Dylan Roof

Did Amy Schumer's Jokes About Hispanics Cause Dylann Roof's Shooting Spree?

"Rhetoric that breeds the fear that results in soaring gun purchases, that 'inspires' monsters like Dylann Roof to craft a manifesto with deadly consequences."


Writing in the Washington Post, Stacey Patton and Douglas J. Leonard argue not simply that comedian Amy Schumer is a racist but that the Comedy Central star's off-color brand of humor is connected to the climate that produced Dylann Roof, the white supremacist who slaughtered churchgoing blacks in South Carolina. In one of her stand-up routines, the authors explain, Schumer says

"Nothing works 100 percent of the time, except Mexicans." In another bit, she blithely told an audience that Latino men are rapists. "I used to date Hispanic guys, but now I prefer consensual."

She has also called Latina women "crazy." Patton and Leonard say this isn't really any different than Donald Trump suggesting that the majority of illegal immigrants from Mexico are rapists. What's more, the authors assert that 

America's soil of racism is fed by jokes and incendiary speeches, by stereotypical images and symbols like the Confederate flag. Just as Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump and other members of the Republican Party regularly disparage people of color and claim they are simply telling the truth, Schumer can use comedy as a protective shroud to deny the harm and hurt caused by her jokes. A joke is considered benign especially when told by a supposed white liberal feminist. We can distance ourselves from the anger, from the harm, from the ideology, and from the hatred of the "extreme," but also find comfort in the same anger, ideology  and hatred that is "just a joke."

This rhetoric isn't just ugly. It contributes to a worldview that justifies a broken immigration system, mass incarceration, divestment from inner city communities, that rationalizes inequality and buttresses persistent segregation and violence. Yet nobody wants to take responsibility for spewing rhetoric that breeds the fear that results in soaring gun purchases, that "inspires" monsters like Dylann Roof to craft a manifesto with deadly consequences.

Read the full article here.

The ability to connect obviously distinct people (nightclub comics, low-I.Q. ramblings by America's favorite idiot moneybags, and deranged psychopaths who go on murder sprees) is either a sign of Sherlock Holmes-level genius or something close to insanity, a JFK conspiracy theory applied to everyday life. In this instance, I'm leaning toward the latter, especially given the massive hops, skips, and jumps Patton and Leonard must do to go from Schumer's standup to Roof's murderous rampage. Especially important here might be the actual manifesto apparently authored by Roof, which among other things complains incessantly about the fact that American culture no longer makes a place for organized and lone racists. Indeed, as Jesse Walker pointed out recently, even the Southern Poverty Law Center, whose bread and butter is ginning up panic over an ever-rising tide of hate groups, acknowledges that extremism is on the decline. Beyond that—and this is no small matter—Roof simply isn't representative of main currents in American thought.

I agree with Patton and Leonard that Rush Limbaugh's and Donald Trump's rhetoric is ugly and incendiary, especially regarding immigrants. There's a large number of other public figures, including idiots like Rep. Steve King of Iowa, who are similarly messed up on that score. It's far from clear, however, exactly what role any of these people (even King, a longtime congressman) has on violence against Mexicans or anyone else in America, especially since violent crime is way down even as harsh rhetoric is up. More to the point, roping in Amy Schumer stretches credulity way past the breaking point. The gesture would be funny if it didn't so perfectly illustrate the overboard attacks on all sorts of free expression.

NEXT: Health Insurers Request Big Premium Hikes Under Obamacare—And One State Regulator is Pushing Rates Even Higher

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I tried to watch Amy Schumer once. She was astonishingly, supernaturally unfunny. Is there something I’m missing here? Why is she popular?

    1. I am with you. She bores me.

      1. robc,

        She is no more clever than, yet more successful than many comics now available on TV. Due to the “evergreen” (kinda’ like pratfalls) titillating blue comedy from a women who is pretty enough, she shares that “niche” of comedic success with Chelsea Handler (sp?). But why does this articles author confuse immigrants with illegal immigrants?
        It’s the illegal’s that those he deems fools are maligning, not legal immigrants. I understand that libertarian thought-much of which I admire-accepts an open border. Please work as dedicated libertarians to get the Gov to drop entitlements and no-evidence (verbal testimony is all Obama asks for on the current Fed Voter Reg form) Fed Voter Registration before working and speaking for open borders. Uncle Sugar makes his sugary gifts from our over-taxation, for those of us, the “proud” minority of the population who can’t avoid all of our Fed taxes.

      2. Almost 100% of her 3rd season revolved around the topic of Amy’s attractiveness. We wife likes it so we watched it.

        Apparently (my wife explained to me) this was valid commentary because “women in today’s society have to be attractive to be on TV, while men do not have to be attractive” and that is unfair.

        When I pointed out that all it does is reinforce the view (or fact) that all women are both obsessed with and insecure about their looks, and that is petty, weak and vain, you can guess how the rest of the night went.

        The “12 Angry Men” skit that took up an entire episode was pretty funny though.

