–when it comes to people in office–I care more about deeds than words. (Except on this blog, where Colbert’s language would be deleted.)
But Collum Borchers in the Washington Post agrees with Dienne.
He thinks Colbert went too far. He thinks Colbert should have remembered Michelle Obama’s statement that “when they go low, we go high.”
Maybe this is a sign of the general coarsening of our culture, which is now well advanced.
What do you think?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I love Michelle Obama. I like going high when others go low. But Trump is so dreadfully low that Colbert could not possibly utter any words that would descend to his level. Colbert’s words were Emily Post personified compared to Trump’s daily vulgarity.
LikeLike
What does it benefit us by going low, no matter how low Trump is?
LikeLike
None. But it’s comedy.
LikeLike
What does it benefit us if we fall for every right wing attack on anyone who dares to criticize Donald Trump, even if it is a comedian who is trying to be funny and not someone who holds office or pretends to be a truth-teller offering “alternative facts”?
What does it benefit us when we spend the months leading up to the election posting about how corrupt Hillary Clinton is and how she is no different than Trump (or even worse than Trump) and both are just pathological liars exactly the same and spouting the exact same kind of lies that we now know the Putin-paid trolls were posting pretending to be Bernie supporters?
Who does it benefit when supposed “liberal” voters who purport to just be concerned with the truth spout the same right wing talking points that got us Donald Trump?
dienne77, weren’t you here during the election posting how crooked Hillary was no different than Trump? Over and over. Who did THAT “truth” benefit, I wonder? Certainly not the American people.
LikeLike
Colbert’s “joke” wasn’t funny (it’s first sin, which might have excused others), was needlessly crude, and most important, was politically useless.
How many Trump voters did the joke reach or speak to? That’s right, none, as it was not intended for them. It was intended to validate the presumed superiority of high-minded (except when telling crude/stupid jokes about Trump) liberals who will mostly be sheltered from his actions, and love to boast and beat their chests about being part of the “resistance.”
Just as too many Trump voters are deluded about how they’re the only “real” Americans, so too have pwogwessives become mired in their own bog of superior merit and virtue.
Call me when these people do something other than broadcast their presumed superiority. Until then, you can find me planting potatoes, or trying to do something else useful.
LikeLike
“Funny” is a catch-all–there are many types of “funny.” I thought it was amusing and strangely appropriate. Therefore, it did its job which was to emasculate the Trump ideal. Further, it poked fun at those who would ignore the implications of Trump’s cozy attitude toward Putin–the apathy surrounding the gravity of Russian interference is a great threat to our society. His crude commentary was multi-layered. Sorry this was missed by so many.
LikeLike
Thank you, Michael Fiorillo. You’re the only one who gets it, and the only one who’s going to understand why when Trump gets re-elected.
LikeLike
Oh, Puleeeze! Trump’s reelection will be due to Colbert’s irreverent allusion to Trump’s fawning over Putin? Colbert might have chosen something other than c***holster, but his intent was not homophobia. It was to point out Trump’s willingness to capitulate to a tyrant’s every wish. Offensive? Maybe. But it was also a clever way to turn Trump’s use of the same subservient allusion. He has, after all, told women how attractive they would look on their knees. He made the same reference to one of his primary opponents.
What goes around comes around, Donnie.
LikeLike
Wow, attacking Stephen Colbert for being “mired in (his) own bog of superior merit and virtue”.
How DARE he make a joke that falls flat! He is obviously a nasty liberal so convinced of his superiority that the “true” liberals feel justified attacking him as they continue to do their “very important” work of telling us how corrupt and nasty Hillary Clinton, Stephen Colbert, and those other useless “liberals” are. If only Colbert had spent his time attacking Hillary Clinton and all the “establishment liberals” who have devoted their lives to trying to make a difference, he could have earned the respect of those wonderful and caring “Trump voters” who are so misunderstood. Why, even now we must not mention how much Trump’s appeal to racism and xenophobia and homophobia STILL attracts those Trump voters who are idealized by superior people who plant potatoes. So much so that they don’t care that he has thrown them over in chase of more big deals that will help the .01%. Let’s all make sure not to offend those Trump voters who are so attracted by Trump’s demeaning comments about non-whites, non-Christians, gays, etc. and focus on how offended those Trump voters might be because of Colbert’s joke. As if Trump voters are offended by a bad taste joke and that’s why they love Trump. Give me a break.
You are the one so mired in your own superiority that you are being played for a fool by the alt right.
LikeLike
Thank you, NYC public school parent, for showing me that I am a troll and dupe of the alt-right. I needed that.
Silly me, I thought crude, homophobic (and unfunny, as most of Colbert’s shtick has become since he gave up his Cole-Bear persona) jokes were not considered acceptable among liberals who go to great lengths to broadcast their virtue, especially regarding anything related to Identity Politics.
But I guess hypocrisy is bi-partisan, and spans the political spectrum.
LikeLike
Michael Fiorillo says:
“I thought crude, homophobic (and unfunny, as most of Colbert’s shtick has become since he gave up his Cole-Bear persona) jokes were not considered acceptable among liberals who go to great lengths to broadcast their virtue, especially regarding anything related to Identity Politics.”
Identity politics? Could you possibly spout more right wing talking points? Yes, that’s all we “liberals” talk about. If I didn’t know better I would think you were a right wing troll because you use the same tired attacks (but they work, so good at ya – you got your man elected).
I don’t think I am more “virtuous” than you. I do think I am more honest. There was NO outcry from the gay community because the joke wasn’t homophobic and the people saying it was are the same alt right Trump supporters who use homophobia and the fear of “gay rights” to attract all those racist, gay-hating white midwestern voters you so idealize.
You have a point that Colbert’s jokes can be crude and sexual and I don’t always find them funny.
But your faux outrage is so tiresome — as if you truly believe a comedian using raw humor to make a political point has never before happened and it is a sign of the coming apocalypse that we “liberals” (as you call us) are bringing on! Sure, that’s what’s wrong with the US. Too many comedians like Steven Colbert making bad jokes. It’s not Trump’s policies or the xenophobic, racist white voters you idealize who don’t give a crap that their President lies through his teeth.
It is NO coincidence that the people professing the most outrage about this are the alt right pro-Trump Republicans who have never criticized Trump with the outrage that they criticize a comedian, and people like you and dienne77 who spent the months leading up to the election telling us that Hillary was no different than Trump so don’t vote for her because Trump’s election won’t be any worse than if Hillary were President.
I have yet to hear you and dienne77 say you were wrong about that. Do you still believe with all your heart that you were right? I doubt there is any policy Trump could enact that would ever make you or deinne77 say that you were wrong not to realize he is not the same as Hillary. But I’d be curious to hear if I am wrong.
Still sticking to your guns that the election of President Trump is no different than had Hillary been elected? Still glad you spent so much time bashing Hillary as just a crooked as Trump kept telling voters she was so they would stay away and he could win? Talk about being mired in your own “virtuosity”.
And yes, no doubt in your minds I am the hypocrite while you are virtuous one for attacking Colbert (and Hillary) with a vehemence you can’t bother to feel when it comes to Trump. Even after months of watching him destroy this country and watching those white voters you so adore and admire continue to support their beloved leader Trump.
LikeLike
I said on numerous occasions that I voted for Hillary (if grudgingly), which you are either unaware of, or are purposefully ignoring.
Also, criticizing Hillary Clinton as a weak and flawed candidate, which was proven by an election in which she lost to the most unpopular Republican candidate ever, is not the same as approving of Trump.
Finally, I use use my real name on this blog, unlike you, and don’t make unfounded personal accusations/attacks, so who’s the troll?
LikeLike
Michael,
I apologize to you. I was wrong and confused you with someone else.
I don’t have a problem with anyone saying that Hillary Clinton was a weak and flawed candidate. I had a problem with portraying Hillary Clinton’s weaknesses and flaws as a corruption far beyond normal politicians. I had a problem with other people (not you) portraying Clinton’s flaws as making her no better than Trump. I had a problem with people portraying Hillary Clinton as “just a teeny tiny little bit better than Trump because she is still outrageously corrupt but not quite as outrageously corrupt as Trump although there is not much difference between the two corrupt candidates.”
Likewise, I have a problem with people implying a comedian who tells an arguably offensive sexually suggestive joke is going so far beyond the norm of humor that unless he is castigated and criticized and we all profess extreme disgust at such an offense, then we are the reason that Trump’s white, racist, xenophobic and homophobic supporters STILL support him even now. I have a problem with you criticizing some straw men “liberals” who believe that laughing at Colbert’s jokes is the same as political activism. I have never met those people. Have you?
LikeLike
NYCpsp,
I accept and appreciate your apology.
