Tangentially, I had a hilarious debate with someone several months ago who was convinced the Colbert Report version of Steven Colbert was just who he actually was, and somehow had a significant amount of difficulty understanding that it was a bit… despite how comically fucking obviously it’s a bit. Low key curious if I accidentally came across the guy who invited Colbert to W’s press correspondents gala all those years ago (and may I just say holy fuck his speech at that event was just… 👨🍳 💋 )
He talked about why he left at one point and this was part of it. Because even if he didn’t mean what he said there were still people that believed him.
Iirc (it’s been some time), the justifications that Colbert gave for why conservatives actually believe certain things were unironically what conservatives believe.
I began to realize he was making fun of conservatives when the audience would laugh at places that didn’t make sense.
I seem to remember some study that seemed to indicate that conservatives tend to have a hard time understanding satire. It was around the same time as The Colbert Report being on the air.
You couple this with seeing that cons tend to have overly large/overly active amygdalas, and when you hear them saying that “liberalism is a mental disorder”, I think it’s yet another example of them projecting, since they seem to have certain mental disabilities.
We all have shadows that elude us that others see clearly. I seriously believe modern psychology should integrate that work more into standard CBT/RET.
Hey! We alcoholics do not support any of this bullshit! Most of the times I’ve been drunk off my ass this year has been because of some shit being done by conservative grifters
For what it’s worth, Bush knew it was a roast. Roasting the president is a traditional part of the press correspondents’ dinner (or was, before paper-thin-orange-skin became president). Earlier in that very same dinner, Bush did a bit roasting himself with a Bush impersonator.
Every so often, I used to go back and re-watch the entire thing. It was just so good.
I had to laugh when the “liberal media” was later spinning it the next day (and the hard right outlets like Faux and hate radio picked this up and used this spin - “see, even the liberal media says it was bad!”) as not that funny, it got hardly any laughs in the room, etc.
Yeah, NO SHIT many people in the room weren’t erupting in loud guffaws. He was making fun of YOU motherfuckers, too. Right to your smug little faces.
Just like Orange Jesus didn’t erupt into laughter when years later, Seth tore him a new one right to his face, as did Obama. Orange Jesus sat there, seething. Orange Jesus gave it 0 stars, boo, it was terrible, no more discussion. LOL.
I doubt it. Orange Jesus was already blowing the racist bullhorn with all his birther bullshit and Obama’s election broke the brain of so many Angry White Males. They were bound to rally around someone like Orange Jesus when he ran…
Seth Meyers still apologizes for that, sarcastically of course, but it’s hilarious that enough people blame his joke for jumpstarting Trump’s campaign. Trump seething from his table while everyone around him cracks up is burned into my memory.
I’m sure it makes a convenient narrative for people to blame Seth for this.
Again, notice that it’s another example of Murc’s Law here, by the way: as a conservative, Taco has no agency, he was pushed into running by the nasty liberal cracking jokes and poor Taco just had no choice but to run to get revenge against Obama, against Seth, and against any American that doesn’t love everything related to Taco.
In any case, Taco had mulled running multiple times and even tried to run prior, and failed. All that birtherism stuff he was shoveling during Obama’s administration was likely his racist way of testing the waters for yet another attempt.
The Colbert Report did real work to normalize a specific right wing framing to politics. I don’t think of it as a net positive the way I do The Daily Show. It might have been satire and I too might have enjoyed it from time to time, but it was also part of a normalization of the “both sidesing” of things.
It is only both sidesing if you don’t understand satire. He is pretending to be a right-wing pundit but rephrasing what they say in such a way as to point out how bad the right-wing talking points are.
‘You just don’t understand it’ doesn’t change the effect it has when it’s put out in the world. Archie Bunker as a character was intended to be a criticism on American racism, but to many viewers he just normalized it.
The fact is that this character played an role in normalizing this shift we saw, across the board, towards accepting this kind of right wing framing of politics. The fact that it was satire is irrelevant. The normalization is damage done.