        1. Rocks-

          women in today’s society have to be attractive to be on TV

          Maybe your wife should talk to Lena Dunham… thanks in advance.

      1. Yeah. That bad. “Men are stupid!” level jokes.

          1. Assumes facts not in evidence – which will remain that way, if there is a God more merciful than just.

          2. “She also has a vagina!”

            Nah… I checked… It’s not there! Someone stole it!

            (That’s why we need to padlock these kinds of things).

            1. She must’ve left it in the sink.

              1. Danger zone.

                1. “Danger zone.”

                  No kidding! Now, I’m no expert… Who is?!?! But, where I’m pretty sure that her vagina SHOULD have been, had it not been stolen, I found nothing but a big, fat, giant, slimy HOLE, emitting a big, fat, giant, slimy sucking sound!

                  If’n ye be men of great courage and valor, ye are free to double-check, but I don’t recommend it! I barely escaped with my life! Worst of all, I think I glimpsed a giant, loaded steel-spring BEAR TRAP down in there, with sharp, pointy teeth!

                  1. I am most compelled, in the name of fair warning, to remind y’all, this most-moist, foul cave did, yea verily, remind me of the cave of Kyre Banog? Whereupon there are cast, upon the very living rock, mystic and alluring runes? They sing a siren song, beckoning you deeper within, but PLEASE, I beg of you, pay them no heed! They sing songs (if you listen VERY carefully) of wicked-spell-snatched, love-lorn men, allured into the snatching grasps of the Playboy Killer Bunny Waaabbbits!!! There is NO escape to be had, I’m a-tellin’ ya!!! Y’all will be WHIPPED OUT!!!

              2. “Darling, it was dirty.”

        1. A lot of the meanest stuff is directed at women, though. There’s certainly tons of “Men just view women as vaginas and recoil when they try to talk” stuff. But there’s been jokes about women there would be SJW helter skelter over if Daniel Tosh or somebody like that said it.

      2. You mean like zero degrees Kelvin?

        That’s more of a theoretical limit than something you actually expect to see in nature – useful as a reference point.

        1. Zero Kelvin. Kelvin is the unit of measurement.

          1. Kelvin is the scale.

            Degrees are the units of measurement.


            1. No, Frayed Knot is correct, Kelvin is the unit, and you don’t say degrees Kelvin (even though you do use “degrees” with Celsius or Fahrenheit).

              /professional physicist

              1. It’s just kelvins (believe it’s supposed to be lower case when used this way), but that’s also kind of a bullshit issue. Rankine is referred to in degrees, after all, and the whole justification for it just being “kelvins” is that it’s not based on an arbitrary scale, like when water freezes, but absolute zero.

              2. And this is why Reason is the only place where I read the comments!

            2. Units of (the abstract notion of) zero?

              /pedant to infinite degrees, both Kelvin and Centigrade

            3. in 1967/1968 Resolution 3 of the 13th CGPM renamed the unit increment of thermodynamic temperature “kelvin”, symbol K, replacing “degree Kelvin”, symbol ?K


              1. So I’m not wrong, I’m just old school.

                My lawn – your presence is no longer required on it.

          2. Hey You “A Frayed Knot” You…

            Have you ever been asked if you believe in “string theory”, or whether you might even be made of strings?

            Do you then reply, “No, I am A Frayed Knot”?

      3. No. Definitely not depressingly sad like Margaret Cho’s act.

        I’ve heard funny material from Schumer. Not fuck you controversy humor but chuckle-inducing. But I also thought that Australian anti-gun comic was funny so YMMV.

      4. I don’t think she’s THAT bad. She’s certainly overrated by the media because they latch onto anything involving women being decent-to-good at comedy like a horny dog latching onto a human’s leg, but Inside Amy Schumer certainly isn’t unwatchable by any means.

        I’m more troubled by them acting like she’s a ratings juggernaut just because they really like the show. A few clips from the show have gotten 3 million hits on YouTube, but Key & Peele have several YouTube videos nearing 100 million hits and their ratings are significantly stronger. And they were quick to jump on Tosh.0 having sinking ratings since they all dislike Daniel Tosh but didn’t give reports saying Schumer’s show actually had an even bigger drop between seasons.

    2. Lena Dunham effect.

      1. Lena lowered the bar for “humor” so much that it now resides in a ditch.

        1. Serious question: have you ever actually watched Girls? Like, more than a few minutes of one episode?

          1. Duped into watching two episodes by the lady friend. Wasn’t familiar with it, or Dunham at the time.

            Later, I read the following “The Onion” article: http://www.theonion.com/articl…..hitt-31661

            Pretty much spot on.

            1. Holy fuck.

              “”When a naked Hannah dribbled hot sauce all over herself in front of the doctor, shit in every corner of the office, cried, became angry with the doctor, had sex with the doctor, finished her burrito, had sex with the doctor again, shit herself again, and then realized who she was really angry at and sexually attracted to was Adam, I just closed my eyes and said, ‘Thank you.'”