In answer to your final question, yes, I encounter people like that all the time, all the time, but I think you misconstrue my point. I’m the last person to want to keep comedy separate from politics, or police what comedians say; my point is that Colbert’s monologue was typical of the disconnect shown by highly intelligent, highly educated, highly sophisticated people who don’t seem to get that their political butts are being repeatedly being kicked by the morons and idiots they spend so much time laughing at.
If Trump and the Republicans are so stupid, then why do they control, with just some exceptions, virtually the entire state apparatus in this country?
I think that’s a worthwhile question, but we won’t answer it by watching a Colbert monologue, or feeling that our superior educations will protect us from the fangs of an rapacious, out-of-control Overclass.
LikeLike
Colorful language, let’s say, has always been part of comedy. Ain’t nothin’ new under the sun.
LikeLike
“The tongue is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we curse others, who too are made in God’s image”
So, James (brother of Jesus) is honest and not a hypocrite. He admits that he himself has belittled others with his tongue; others worthy of respect and decent treatment because they are made in God’s image, and God will hold a people accountable in the Final Day.
Jesus taught that unjust or excessive criticism of others can be a form of “heart murder” because of the intent to due harm by slandering/murdering the character and person of the other, and that violates the “you shall not murder” law/principle.
Who of us is “without sin” and has the moral purity to throw stones, via acrid criticism.
I believe we can be objective and criticize, with redemptive intent, the bad choice and actions of others, but we are not to slander their character and reputation; the Golden Rule prohibits such malice.
Michelle Obama standards are great, but the Scriptures are clear that our tongues are full of bitterness and venom, and we sin against the One who made the tongue.
LikeLike
Oh God, really?
LikeLike
Did you mean “which god”?
Rick can’t help himself when it comes to talking about his god. When he sticks with more mundane worldly issues, he has a quite a few good things to say. His god stuff gets in the way of that.
LikeLike
Well if the “god-stuff” makes you choke (on words or concepts), then just call my writing philosophical musings, not theology. Call it moral-idealism if you want, or not. I contribute what I find of value, but if you don’t agree you can just stay silent, or continue to harass and poke ridicule at me, or the “concepts” I stand for.
All of the NT writers suffered great persecution and harm by Roman emperors, but nowhere do you find Paul or Peter being harsh or malicious in criticizing them or encouraging their followers to slander or oppose them. Rather, they wrote to “honor and pray for the king and those in authority….that you may lead a peaceable life….and give no opportunity for slander….don’t return evil with evil”.
So, I’ll chose the high road and avoid the mudslinging, knowing that when I point one finger, 4 others are pointing back at me. Maybe that Golden Rule stuff makes sense, practical, experiential, pragmatic, utilitarian, idealistic…and theological.
LikeLike
Take the high road, Rick, I’ll take the low. Hell, It’s guaranteed that I’m going to hell anyway (at least according to the religious tradition in which I was brought up-Roman Catholic).
Really, though, I do like what you have to offer in regards to education.
It’s the theological stuff that I find so tedious and pedantic and find a need to respond. And that response is not mudslinging but an attempt to counter what I consider to be the nonsense of deity driven religious beliefs including the part of “persecuted martyrdom” of “true believers”.
LikeLike
No martyr’s-complex with me Duane. Plus, take the theology out of it and the Golden Rule makes complete utilitarian sense (ie. good fruit is self evident), You don’t need to analyze the root of it’s axioms, or agree with them. If the Bible never existed I believe we still could come up with, via Hegelian dialectical discourse, a Golden Rule principle.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Finally a face with the words, Duane!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I finally figured it out!
I had my chocolab in that picture with me but couldn’t crop it to get both of us in. His muzzle is as grey as mine! He’s a good ol pup! And good sized too, probably around 125-30 lbs.
LikeLike
Wait… the Golden Rule: do you mean the one where the people who own the gold make the rules?
LikeLike
No, that would be called the “social darwinist’s plan of economic dominance”, which was prohibited and preached against all throughout the OT and NT. Economic favoritism (either creating an unequal market, or treating rich different than poor) is a immoral.
LikeLike
Thanks for clearing that up, Rick: please notify the believers of the Prosperity Gospel of that, since they’ve yet to hear it.
LikeLike
I do hope you recognize the deep irony with which this atheist wrote, “Oh God, really?”
LikeLike
Will do; the prosperity “gospel” is an anomaly in history. Only in rich America where we have all this excess and yet still lust and covet for more could such twisted doctrine arise. “Lay not treasures up on earth” is a pretty simple concept, because there is something so much greater, grander and better that we should be motivated for.
LikeLike
Not exactly: Calvinism and Puritanism, integral to the make-up of US culture, both had strong affinities to what we now call the Gospel of Prosperity (a form of idolatry, really).
LikeLike
By the way, I think you’d be more shocked by what 7th graders say in the hallways.
LikeLike
It’s not a matter of being shocked. It’s a matter of principle. Be the better person. That’s what my mother taught me. Didn’t yours?
LikeLike
Dienne77,
“Mama tried to raise me better, but her pleading, I denied.
That leaves only me to blame ’cause Mama tried:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjCltSnl2aE
LikeLike
How true. Until 2005 I was still enlisting admin and dean for “punishment” regarding vulgarity, crassness, and cursing. By 2012, I was reminding middle schoolers not to use words beginning with a, b, c, d, f, g, h, i, l, m, n, p, q, s, or t. They of course wanted to know for what all the letters stood. I wouldn’t share. I’m quite sure they could have supplied words for the letters I omitted as many were bilingual. The humor helped in the classroom but not on campus.
LikeLike
It’s only because he sees what’s coming and you don’t. Call it a crude wake up call. No time to mince words, even for comedians. Especially for comedians. The arbiters of taste, usually one myself, are the ones that need scolded in this instance for merely postponing the inevitable.
LikeLike
We are in a code red situation, a dire emergency and please don’t hand me this crap that Hillary would have been just as bad or worse. Colbert’s just using words, he’s not making destructive policies that will negatively affect tens of millions of people. I do admit that I tire of the gratuitous foul language of Bill Maher but he’s not really harming any one with his potty mouth.
LikeLike
Generally offended by anything Stephen Colbert says, vulgar or not. Comments from both sides that become personal attacks only make the situation worse for all of us. Maybe someone will step up and set an example that is more positive. Or is civility even possible anymore?
LikeLike
I assume you were offended by EVERY late night comedian’s opening monologue during the Bill Clinton impeachment hearings in the late 1990s. No doubt you were certain that “civility” was dead and it was all the fault of Jay Leno making crude jokes about President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Leno and every other late night comedian were ruining this country, you believed, and causing all civility to end. It was their fault! Not Bill Clinton’s! How dare they joke about him! You must have been appalled at them every single night! How dare Jay Leno ruin this country. They are as bad as Bill Clinton, you believed, and it was those comedians who were bringing this country down.
Perhaps you were just like dienne77 and you said that Jay Leno and every other late night comedian should shut up because making jokes about Clinton’s bad behavior was exactly the same as the bad behavior itself! And, no doubt, you would have said anyone who didn’t severely castigate all late night comedians making jokes about Bill Climton was basically saying it was fine for Clinton to do whatever he wanted while in office. Don’t you dare laugh at one of Jay Leno’s Bill Clinton jokes because it means you condone Bill Clinton’s behavior and the comedian is just as bad as Bill Clinton himself! That’s your “logic”.
It amazes me that the right wing gets away with these targeted attacks on anyone who criticizes their hero Trump. The same ones who defending such attacks when they were directed at Hillary Clinton as perfectly fine because she was corrupt.
LikeLike
Almost every time Trump opens his mouth stupid comes out. Having said that, I do respect that he holds the office of the President of the United States of America. Throughout my long life I have striven to remember my Grandfather’s words. He was born in 1900 and served through two world wars in the cavalry. He would say, “Respect the position.” Those were very wise words from a gentle man. I used to think of them at work sometimes when an administrator would come up with some bizarre idea or plan.
I am a huge Colbert fan. His comedic style reflects my own thoughts. The Monday night monologue was a bit crude even for late night. Colbert could have accomplished his “message” a little differently. And yes Diane, this is a sign of the coarsening of our culture. I don’t believe there is any stopping it. I also believe we don’t have to participate and we can share alternatives (thinking not facts) with others including our young people.
LikeLike
Having read the link, I now see that Mr. Borchers is a conservative, which is another part of the problem. When we fail to call out members of our own clique, er, I mean party while loudly calling out members of the other, it leaves the door wide open for us to be called hypocrites. The opposing party is going to take advantage of hypocrisy like this.
LikeLike
It would surprise no one if some nightclub-type comedians used language and imagery like that. But it was part of his appeal that Colbert never did, indeed, it was widely publicized that he was a sunday school teacher and a devout man, and this gave his knife-sharp satire a unique moral depth. What he is doing now reeks of desperation and is also lazy. I don’t get it.