I upvoted you because you’re making an interesting argument, but I’m definitely more in the Charlie Chaplin camp on political satire, and that ridiculing fascism is a productive thing to do - The Great Dictator was released before the US entered WW 2. Although Chaplin put a lot of work at the end of that movie to make sure everyone knew it was satire and Colbert was a bit less diligent.
Hm. A bunch of media illiterate conservative dingdongs watched the Colbert report and politics now visually looks like that… but nationalism to it’s extreme tends to look like that and Colbert’s team knew that. Fascism and nationalism look like that and I’m not sure satirizing it normalizes it (in general) but neoliberalism and that ‘working across the aisle’ politics (and journalism) that was also trendy at the time did actively normalize it.
He was really more of an absurdist than just someone doing satire in my opinion. I get you didn’t like his character, but he didn’t normalize anything despite your insisting he did.
It’s funny I remember thinking something similar in Germany a long time ago, about another politician: all those humorists, cartoonists etc. mocking him are basically just helping this conservative asshole win. Whether I was even right about that is one thing, but there’s a huge difference:
He wasn’t threatening to crack down on every person against him or on every minority he chose, and he couldn’t have either because the system was working (at least way better than in the USA).
Also they were mostly joking about his bad English and love for fatty traditional foods. What Steven Colbert does is a bit different.
No, satire and such have an important place even in working democracies, but especially in a still young dictatorship.
Also: what really is Steven Colbert’s power? Can’t he effect much more doing exactly what he’s doing?
There are many ways to fight back. Don’t point your finger and say “you’re doing it wrong”. We’re on the same side after all.
Steven Colbert has enormous power, because they can move culture, which is what they did when they were normalizing a rightwing framing of politics. People like Colbert, and even more so since his moving on from the character in question, has the ability to reach people and change their minds in a way almost no other people do. Yes it was satire, but in the times where it was relevant, it acted as an analgesic to the real threat which conservatism, and the fascism it inevitably leads to. By treating it as something only worth mocking and not worth taking as a serious threat, it softened the corner on conservatism as a movement, leading directly to where we are now.
Political power extends from culture: Trump is the outcome of a right wing project to move the culture, and to a limited degree, Colbert contributed to that with his character.
There are many ways to fight back. Don’t point your finger and say “you’re doing it wrong”. We’re on the same side after all.
No. No your argument that we should self censure is part of the problem and mechanism that has resulted in the looming shadow of fascism taking over the planet. Colbert needs to have done better over the course of his career in understanding the impacts they had on culture and politics.
Satire is a means of leveraging humour to deliver often caustic criticism that might otherwise seem a bit on the nose. It’s been an effective tool of protest since at least the second millennium BC.
It’s your opinion that criticising conservatives through satire empowers them, but it’s a very questionable conclusion IMO.
I would love for Colbert Report to come back.
Him and Stewart should do a “Crossfire” show
it would be amazing if Stewart wore a bow-tie. I would love to watch that.
Oh god yes that’s an amazing idea
Same!
Tangentially, I had a hilarious debate with someone several months ago who was convinced the Colbert Report version of Steven Colbert was just who he actually was, and somehow had a significant amount of difficulty understanding that it was a bit… despite how comically fucking obviously it’s a bit. Low key curious if I accidentally came across the guy who invited Colbert to W’s press correspondents gala all those years ago (and may I just say holy fuck his speech at that event was just… 👨🍳 💋 )
He talked about why he left at one point and this was part of it. Because even if he didn’t mean what he said there were still people that believed him.
A lot of conservatives actually believed he was as he was in the show.
Conservatives historically have never understood sub context, even if it jumps up and slaps them in the mouth.
Higher forms of comedy are meant for higher… Well you get the point.
(unless you’re a conservative)
I was a conservative when Colbert Report was on.
Can confirm. I believed he was a conservative.
Wild
Honestly curious. Did you ever watch a full episode of the show or multiple episodes of the show?