LikeLike
The joke is certainly homophobic, as that term is used (i.e., the sexual-preference version of “racism” or “sexism”). The joke was designed to emasculate Trump by associating him with a a homosexual act. That’s right in the heartland of homophobic comedy. Of course, just because a joke is homophobic doesn’t mean it’s irredeemably offensive.
LikeLike
Colbert wanted to hurt Trump, and he knew the best way to do it is this way. I think the rest is overthinking which underlies today’s ridiculous PC language.
LikeLike
I’m not exactly a prude when it comes to language, but don’t make a habit of using so-called “coarse” language just for its own sake, or simply to identify myself with a particular culture. On the other hand, I don’t go out of my way to avoid it with phrases like, “Oh, fudge!” either. If it feels appropriate or natural in accordance w/a totally subjective standard, I may engage in it sometimes. It seems in some (certainly not all) cases, speakers resort to that language because either 1) they don’t have sufficient linguistic descriptive powers to express a strong opinion in some other manner, 2) they’re trying to fit into a particular context or social order, or 3) they have ample command of language, but wish to emphasize a point even beyond that. I like to think I’m sufficiently well-versed in using the English language that I’m able to find conventional words to express what’s on my mind; there are some social contexts in which I might feel freer about speaking in coarser terms if it helps with communication; & there are rare occasions where I feel it’s honestly the most effective way to make a point. Some of my favorite comedians use it very effectively; others of my favorites never use it. I don’t generally enjoy comedians who use it continually just because they can; handled w/o care, it gets old very quickly. I’m not necessarily offended simply by Stephen Colbert’s usage. The only issue for me is that perhaps it’s arguable whether it was gratuitous or his point & mode of communicating it would have been just as effective with more conventional language.
LikeLike
I did not vote for Trump. Still, I thought that once he won the election the boorish behavior he used during the election campaign would cease. Boy was I wrong. Trump continues to be the boorish, racist, crude, rude, and liar that he was during the primary and president campaigns. Even more unnerving is his sympathetic attitude towards murderous authoritarian rulers such as Putin, Duterte, and Kim Jong un. No doubt Trump would like to exercise the same authority here. What better way to inhibit the enactment of Trump’s authoritarian tendencies than to make him an object of ridicule? I fully support Colbert’s comments and hope other celebrities join in the fight to make Trump an object of ridicule. Anything else in my opinion would essentially normalize his childish, bullying (think “Pocahontas”) behavior. This is especially important since cable news and major media outlets described Trump as being “Presidential” when he bombed Syria!
While we should respect the office of the president, Trump has thouroughly demeaned it for the entire world to see.
Trump deserves zero respect.
LikeLike
His fawning over the dictator in the Philippines is appalling. This guy said (I saw the clip): “Hitler killed three million Jews [sic], I look forward to killing three million drug addicts.”
He has killed 7,000 so far.
And Trump invited him to the White House.
Human rights out the window.
LikeLike
“This is especially important since cable news and major media outlets described Trump as being “Presidential” when he bombed Syria!”
Talk about sick nonsense, eh! (I would have said shit but didn’t want to lower the conversation) Excellent commentary
LikeLike
My objection to Colbert’s joke isn’t that it was offensive – I thought it was, especially since it wasn’t funny, but who cares? – but that it was politically useless in opposing him, and indicative of the smugness and indifference-bordering-on-contempt (correctly perceived by many Trump voters) the Meritocratic/Identitarian wing of the Democratic Party feels for working people who have the poor taste and judgement to not live on the urban West Coast or the Acela Corridor.
We’ve been through this before, though people seem to forget: remember all the late night comics’ jokes about George W. Bush’s stupidity? Remember how effective that was in defeating him in 2004?
Oh, wait…
LikeLike
You stated that Colbert’s comments were not funny. I beg to differ. I thought they were hilarious and on point. You also compared the treatment of Trump to Bush II to point out the ineffectiveness of remarking about Bush or Trump’s stupidity since Bush won reelection. The problem with this is that comparing Bush II to Trump is a “false equivelalency”. Compared to Trump Bush II is Einstein in mental capabilities and postively shakespearean in verbal abilities.
LikeLike
You clearly did not get my point: I wasn’t comparing the various stupidities of Bush and Trump, but was talking about the political vacuousness of confusing late night comedy, funny or not, with actual politics.
LikeLike
“Remember how effective that was in defeating him in 2004?”
Do you always have to have an agenda when you are talking?
LikeLike
I think you missed your own point. You opened with the ineffectiveness of Colbert’s monologue and then closed with pointing out that Bush won reelection despite being ridiculed by comedians, etc. I did not say you compared their respective “stupidities”. My point was that calling Bush stupid and/or ridiculing him was not very effective because he was basically a mainstream Republican and wasn’t nearly as outrageous as Trump. Trump is completely over-the-top outrageous. He publicly denigrates anyone who disagrees with him, threatens the news media, threatens the judiciary, is using the presidency as a giant ATM machine for his family, calls respected political leaders names such as Sen. Warren “Pocahontas”, or Sen. Shumer a “clown”. He has demeaned the office of the president. Anyone that can limit Trump’s effectiveness is good by me. Why do you suppose Republican’s are having such a hard time trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act? Hint: Lack of respect for Trump is part of the their failure.
Finally, Teapot-Dome may wind up being small potatoes compared to this administration’s financial shenanigans.
LikeLike
Mate Weirdl,
Please, spare me the sanctimony: this is a political thread, and everyone, you included, is promoting their political taker on things.
If you deny that, you’re either unaware, or being disingenuous.
LikeLike
I’m still waiting for a comment on Trump’s intention to sign a “religious freedom” executive order, rather than debating Colbert’s joke.
Why so exercised about a tasteless joke instead of actual homophobia?
LikeLike
Michael Fiorillo “Mate Wierdl, Please, spare me the sanctimony: this is a political thread, and everyone, you included, is promoting their political taker on things.”
Huh? What sanctimony? I was suggesting that when Colbert says something, he may not mean to have it a political consequence. He may just express frustration, disgust, or may simply want to insult.
LikeLike
Michael Brocoum,
On the contrary, I was quite consistent: I said that neither jokes about Bush II’s stupidity, nor Trump being Putin’s Fellator-In-Chief were effective in opposing them politically.
We can differ about whether the bit was funny or not, but that isn’t the issue. Neither of interest to me is whether the monologue was offensive (I thought the fellatio reference was definitely homophobic and vulgar, but I give humorists a wide berth,and understand that comedy is by its nature transgressive, and things that are offensive can still be funny).
For me is the heart of the issue is the delusion and complacency of relying on late-night comedians to do your hard political work for you, especially when the type of humor is apt to alienate even more of the people we should be trying to reach.
LikeLike
I don’t rely on late night comedians to do the work of trying to bring change to government, and I doubt most other people do so. I do hope that someone like Colbert may inspire some people to get involved if they want structural change in our society. For myself that begins with working to flip the Senate & House in 2018 which will not be easy, and then voting Trump out of office in 2020. Finally, I agree with Diane Ravitch that Trump’s actions count much more than what a late night comedian might say no matter how crude. Let’s save our outrage for Trump’s actions.
LikeLike
Mate Weirdl,
You mean to say that a joke about a politician, mocking him as a provider of oral sex for another politician, should not be understood to have political content or a political agenda?
Really?
LikeLike
Some very odd acrobatics are being performed in this thread. A joke that mocks a U.S. President for being in thrall to the President of Russia has no political content. A joke about a sexual act performed by one man on another man has nothing to do with homosexuality. I’m in the camp that thinks that the outrage over Colbert’s joke is way overblown, but if Dienne didn’t’ have a point when this conversation began, I’d say she has one now.
LikeLike
“A joke about a sexual act performed by one man on another man has nothing to do with homosexuality. ”
Few more replies like this, and I may be called an ignorant homophobic. Just go on, guys, do your best. Your deep analysis is very important for humanity to get it right.
LikeLike
I don’t think you’re an ignorant homophobe any more that I think Stephen Colbert is. But you and others on this thread do seem very anxious to show that Colbert’s joke wasn’t homophobic, to the point you’re arguing that jokes about sex and politics have absolutely nothing to do with either sex or politics.
I think the stakes are lower than many seem to think. Telling a homophobic joke doesn’t make Stephen Colbert an ignorant homophobe. He doesn’t need to make a public apology and right-minded liberals don’t need to condemn him. I say and think homophobic things sometimes, just like I say and think racist things sometimes. But I try to acknowledge it when I do it, because what do I have to lose by being honest with myself?
LikeLike
I can’t resist observing the unintended characterization of this as “overblown.”
LikeLike
There’s just too much blowing.
LikeLike
Now, now, stevenelson. 😉
I would also present this “blowing” song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l4nVByCL44
LikeLike
So…..Der Trumpster can talk about grabbing “pussies,” but Democrats are not allowed to use crude language?
Oh, and Ms. Cartwheel … Librarian, while I understand your and your grandfather’s feelings about “respect the position,” what I was taught and have always believed was “those in positions of authority need to earn our respect, they do not receive it just because of their positions.”
LikeLike
This all comes under “much ado about nothing”.
Who gives a shit about it? (to put it right in line with the topic)
And I ain’t talkin all Coleman on ya!
LikeLike
Mr. Colbert is a comedian and a satirist. He’s in his batter’s box when he acts out and if his comedy and satire edges to the strike zone it isn’t a problem.
LikeLike
Every president is a target of comedians. Trump is a bigger target because he is a one of a kind, and he is extremely polarizing. He provides comedians with a mountain of material unlike anyone before him.
LikeLike
” He provides comedians with a mountain of material unlike anyone before him.” And hopefully after him. He makes GW Bush look positively erudite.
LikeLike
Eyeroll Nearly everyone of you on here defending Colbert is going to be standing in line to have the biggest apoplexy attack next time Trump lets loose with another “pussy grabbing” type comment. Or any other RWNJ. But it’s okay when our guy does it.
Just sad.
LikeLike
Dienne,
For what it’s worth, I will say it again. I don’t care about the language as much as the actions. Real people will suffer real pain when they lose their health care, when they lose access to abortion services, when they are refused service at a commercial establishment that doesn’t serve gays, when their marriages are annulled because of the latest Supreme Court decision, when their public school is closed because of DeVos, when their streams and rivers are too polluted to swim or fish in.
I don’t understand why you don’t care.
LikeLike
“it’s okay when our guy does it.” !!!!
dienne77 is now saying that a comedian should be held to the same standards as the US President. And if a comedian says something crude, that is the same as a President doing so.
Of course that is ONLY true of a comedian who dares to criticize a right wing President. Somehow I doubt “dienne77” took the same offense at the constant jokes by comedians making fun of Clinton’s sexual improprieties.
Can you imagine dienne77 attacking Jay Leno for daring to joke about Clinton! dienne77 would be saying “if you laugh when a comedian jokes about Clinton, it is the same as condoning Clinton’s behavior in office!
It sounds pretty ridiculous when you imagine dienne77 making the same false equivalencies claiming we should all attack Jay Leno because his making such jokes is just as bad as what Clinton did in office! No difference! Just like there is no difference between Trump and Hillary! None at all.
LikeLike
“…when they are refused service at a commercial establishment that doesn’t serve gays, when their marriages are annulled because of the latest Supreme Court decision…”
All true. All of which are jeopardized when we normalize homophobia, which is what we’re doing when we say that Colbert’s comments are okay because Trump is the target. (And, as FLERP! points out above, it is homophobia “The joke was designed to emasculate Trump by associating him with a a homosexual act. That’s right in the heartland of homophobic comedy.”) It’s not that big of a step between gay “jokes” and gay bashing.
“I don’t understand why you don’t care.”
Please, Diane, again, you’re better than that. I know that you understand that decrying language used on our side does not excuse actions by the other side. I’ve said that over and over and over ad nauseum. I know you understand that. Please stop with the cheap shots.
Here’s the bottom line. Dignity and integrity are the only two things that any person truly owns. Everything else can be taken away; dignity and integrity can only be given up voluntarily. When we react to Trump’s provocation by stooping to his level, we are giving up the only real “weapons” we have. We can’t out insult Trump. We can’t out outrageous him. We can’t go lower than him – there is no lower. If we go low, then it’s hard to tell the difference between “us” and “them”. If you wallow in the mud with a pig, you only get yourself dirty. And the pig likes it. We can only win by going higher. We can’t bring him down, but we can bring ourselves up. Your choice.
LikeLike
No, it is not about “normalizing homophobia.” It is about having a Supreme Court that takes away rights from homosexuals.
You don’t understand, Dienne.
LikeLike
And yet, dienne, there are times when “going higher” than your opponent doesn’t do a god-d@mned thing but make your opponent think that he can keep going the way he has been going, and even get worse and worse, because he thinks that nobody with any (pardon the French here) ba!!s is opposing him.
If the colonists here in the New World thought that they should be “going higher” than the British, we would not have become a separate, independent country. If the French had decided to “go higher,” there would have been no French Revolution.
If those of us who had opposed the Vietnam War had stayed home, been “sweet” and done what amounted to nothing, rather than taken to the streets, along with ridiculing and excoriating first LBJ and then Nixon and his minions (even after Kent State, when we were all thinking “That could have been us,” but we kept protesting), how much longer would the Vietnam War have continued? How many more Vietnamese and American lives would have been lost?
I don’t think that taking to the streets and chanting “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today” is exactly “going higher” than LBJ or Robert McNamara, et al. Among other things.
Sometimes, we need to take the kid gloves off, and get ready to, yes, get down in the dirt with them and pour out into the streets to oppose them.
LikeLike
dienne77’s claims that her strong embrace of the right wing Trump supporters’ attack on Stephen Colbert is because she is so concerned with homophobia truly defies belief.
Honestly, Diane, are you certain that this poster is real? I find it near impossible to believe that there are really Americans who have fallen so hard for these alt right trolls’ attacks. We learned after the election that there were lots of posts by people pretending to be Bernie supporters who re-posted the lies about Hillary Clinton on liberal media sites to undermine her campaign.
When someone takes such offense at Colbert and claims she is doing so to combat homophobia, it just defies belief. I don’t hear the gay community coming out attacking Colbert because the point was not about Trump servicing a man, but about Trump servicing a leader who has made him his puppet. If they did, I would find that legitimate. But hearing it from someone repeating the same tired right wing talking points of the people who could care less about homophobia just makes me suspicious of who this person really is.
LikeLike
“dienne77’s claims that her strong embrace of the right wing Trump supporters’ attack on Stephen Colbert is because she is so concerned with homophobia truly defies belief.”
Why is this tolerated, Diane? I don’t expect better of NYCPSP, but you know better. That is not at all what I’m saying and I’m really tired of you and people like NYCPSP putting words in my mouth. It is really beneath all of you.
LikeLike
NYC, Dienne is a valuable commenter on this blog. I know you came in late to the game, but it’s been pretty apparent that she is legitimate and not a troll. You and I may disagree with her comments on this topic, but certainly let’s be fair that personal attacks are not warranted. If you please, it might be a better use of our bandwidth to discuss ideas and not necessarily fellow posters who have earned their stripes, as it were. That said, Trump is an idiot. Colbert rules. 😛
LikeLike
dienne77, I apologize for the personal attack.
I don’t especially like crude humor myself and you have every right to find Colbert unfunny.
I do not understand why you join the right wing in acting as if this COMEDIAN’S occasional crude jokes are worthy of such outrage.
If Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren had made those comments about Trump I would agree with you that it was over the top.
I do not understand how you do not recognize the difference, but I also did not understand how you did not recognize the difference between Hillary Clinton’s politics as usual and Donald Trump’s complete and utter disregard for the truth and typical standards of moral behavior. As in, you don’t screw your contractors just because you are more powerful and have deeper pockets and know you can get away with it. You don’t spend 5 years drumming up racist hatred of a President by claiming you have his Kenyan birth certificate and then blame it all on Hillary. You don’t try to con uneducated people who think they will get rich if they attend Trump U.
There is a huge danger in the false equivalency, in my opinion. There will always be some comedian somewhere who makes a joke that someone finds offensive and that the right will use to distract us all from the real danger of Trump.
LikeLike
When I’m deciding whether a statement is offensive, I consider the speaker’s tone and background. Colbert’s c*ck-holster remark was absolutely homophobic, but I don’t think it was nasty (at least not toward homosexuals). When Trump made his “grab them by the pussy” comment, it was unambiguously nasty. I do not get the sense that Colbert dislikes homosexual men. I do have the sense that Trump dislikes women.
LikeLike
Flerp… Wow… I watched the monologue last night and must have dozed off during the “c*ck holster remark. Must re-watch. I wouldn’t throw the “baby out with the bathwater” and would agree with you Flerp that Colbert’s intentions were not directed at homosexuals – that is just not his style. But, I don’t think he would make the same mistake twice if he realizes he has offended people.
LikeLike
Colbert was calling Donnie a c%#&sucker, which is unambiguously a homophobic insult. Or does anyone here want to argue that it’s not?
Colbert could have called Trump Putin’s shill, Putin’s go-fer, Putin’s valet, Putin’s lapdog, and so on… but he didn’t; he called him a c%#&sucker.
Whatever else anyone might think about it, there should be no debate about the homophobia embedded in the joke. LG’s comment above that the joke was intended to “emasculate” Trump – implying that homosexuals are not “real” men – is confirmation of that.