I watched it pretty regularly. It took longer than it should have for me to realize that it was a satire.
Maybe three seasons in?
Curious what made it seem so genuine at the time?
Iirc (it’s been some time), the justifications that Colbert gave for why conservatives actually believe certain things were unironically what conservatives believe.
I began to realize he was making fun of conservatives when the audience would laugh at places that didn’t make sense.
Must have been all those “waving American flags” animations. Oh, and that eagle.
Honestly, yes.
I seem to remember some study that seemed to indicate that conservatives tend to have a hard time understanding satire. It was around the same time as The Colbert Report being on the air.
You couple this with seeing that cons tend to have overly large/overly active amygdalas, and when you hear them saying that “liberalism is a mental disorder”, I think it’s yet another example of them projecting, since they seem to have certain mental disabilities.
We all have shadows that elude us that others see clearly. I seriously believe modern psychology should integrate that work more into standard CBT/RET.
I was a conservative when Colbert Report was on and I thought it was obvious that it was a bit.
Well, comedy is a sign of intelligence, so…
Bert Kreischer disagrees with you.
He’s so gross to look at.
🤔
That’s because they’re usually drunk off their ass or one of the grifters.
Hey! We alcoholics do not support any of this bullshit! Most of the times I’ve been drunk off my ass this year has been because of some shit being done by conservative grifters
Not all alcoholics are right wing shit heads, but all right wing shit heads are alcoholics (and/or stupid and/or a grifter).
There are outliers. Several of my teetotaling MAGA family and also Trump himself (though they do fit your modifiers)
It really is a shame we never got that left vs right drink off between Nixon and Hunter S Thompson
For what it’s worth, Bush knew it was a roast. Roasting the president is a traditional part of the press correspondents’ dinner (or was, before paper-thin-orange-skin became president). Earlier in that very same dinner, Bush did a bit roasting himself with a Bush impersonator.
Every so often, I used to go back and re-watch the entire thing. It was just so good.
I had to laugh when the “liberal media” was later spinning it the next day (and the hard right outlets like Faux and hate radio picked this up and used this spin - “see, even the liberal media says it was bad!”) as not that funny, it got hardly any laughs in the room, etc.
Yeah, NO SHIT many people in the room weren’t erupting in loud guffaws. He was making fun of YOU motherfuckers, too. Right to your smug little faces.
Just like Orange Jesus didn’t erupt into laughter when years later, Seth tore him a new one right to his face, as did Obama. Orange Jesus sat there, seething. Orange Jesus gave it 0 stars, boo, it was terrible, no more discussion. LOL.
I genuinely think Obama roasting Trump at the 2011 White House Correspondents’ Dinner changed the course of history
I doubt it. Orange Jesus was already blowing the racist bullhorn with all his birther bullshit and Obama’s election broke the brain of so many Angry White Males. They were bound to rally around someone like Orange Jesus when he ran…
Seth Meyers still apologizes for that, sarcastically of course, but it’s hilarious that enough people blame his joke for jumpstarting Trump’s campaign. Trump seething from his table while everyone around him cracks up is burned into my memory.
I’m sure it makes a convenient narrative for people to blame Seth for this.
Again, notice that it’s another example of Murc’s Law here, by the way: as a conservative, Taco has no agency, he was pushed into running by the nasty liberal cracking jokes and poor Taco just had no choice but to run to get revenge against Obama, against Seth, and against any American that doesn’t love everything related to Taco.
In any case, Taco had mulled running multiple times and even tried to run prior, and failed. All that birtherism stuff he was shoveling during Obama’s administration was likely his racist way of testing the waters for yet another attempt.
https://www.tvguide.com/news/donald-trump-presidential-campaign-timeline/
I would rather them do something substantive with their power than to continue to normalize right wing views.
That’s exactly what he does, dude.
It works well because MAGA doesn’t understand satire.
The Colbert Report did real work to normalize a specific right wing framing to politics. I don’t think of it as a net positive the way I do The Daily Show. It might have been satire and I too might have enjoyed it from time to time, but it was also part of a normalization of the “both sidesing” of things.