Remember to keep it up, guys: there are still some state governments the Repugs don’t control yet, and we should have seen that cosmopolitan arrogance, indifference and complacency is no longer in style, though it’s clear many Democrats haven’t gotten that memo yet.
LikeLike
Agree that it’s absolutely a homophobic insult.
Also agree that it has zero political utility.
Disagree to the extent you’re suggesting that the joke’s homophobia has a meaningful motivating effect on Trump supporters. If Colbert had called Trump Putin’s lapdog, Trump supporters would have found that just as arrogant and elitist. In theory, if the deplorables are as deplorable as the elites believe, they would find the homophobic version of the joke funnier than the non-homophobic version.
LikeLike
So you say that calling someone that term is to mean that they are male and homosexual? I don’t particularly find that term respectful to a person whether heterosexual or homosexual, female or male. It does not equate for me a reference to Trump being a homosexual male–nor is that the context for which I would think Trump would find it insulting, although that may certainly bother him. It is meant to as a derogatory metaphor for a submissive pawn which may very well be much more harmful to Trump’s ego.
You are taking Colbert’s use of the term way too literally which is problematic to the cause. It might be your interpretation, but there is a nuance in Colbert’s language that is pretty obvious. He definitely went out on a limb with his comments, but given the context of the White House idiocy we experience daily, nothing shocks me anymore.
LikeLike
Not sure if you’re responding to me or to Michael. To be clear, Colbert didn’t use the term “c@cksucker.” Colbert said that the only thing Trump’s mouth is good for is “being Vladimir Putin’s c@ck holster.” So the joke was that Trump performs fellatio on Putin. In that joke, Trump is male (because he is) and is performing a homosexual act (because Putin is male). Don’t lose the forest for the trees here. The analysis is pretty simple.
LikeLike
“So the joke was that Trump performs fellatio on Putin. In that joke, Trump is male (because he is) and is performing a homosexual act (because Putin is male). Don’t lose the forest for the trees here. The analysis is pretty simple.”
Come on. If I say “Trump can kiss my ass”, then I mean to talk about a homosexual act?
LikeLike
It’s a metaphor.
LikeLike
I don’t know what to tell you, Mate. If you don’t think that Colbert was referring to a sexual act, I don’t think we could have a worthwhile conversation about the topic.
My own view, for the record, is that it was a homophobic, not very funny, but harmless joke, not worth getting outraged about.
LikeLike
” If you don’t think that Colbert was referring to a sexual act, I don’t think we could have a worthwhile conversation about the topic.”
That’s the point exactly: it’s difficult to have a meaningful convo about something so lacking significance.
LikeLike
We’re in agreement there.
LikeLike
“Colbert was calling Donnie a c%#&sucker, which is unambiguously a homophobic insult. Or does anyone here want to argue that it’s not?”
I argue. I listen to teenagers and they call each other mother fuc*er regularly. Does this have, in any way, the literal meaning or purpose you’d attach to it if you just looked the words?
LikeLike
MW, I’m sure that teenagers also use the word under discussion, as well.
Plus, something that nobody has yet mentioned, it describes a sexual act that women also perform on men, not just men on men. Perhaps Colbert was calling Trump a “girl.”
LikeLike
My point exactly. It could refer to anyone who engages in that act–that is, IF that is the only thing Colbert meant by it.
LikeLike
As Duane has wisely noted, in the grand scheme of things, this is much ado about nothing, though I see quite a contrast with the courage and brilliance of Colbert’s take down of Bush and the White House press corps at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner in 2006. In that performance, with the President sitting a few feet away, Colbert brilliantly and hilariously exposed the systemic obsequiousness toward the powerful by the mainstream press, and how it demeaned and discredited members of it.
This time, Colbert was just channeling his 6th grade playground self. It’s all largely meaningless, except perhaps as a real time indicator of the nexus between politics and popular culture, and what that might portend in the future.
LikeLike
Michael Fiorillo,
I would like to see people become more exercised by what Trump is doing to eliminate equal rights than by what Colbert said about him, which will be forgotten in a few days or weeks. What Trump does–the executive order he signs–will make it legal for people to deny service or refuse to sell to people they don’t approve of. That will remain in place unless a court strikes it down.
LikeLike
But, Diane, that’s my point: Dienne is not the one confusing comedy with political action, the people hyping Colbert’s juvenile joke – and, more importantly, the political attitudes it’s a placeholder for – are.
I didn’t find the joke funny, and think it’s humor rests on homophobic premises, but that’s irrelevant. What is relevant is the tendency for a certain wing of the liberal/left to think that a late-night comedy monologue is a substitute for real political struggle, and that, in the eyes of his supporters (though not the thin-skinned target himself, which perhaps was the sole intention of Colbert), this kind of thing just reinforces their views.
As should be obvious by now, the “Putin did it” meme, even if true, is a political loser.
Comedy is an art, and art has its place in the political realm, but it’s a minor place, deeply subordinated to things like the interests and lived experience of actual people. Thinking that homophobic dick jokes about Trump and Putin are equivalent to political action makes people less able to effectively fight Trump’s actions that we both abhor. It’s also going to get him re-elected.
LikeLike
Michael,
As I have said more than once, Trump’s deeds matter far more than Colbert’s jokes. If we or someone is going to set standards for late night humor, no one will listen. It gets far bawdier than anything Colbert said.
I saw the other night that Michael Moore is opening a show on Broadway in which he will mock Trump. That’s what humorists and political commentators do.
I am not bothered by that. You know, free speech and the First Amendment. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
With all the outrage about Colbert’s joke, funny or unfunny, where is the outrage about Trump’s executive order allowing businesses to deny service to people like me?
LikeLike
C’mon, LG, have you ever, EVER heard a man try to insult a woman by calling her a c%$#sucker?
I didn’t think so.
if you need reminding, try watching a few old episodes of “The Sopranos” where the term is used all the time, and see who it’s always addressed to.
LikeLike
“What is relevant is the tendency for a certain wing of the liberal/left to think that a late-night comedy monologue is a substitute for real political struggle…”
What??!!!!
How insulting to Americans all over the country who can laugh or not laugh at a bad taste joke but are working hard in a myriad of ways to effect change. Those straw men you think are out there saying “as long as Colbert makes a joke about Trump, I’m good” do not exist.
I watched Jay Leno and pretty much every late night comedian make endless bad taste jokes about Bill Clinton’s sex life during the Monica Lewinsky days. I found a lot of it to be offensive and some of it to be funny.
But it would have taken more chutzpah than I have to attack people for not being morally outraged at those jokes.
It would have taken more chutzpah than I have to say that people who didn’t like Clinton were laughing at those jokes because they were deluded into thinking they were effecting political change.
It would have taken more chutzpah than I have to blame Jay Leno for Clinton not being impeached because by telling a bad taste sexually suggestive joke he was making Clinton’s supporters embrace him more.
LikeLike
I think we’re talking past each other at this point, Diane.
But once again, and this time to connect things to your mention of Michael Moore: I like Michael Moore; I think Michael Moore is a very funny man; I mostly agree with Michael Moore politically. I also think that people who pay a lot of money to see him perform, and then go home feeling self-satisfied about their political virtue – a typical result of this sort of thing – have done zero to oppose Trump and his agenda. Zero. Wealthy media celebrities will not save us; we have to do that for ourselves, and that involves some deep political reflection, self-criticism and willingness to modify our strategies and tactics.
One of those tactics/assumptions that needs changing is the mistaken notion that late night comedy monologues/celebrity validation are a substitute for real politics, for talking to people face to face, for offering them something that will materially improve their lives, for struggle. Relying on celebrities is a form of political masturbation, and has shown itself to be a loser. If evidence of that were ever needed, the 2016 election provided it.
That’s also something which constantly flattering ourselves about how stupid our opponents are (so stupid, btw, that they control all three branches of the federal government and most state governments, as well) is not going to change.
You keep repeating that it’s all about Trump’s actions, not Colbert’s monologue, and in a sense that’s my point: it’s about actions, and not snarky (and, in this case, homophobic) humor as a substitute for real politics.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Eyeroll! Hmmmm, Colbert is a late night comedian and Trump is president of the USA. Where is the equivalency? Zero, zilch, nada. If you are so offended, then don’t watch Colbert any more. I’m offended by Trump, where do I go to be free of him?
LikeLike
Right, Joe, thanks or the injection of common sense. I would get concerned if Schumer or Pelosi decided to take a page from Trump’s careening language. Colbert? Count me unoffended.
LikeLike
bethree,
I am sure that most people, including the paid right wing trolls, watching Colbert were unoffended or at worst, thought the crude joke wasn’t funny. But a sign of the apocalypse and the false equivalency that a comedian’s joke signals the end of civil discourse and is the SAME as the sitting President and his minions saying crude and offensive things? If it walks like a right wing troll and talks like a right wing troll….
No doubt if enough of these media trolls post this over and over again, they can convince some readers to take offense where none was originally taken. I don’t know if dienne77 is one of the gullible Americans who the right wing trolls target because they know they are easily fooled or if deinne77 is a troll. But taking such outsize offense at something that is barely offensive to try to distract people from the constant offense that a sitting President is creating? Something smells very fishy.
LikeLike
Do you really think that the problem with the talk of pussy grabbing was the word pussy, and not the grabbing? Please tell me that is not the case!
LikeLike
Except, Colbert is not trying to be the leader of the “free” world.
LikeLike
I am not a fan of crude humor at all but in fact, Jon Stewart often went crude during the Daily Show. (Those were not my favorite jokes and I never thought them funny, but there was none of the faux outrage by conservatives which only seem to occur if the crudity is directed at one of their heroes.)
If once in a while a COMEDIAN wants to make a sexually suggestive joke, then he should be judged on whether the joke is FUNNY (I almost never find them funny, myself). I am sure that someone could dig out the occasional joke by Bob Hope, Rich Little, or any of the comedians since the 1950s who make jokes that are offensive. When Rich Limbaugh and Alex Jones identify themselves first and foremost as COMEDIANS, they can also make the occasional crude joke. But they pretend to actually tell viewers the news as “alternative fact” tellers and are far worse in their non-stop offensiveness. Anyone remember the jokes about 12 year old Chelsea Clinton?
Donald Trump is NOT a comedian. He is President. And the false equivalency spouted by the same people who again and again fall for the right wing propaganda is dangerous. A comedian making a crude joke is not the same as someone identifying himself as a truth teller doing the same. A comedian making a crude or even offensive joke is not the equivalent of a President or one of his official White House minions doing the same.
And unfortunately too many voters in the last election fell for this kind of false equivalency and spouted the same tired right wing talking points about Hillary’s guilt. I don’t think it is a coincidence who it is that treats an offensive joke as some kind of moral equivalent to what Alex Jones and his like do, not to mention Trump’s own White House.
I wonder if even now the same people who claimed there was no difference between Hillary and Trump are starting to say that Bernie himself is corrupt since his wife’s dealings with her college are being investigated. After all, they keep reading all those right wing troll comments pretending to be just the average concerned citizen telling them Bernie must be corrupt. And Elizabeth Warren – no doubt we will hear those gullible folks who kept saying Hillary was as corrupt as Trump soon falling for the same kind of attacks on Warren. No doubt they will be shocked! shocked! at how criminally corrupt Warren is just like they express shock! shock! that a COMEDIAN could actually say something rather offensive in an attempt to be funny.
And it will be deja vu all over again.
LikeLike
Trump is abhorrent and speaks and comports himself like a member of the criminal class. I did not vote for him and do not support him, but the reality is that his infamous comment was made 12 years ago to a private individual, and was surreptitiously recorded. Colbert’s was broadcast over live TV. It is not a question of “going high”. Why does Colbert, a brilliant man — or why do we — have to start behaving like a bunch of mobsters — which we are not, I hope — just because Trump does it.
Trump is in the entertainment business — like Reagan before him and I don’t think he has threatened gay rights or nominated anyone who has — maybe I am wrong. It is my impression that gay rights continue to enjoy widespread support in the general population and I don’t think that is going to change.
Trump is bad enough but not bad enough so that anything goes in trying to depose him. Because whatever people do will be used against them, too, at some point in the future — tit for tat — making for permanent instability to the detriment of our republic.
I would like to see Trump defeated by legitimate means and replaced by a truly progressive government with universal health care, broken up monopolies, and adequate funding for public education from pre-school to college to adult ed., and support for the arts, culture, science and the environment.
LikeLike
Your characterizing a single possibly “bad taste” joke by a comedian as “behaving like a bunch of mobsters” makes everything else you say suspect.
In fact, it is you who seems to be on a witch hunt against any comedian who might make a joke at Trump’s expense. It wasn’t a homophobic joke and hearing that attack from the people who happily embraced Trump’s homophobic agenda is disingenuous. They weren’t offended — they were desperately parsing each word to look for something they could get to stick.
The people who supported Bill Clinton never had the chutzpah to demand that Jay Leno should be attacked for daring to make a joke about Clinton’s dalliance with Monica. They couldn’t imagine a time when the press would actually be so complicit in attacking critics of a President that they fell for any propaganda to shut up his critics.
I would like to see people who pretend to be progressive stop saying things like “never before has any Democratic President been the subject of offensive humor by comedians and how awful our society is for allowing this terrible event to occur.” It’s a big fat lie. And if you are REALLY the progressive you claim and not a big lying troll you would never have the chutzpah to claim that a comedian’s joke is “an effort to depose” a sitting President. That’s worthy of Putin and is certainly what Russians are told.
Sad when these trolls pretend to be progressives while claiming that never before has any politician joked about a President and it’s tantamount to BEHAVING LIKE A BUNCH OF MOBSTERS.
No “progressive” believes that. Sad that the people who most love Trump are embarrassed to tell the truth about him.
LikeLike
the world is at a crossroads, one that terrifies me and many others….i am fine with 45 being called out with whatever language the person calling him out is using….too late to go high….our country, the world, the planet is at stake….
LikeLike
I have the option to not view Colbert. He is a comedian doing the job that his sponsors and employer are supervising. His viewers are entitled to any opinion they choose and have avenues to travel to express their perspective. Any reader or commenter here can express any opinion in any forum they choose and its no skin off my nose if we agree or disagree on his choice of words of actions. Trump, on the other hand, is my country’s president and his words and actions are my concern. He is my employee, and his decisions have a great impact on my well being. Unlike Colbert’s words, Trumps words could and do incite a great deal of conflict. I don’t have the option to not be affected by Trumps words. If Colbert has a hissy and uses strong language or lies or misconception it doesn’t affect the well being of millions all over the world. Those who get ticked off at Colbert can say so and have no fear of his supporters attacking them and making their lives miserable. Trumps supporters jump down your throat, harass and antagonize if their superhero is maligned. Trump is currently having hissies because he has to work nearly every day, even those days he leaves work and goes golfing. He’s not getting enough attention from the “popular kids” and he’s threatening to hook up with Putin (phone call but who knows what that will lead to), Duterte (play date?) and “smart cookie” would honor him if they meet. He’s ticked off that congress and protesters aren’t doing his bidding and showing overt love for him. He had to throw his own party for his hundred day milestone and no golden participation trophy was delivered by anyone. He read a poem/lyrics about the consequences of picking up a snake that is so applicable to what his supporters have done in picking him up that its hard to believe he’s not aware that he’s got it backwards because he’s looking at a reflection in a mirror. I certainly understand Colbert’s anger. I feel it myself. But I don’t have to get up and try to get folks to laugh every night as we all recover from snakebites and anticipate the destruction of our culture. I don’t have to pay attention to Colbert. But I have to be hypervigilant of Trump because he is a snake who will eventually bite me or mine. I don’t even see the point in having the same expectations of Colbert as I do for Trump. Yes, for Obama as president I expected high level of exemplary behavior and going high if others went low. I don’t think it applies to entertainers, political pundits to behave as virtuously as presidents or elected representatives. Trump should be held to much higher standard than any entertainer or general citizen yet fails to do so daily. He is a one man tornado of destruction and pointing out that the alarm (Colbert and his cronies) makes an annoying noise seems silly to me. Sometimes the message of the jester is not funny. But if his act points out that the king is likely to have your head cut off maybe pay attention to the warning? Veiwers can complain about Colbert, sponsors can withdraw, producers can fire. What can we as citizens do at this point about Trump’s dysfunction? I am not talking about nasty things he said a dozen years ago….I am referencing the wreckless words and actions he has exhibited in the performance of his job starting within minutes after his oath when he accused the education system of cheating children and depriving them of knowledge (while he’s actually the person who “settled” on a lawsuit of cheating student for 25 million) and calling our nation carnage that is going to be stopped. That inauguration speech was far nastier than all of Colbert’s slams put together. If Colbert cheats university students of millions, gets elected president in spite of it and then gives a speech as horrendous as Trump as he is inaugurated then I might feel the need to get angry about his choice of words. But carry on anyone else who wants to focus on pundits and satirists and how they are doing their jobs. I am going to give my attention to the person whose “work” really has an impact on my life and those I love.
LikeLike
Trump deserves every “delicious” public twist of the tongue by Colbert. Trump is a self-engrossed, power-hungry, vicious, bully who tosses “SH” out with abandon even winning a campaign despite addressing how he can grope women because he is so rich and famous. Civility? N/A!!!! Colbert has never dug in so deep to skewer anyone else in this way with his humor. This situation calls for emergency measures and Colbert is just the brilliant mind to deliver. The fact that Trump likely watches Colbert or hears excerpts from his show or looks up his monologues online makes it all the more appropriate. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire… firefighters know all about that.