It is only both sidesing if you don’t understand satire. He is pretending to be a right-wing pundit but rephrasing what they say in such a way as to point out how bad the right-wing talking points are.
‘You just don’t understand it’ doesn’t change the effect it has when it’s put out in the world. Archie Bunker as a character was intended to be a criticism on American racism, but to many viewers he just normalized it.
The fact is that this character played an role in normalizing this shift we saw, across the board, towards accepting this kind of right wing framing of politics. The fact that it was satire is irrelevant. The normalization is damage done.
I upvoted you because you’re making an interesting argument, but I’m definitely more in the Charlie Chaplin camp on political satire, and that ridiculing fascism is a productive thing to do - The Great Dictator was released before the US entered WW 2. Although Chaplin put a lot of work at the end of that movie to make sure everyone knew it was satire and Colbert was a bit less diligent.
Hm. A bunch of media illiterate conservative dingdongs watched the Colbert report and politics now visually looks like that… but nationalism to it’s extreme tends to look like that and Colbert’s team knew that. Fascism and nationalism look like that and I’m not sure satirizing it normalizes it (in general) but neoliberalism and that ‘working across the aisle’ politics (and journalism) that was also trendy at the time did actively normalize it.
No the fact is people like you are too dense to understand satire.
Lemmy seems to be more interested in worshiping its heroes than it is addressing their flaws.
Go look up what the word normalization means.
He was really more of an absurdist than just someone doing satire in my opinion. I get you didn’t like his character, but he didn’t normalize anything despite your insisting he did.
https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/does-satire-soften-the-blow-of-criticism
In fact, according to modern research he was using the most effective tool we have to destroy their reputation.
Tbf, hindsight is 20/20.
Nuh uh
Are you saying wingers didn’t accept this right wing framing of politics long before?
They were openly satirizing it. Was that somehow not obvious?
It’s funny I remember thinking something similar in Germany a long time ago, about another politician: all those humorists, cartoonists etc. mocking him are basically just helping this conservative asshole win. Whether I was even right about that is one thing, but there’s a huge difference:
He wasn’t threatening to crack down on every person against him or on every minority he chose, and he couldn’t have either because the system was working (at least way better than in the USA).
Also they were mostly joking about his bad English and love for fatty traditional foods. What Steven Colbert does is a bit different.
No, satire and such have an important place even in working democracies, but especially in a still young dictatorship.
Also: what really is Steven Colbert’s power? Can’t he effect much more doing exactly what he’s doing?
There are many ways to fight back. Don’t point your finger and say “you’re doing it wrong”. We’re on the same side after all.
Steven Colbert has enormous power, because they can move culture, which is what they did when they were normalizing a rightwing framing of politics. People like Colbert, and even more so since his moving on from the character in question, has the ability to reach people and change their minds in a way almost no other people do. Yes it was satire, but in the times where it was relevant, it acted as an analgesic to the real threat which conservatism, and the fascism it inevitably leads to. By treating it as something only worth mocking and not worth taking as a serious threat, it softened the corner on conservatism as a movement, leading directly to where we are now.
Political power extends from culture: Trump is the outcome of a right wing project to move the culture, and to a limited degree, Colbert contributed to that with his character.
No. No your argument that we should self censure is part of the problem and mechanism that has resulted in the looming shadow of fascism taking over the planet. Colbert needs to have done better over the course of his career in understanding the impacts they had on culture and politics.
Satire is a means of leveraging humour to deliver often caustic criticism that might otherwise seem a bit on the nose. It’s been an effective tool of protest since at least the second millennium BC.
It’s your opinion that criticising conservatives through satire empowers them, but it’s a very questionable conclusion IMO.
A lot of court jesters, would -be poets, playwrights, prophets etc lost their lives…
It’s not Colbert’s fault that 75% of the country is too stupid to understand satire.
You really didn’t know the purpose of that show?