LikeLike
Did anyone catch Rachel Maddow yesterday? Every other news analyst on CNN & MSNBC was either (a)picking apart Trump’s tweet/ blurb of the day [yesterday, it was the ignorant remarks re: Jackson & the Civil War] or (b)noting the repeating pattern of Trump popping out of the foreign-policy envelope via tweet &/or phone call, only to be walked back by his Cabinet generals/ Secy of State.
Meanwhile Maddow chose to focus on govtl actions: specifically, the caliber of personnel being tapped for DC executive agency positions, apparently as a thankyou for dubious campaign activities. It was an eyeful & earful. She tied each appointee back to actual [meager] campaign contributions (in some cases accompanied by outright highjacking of campaign funds to feather own & relatives’ nests) &/or other political highjinks, as well as to complete, utter lack of qualifications for the appointed position. And, tellingly, to local press coverage of the reaction to the ‘failing-up’ of these political ne’er-do-wells.
Let’s not waste our time on the moral niceties or nastiness of responding in kind to the Trumpian tone. Let’s keep our eyes on the ball.
LikeLike
Colbert is a satirist, and satire has two venerable traditions, the elevated, “reasonable”, and carefully calibrated wit of Horatian satire, and the scabrously outrageous provocations of Juvenalian satire. Both types of satire have a time and a place in accordance with the nature of the target as well as of the audience, and both have high moral purposes and ends; both attempt to spotlight, correct, and improve society and individuals by mocking the irrational contradictions and ethical flaws that plague society and individuals as a means of effecting greater awareness and salutary reformation. Colbert’s comment is solidly in the Juvenalian camp in this instance. Considering the target, it seems particularly apropos because it outrageously diminishes the pretenses of legitimacy and dignity affected by a man who is demonstrably and historically most notable for his vulgarity AND his unfitness for the office he acquired (as well as for the dubious means by which he may have achieved that position). One might hope that such a provocation could spur Trump to commit the sort of furiously unhinged hamartia that finally immolates him on the pyre of his own hubris.
LikeLike
What do I think? I work in the visual arts where caricatures and editorial cartoons have a deep history and no small amount of vulgarity. Look at Google images “ history of caricatures.”
Trump is a performing artist and also the president. Unlike performing artist Ronald Regan, whose presidency was carefully scripted and stage-managed by Chief of Staff Michael Deaver, Trump’s performances are not under careful management. He is functioning much like a stand-up comedian himself, clearly playing to the cameras.
In my lifetime, Lenny Bruce set in motion new levels of vulgarity. He is a hero to many comedians. The social media landscape today has become an endless stream of performances designed to attract attention from large audiences/viewers, not only for fame (hits, followers) but also fortune, profits from that attention.
Trump is playing a big part in all of this, literally capitalizing on the attention he receives. He studies the responses to his pronouncements and to his endless tweets. That seems to be only thing he has any interest in studying.
Trump thrives on being provocative and getting attention, just like a professional comedian. The only difference is that he is President, and we do not expect our presidents to be comedians and so self-centered and ethically challenged that that they cannot stop tweeting, spewing forth insults, propagating outright lies, and legitimating vulgarities.
See also comments at one of the entertainment rags.
http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/late-show-stephen-colbert-homophobic-donald-trump-1202406991/ – article-comments
LikeLike
It is obvious from that Variety article that the only critics calling Colbert’s remarks “homophobic” are the supporters of Trump’s very homophobic agenda.
They are right wing trolls out to drum up a controversy. If those fake posters who are delighted when right wing politicians foment hatred against gays succeed in getting Colbert to apologize for this I will be disgusted with our news media.
How many times do they have to be fooled by the fake outrage of the haters before they understand that it is all fake? No sooner does it seem like the media has finally figured out how often they are being played for fools than they fall for it all over again.
And dienne77 is sounding remarkably like the right wing trolls these days.
LikeLike
What does a former Marine and combat vet think? I’m laughing. You should hear my language outside of the classroom. When I’m alone reading the latest tirade and ignorance tweeting from Agent Orange’s fingers, I let fly and only my ears hear what I have to say.
But in the classroom, when I was still teaching, it was my job to model the example Michelle Obama talked about. When they go low, we go high.
And if they go too low, then we send in the Marines.
LikeLike
I have a response in line with what Diane asked:”Maybe this is a sign of the general coarsening of our culture, which is now well advanced. What do you think?”
It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of knowing what went before. Take any behavior you see/hear now that you think is “coarser” than our society has been in the past, and I will match it with similar behaviors in the 1950s, the early 20th century, the 19th century, the 18th, and so on. You just have to read social history e.g. Americans drink less now than they did before Prohibition. About half of brides in Puritan America were pregnant at the altar. Thomas Jefferson sired children by his wife’s half-sister. I have about twenty-five thousand more of those. And they’re just in the U.S.
What most people do is recall how the world appeared to them when they were 10 and then compare that version of life to what they see now and declare it’s all gone to hell.
LikeLike
Like!
LikeLike
Not to mention the endless “coarse” when Bill Clinton was being impeached for lying about oral sex in the White House!
LikeLike
^^^”coarse” jokes by comedians…
LikeLike
Dear Diane, Colbert’s opening was brilliant poetry, brave speaking truth to power. Words placed well, expertly delivered are not vulgar in and of themselves, they merely reflect human speech. I thought this argument had been put to rest by Allen Ginsberg’s Howl. Colbert is not out of sync with Michelle Obama’s rallying cry. Colbert’s words soar, where Trump’s land flat. Colbert is provocative like Rabelais. Colbert critiques culture. Sadly, our President is truly vulgar in his quest for money and status. His divisive tactics aimed to garner ratings is disgusting.
Peace,
Greg Fuchs
LikeLike
I just watched it, and well, it’s Colbert. It didn’t bother me. Then again, I can’t think rationally about DJT. He’s just so intolerable to me. I don’t think I will ever get over his election. Maybe it’s because he’s so vulgar, you know, “grab her by the pussy,” that it doesn’t bother me that Colbert insults him vulgarly as well. He’s so lowered the level of discourse in this nation, that insults are the new normal. I wish this weren’t the case, but it was cathartic to hear Colbert tear him down. I guess I have lots of spiritual work to do.
LikeLike
Forgive me, but I didn’t find the remarks homophobic–I found them to be metaphorical. I also believe Colbert was going for shock more than offense of anyone other than Trump.
In regard to his choice to be vulgar, as was stated before, he’s a comedian, not a public servant–and while comedians of late tend to be the political hardnoses of the media, Colbert owes the public nothing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Colbert is also enjoying unexpectedly high ratings — perhaps the fear is that he will lose sight of what he can do to bring insight by starting to look only for audience shock value.
LikeLike
I was brought lup in a home that did not use vulgar language, but I have come to the conclusion that it can have a political purpose. The fact that the man who lives in the White House is thin skinned, such language expertly elucidated has value. The value is to make him upset to the point that he will attack someone like Colbert impulsively and hit home to his supporters what type of person he is. No other president felt the need to attack personally each and every person who attached him. Trump made fun of the host of Face the Nation in a coarse manner provoking Colbert’s stack What I would have done as much the show’s host is say to Trump that you are no longer welcome as a guest because of your discourtesy. I feel Colbert was the network saying to Trump two words of seven letters denoting a sexual act. Trump is a man of the gutter and should be treated as such. My father used to say that one deserves respect only if one gives respect.
LikeLike
Yes, liberalteacher, that is what I learned from my parents, as well.
They were sweet and caring and wonderfully accepting people, but if you proved yourself to not be worthy of respect because of your actions, well, then, that was it for you as far as they were concerned, and it did not matter if you were the chairman of a company, a mayor, a governor, or the President of the United States.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I worked and am still working part time as an educator for 39 years and not a vulgar word ever came out of my mouth to a student, colleague or a supervisor– even toward some that were far less than wonderful.
LikeLike
To spite the word choice, I found truth in what he was saying… If I may…
I call it ‘Disgrace the Nation:
-He is disgracing the nation… No? He is embarrassing. He is embarrassing to the whole nation. I think this is closer to an observation that an insult.
You’re not the POTUS — you’re the BLOTUS. You’re the glutton with the button. You’re a regular ‘Gorge’ Washington:
-He is a glutton. He is a narcissist (I submit this is a form of gluttony). I would hope though that if I were president I would demonstrate more self-control, verbally, emotionally, mentally, and gastronomically. I think this is closer to an observation that an insult.
You’re the presi-dunce:
-He has not demonstrated intelligence- either natural, or through effort. He has demonstrated a particular kind ignorance-the belief that one already knows so much that they cannot be told anything new. Particularly, in the world of alternative facts that they are attempting to construct. I think this is closer to an observation that an insult.
but you’re turning into a real prick-tator:
-Yes, this is an insult. But can we really say it’s undeserved?
Sir, you attract more skinheads than free Rogaine:
-He is the candidate of the white supremacy. These are the people that were activated though his rhetoric. The racists of our country, no matter what they are calling themselves (Alt right etc.) know they are being represented by the current administration. I think this is closer to an observation that an insult.
You have more people marching against you than cancer:
-This is true. The women’s march in particular was the biggest march in the history of mankind… The outrage was directed at trump. There have been no less than 4 major worldwide marches all with the overt subtext that trump is causing, exacerbating and or supporting these outstanding problems. I think this is closer to an observation that an insult.
You talk like a sign language gorilla who got hit in the head:
-Yes, this is an insult. But, again… can we really say it’s undeserved?
In fact, the only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin’s c**k holster:
-Yes, this is an insult. But it points at the chicanery around Russia that is still unsolved. I think Russia should be mentioned every time trumps name is brought up. There is something wrong with his election as president. To press Emerson into service, “What you are is speaking so loudly I cannot hear what you are saying.” I’m sure malfeasance will soon present itself.
Your presidential library is gonna be a kids menu and a couple of ‘Jugs’ magazines:
-Yes, this is an insult. But, there is conjecture that trump cannot read. I am personally concerned that the current embodiment of the office of the president may not be able to read. This is apparent in his tweeting, his speaking, and his reactionary confusion when asked simple direct questions.
The only thing smaller than your hands is your tax returns. And you can take that any way you want:
-Yes, this is an insult. However, there is a problem with his tax returns, and I personally want that in the public conscience. I want people to be reminded that not only do we not know what he spent where, he actively withholding this from the public. Before we say it is his right to withhold, I would remind us all that he guiding policy now that may directly benefit his holdings.
-Finally, I would like to say that the outrage around his remarks are due to the fact that he is closer to the truth than we (as nation) want him to be. We are ashamed as a nation. We are ashamed that we legitimately elected such a buffoon, or that we apathetically stood by while he was elected. I reminded of the Kitty Genovese in 1964 where everyone heard the attack occurring and assumed that someone must have called the police.
-Even if it’s a little late, I am personally glad to see that we as a nation are all calling 911 now…
LikeLike
Well said. There will be chapters written about him in history books down the line. I would title one chapter: The Shame of a Nation.
LikeLike
Yes, it was vulgar, but I found it appropriately and pleasingly so. It reminded me of the line from A Christmas Story: “My father worked in profanity the way other artists might work in oils or clay.”
LikeLike
Agree VERY (not yelling–can’t do boldface here) much w/Harold’s & Lenny Rothbart’s assessments. I’ve taken to watching the first ten minutes/openers of both Colbert & Seth Meyers (ESPECIALLY love “Closer/Look”–has had me doubled over in laughter many times). Their writers, delivery & imitations are spot-on, & they’re in my up-there-in-political-humor category, along w/Borowitz (thanks for introducing him to us, Diane–I’m a faithful subscriber) & Julia Louis-Dreyfus’ HBO show, “Veep” (unfortunately, what looked ridiculous is most likely reality, which is actually what I’d thought even the first season), Like most people, I’m a big fan of comedy–especially that which is enduringly clever–well-written & well-delivered. That having been said, was never a fan of the blue, or use of it for the “shock value.” After having been privy to so much good writing, timing & performance (Kate McKinnon as Clinton, Larry David as Sanders, the gold standard
Trump–Darrell Hammond {Baldwin IS good, but IMO, D.H. is just the best–PLUS he could do an outstanding Bill–right up there w/the late, much missed Phil Hartmann}, Dana Carvey as both H.W. & Ross Perot &–last but not least–Tina Fey as Palin {well, if she could see Russia from her house, doesn’t that beggar a case for complicity in election interference by, you know, Russia?!}), use of vulgarity is just…out of place. It’s surprising, given the sheer brilliance of Colbert: it’s simply unnecessary.
My husband & I have seen a lot of stand-up–the greats, in fact–& neither of us find comedians who get blue for the sake of a few cheap laughs (& some so famous they really don’t need to!) or because they haven’t come up w/something else–funny. At all.
Therefore, Colbert really disappointed me and, since it was tv, I simply changed the channel. I know it’s late night tv, but Stephen has proven time & again that he can be funny w/o giving a performance such as the one we’re referencing.
And I’ll keep watching.
LikeLike
One last comment. As the parent of a married gay child, I know most gays would applaud the comment that Colbert made.
LikeLike
Because you know one gay person you feel comfortable speaking for most gay people??? Wow. Just, wow.
LikeLike
No, I am involved in several gay organizations and are friends with many Americans who happen to be gay. I do not know just one person but understand this group of Americans socially and politically.
LikeLike
I believe you are nothing less than a right wing trump troll and my enemy.
LikeLike
–especially the enemy of my son, his husband and my two grandchildren.
LikeLike
Thank you, liberal teacher. This feigned concern for LGBT is offensive. I have seen no complaints about Colbert from the Human Rights Campaign, Lambda, or anyone who is gay. Colbert’s vulgar language offended Trump, who offends anyone he chooses every day.
As I wrote before, what is truly offensive to gays is that Trump panders to homophobic evangelicals and even chose one as his Vice President. All the gains for equal rights may be scrapped by Trump’s choices for Supreme Court.
So I find this pretense of concern for the feelings of gay people to be a distraction as compared to the far-right assault on the right of gay people not to be the objects of discrimination. A pending Supreme Court case will decide whether businesses may refuse to sell to gay people because of the business owner’s religious beliefs. Gorsuch is zealous about religious freedom. I expect he will side with the business owner’s “right” to refuse gay people. Can you imagine the Supreme Court ruling that businesses can refuse to serve Muslims or black people? That’s far more frightening to me than anything Colbert says.
And since this is an education blog, I am fearful that the Supreme Court may align with DeVos’ faith-based views about vouchers. Nothing said by a talk-show comedian is as frightening as a Supreme Court ruling in favor of vouchers for religious schools.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Diane, you always say it best.
LikeLike
“I believe you are nothing less than a right wing trump troll and my enemy.”
Thank you, liberalteacher.
I was criticized before because I thought dienne77 was posting things that sound remarkably like the right wing Trump trolls feigning concern for the LBGT community. Her post above was more of the same.
It’s depressing when intelligent people repeat the right wing troll talking points as if they were legit.
LikeLike
Yep. The people drumming up this fake controversy are the same ones who support the right wing Republican anti-gay agenda. Their concern for offended gays is outrageous and that this is getting any traction in the media is even more offensive.
LikeLike
The basic defense of Colbert here seems to boil down to “but Trump”. Someone really needs to explain that argument to me. But Trump is so odious, offensive, juvenile, etc. Yes he is, point stipulated. So what? This isn’t about Trump. We all know exactly what kind of person Trump is. The question is what kind of people are we? I think you all are answering that question quite nicely.
“Oh, but it was funny” seems to be the other argument. Yeah, well, Trump’s base thinks he’s pretty funny. So, congratulations, you’re no different than they are.
Incidentally, no, it really wasn’t funny. “Cock holster” is something your average 6th grader could come up with.
LikeLike
I don’t think that part of Colbert’s joke was funny. I don’t have a problem with anyone thinking it is offensive.
I do have a problem with you taking the entirety of a comedian’s very funny and smart monologue and acting if one arguably offensive joke is tantamount to the outrage you seem to feel at him and at us for not immediately condemning him for such a terrible offense.
It reminds me of the outsize outrage you felt toward Hillary Clinton that seemed truly disproportionate to the outrage you felt at Trump.
And I do not think it is a coincidence that this “controversy” was not because gay men felt betrayed or offended by this comment, but because the alt right who care nothing about gay rights have decided to profess faux outrage at Colbert to get people like you to despise the Democrats like us even more.
It’s ironic that the same people who use the tired trope “politically correct” to shut down anyone who dares to think a gay child should be able to feel protected at his public school have suddenly decided to police a comedian’s monologues for perceived homophobic slights.
LikeLike
I really cannot see the big deal. All these beepings on TV or radio when someone uses an offensive word is ridiculous. It’s like tiptoing all the time instead of walking. When you are angry, use appropriate words; “shoot” doesn’t cut it.
It seems to me, Colbert doesn’t use profane language all the time; only when he feels, it’s needed to express how he feels.
LikeLike
I thought about this. I have such a level of contempt for the democrat senator I voted for in 2012, Claire McCaskill, that I often think (I cannot remember if I ever verbalized my disgust) of some really nasty stuff to say about her. But I voted for Obama twice, and do not regret either vote. He is the politician for whom I have the strongest negative feelings, and it is because of his choice of Arne Duncan, somehow accompanied by Bill Gates. I do not think in bad language, or anything.
I just hate the substance of what resulted from those choices. I do not know what to say or do.
LikeLike