              I actually lol

          2. I generally like what HBO puts out there so I downloaded Girls not knowing a thing about it. If you don’t hate millennial hipsters, you haven’t watched part of an episode of it.

          3. The people who hate Girls are mostly hating Lena Dunham, who does present a loathsome public face.

            The show itself is surprisingly good, if an acquired taste. It’s like the first time you try Kefir… you have to remember that it is supposed to taste like that.

            1. Have yet to watch, but people whose tastes generally match mine say season 1 is good and then it tanks from there.

              1. It does make a slide, but the slide is mostly in about revealing the layers of narcissistic idiocy the characters are capable of. In many ways it is like a Christopher Guest film; once you accept that they are are horrible and nowhere near as bright as they imagine, the humor shines through. It’s definitely a show where you are supposed to be laughing at, not with, the characters.

                1. Given the writer, I do wonder if that was done entirely without any self-awareness of that fact.

                2. People are always telling me that, but I’m fairly confidence that Lena Dunham is both too stupid and too narcissistic to slyly mock herself and her brethren.

                  I have indeed watched a few episodes, and I came out of it fervently wishing to see all of the characters mowed down in a hail of rifle fire.

                  1. It is quite likely that the narcissistic idiocy of the characters SugrFree refers to is actually supposed to be ’empowering’ and whatnot for women. We’re supposed to root for them or something. They’re just ‘taking what’s theirs.’

                    Personally, I can’t stand V shows that are just about the characters ‘being themselves’ and so on; just some ‘average’ New Yorkers getting in all kinds of weird shenanigans.’ I mean Christ, it was kinda original when Seinfeld did it 20-odd years ago. Sex and the City did it for women. Now we have Girls and Broad City are doing the same damned thing yet again, and horrible at that. I like my shows to actually be about something, and to be entertaining. It’s kind of disappointing that the same people who aired the Sopranos are not pushing this. I guess I can chalk it up to affirmative action. Just like the fact that Amy Schumer has a show on Comedy Central but Norm MacDonald doesn’t.

                    1. Girls is meant to be a send-up of Sex and the City, which was an unrealistic portrayal of young women in NYC. Girls is supposed to be the ‘real’ version of SatC. Take from that what you will.

            2. Agreed. I haven’t missed an episode, and I’m far from a young, urban hipster.

              1. I watched part of on e episode and since have not “missed” seeing another, also.

                /Miss: notice the loss or absence of.

            3. I watched probably 5 or 6 episodes of the first season some of which were quite good. The pilot episode was very good. I gave up when I realized I hated every character and nothing really interesting ever happened. The characters bounce between being pathetic losers and sociopaths, occasionally both at the same time.

            4. I watched the first season and generally enjoyed it. I dropped it not so much for “not liking the characters,” but it ultimately felt insipid and generic. The characters were sitcom-level simplistic – she’s still a virgin! she’s a rebel! she’s uptight! – but the stakes were based entirely on these characters’ personal lives, so I couldn’t bother returning to it. I had zero interest in what happened to anyone. Ironically, the only characters I was still interested in were the two guys.

              I also thought Dunham’s direction was absolutely mediocre. I could tell when someone else was behind the camera, as the show popped a lot more.

            5. The show itself is surprisingly good

              I do not think that means what you think it means.


          4. I’ve seen parts of different episodes. I found the characters intolerable.

            The scene where she tries to start a sexual relationship with her fat, old boss and he laughs in her face was really funny.

          5. When it first came out I had the opportunity to give it an open-minded shot. I’m the sort of young man who can find enjoyment in a romantic comedy or in a show geared towards females. But Girls didn’t go it for me, pretty bad is the only memory I have of it. The few episodes of Sex in the City I’ve seen made me chuckle more.

          6. I saw 2 full episodes. It was awful. But I’m a man, so it’s probably not for me. But I don’t have any problem with Inside Amy Schumer beyond critics pretending like she’s doing monster ratings when South Park, which was in season 18, destroys her best ratings ever with mid-season episodes.

            1. It gets kind of annoying when every time a woman does what men have been doing for awhile, the reviewers go apeshit an act like she deserves a Nobel prize. You would think the proper thing to do would be to treat her the same way you would treat the men doing the same thing; that would be the policy most conducive to equality, right? But know, they just have to make every show a woman does a ’cause for women around the world.’ Which only leads me to be disappointed because my expectations were unjustifiable inflated. I would imagine some female entertainers should be somewhat miffed by all the politically motivated fawning and want to be treated, basically, like one of the guys. That may be naive of me though.

          7. Serious question: have you ever actually watched Girls? Like, more than a few minutes of one episode?

            Nope. Nobody has. They just blindly hate it because they’re ignorant. That’s the only possible reason anybody could ever disagree with your tastes in pop culture, you special little snowflake.

            1. PM-

              It doesn’t get even 1 million viewers- That’s less than .3% of the population.

              Who’s the special snowflake here?

        2. Well she’s not a standup/joke-maker. Nor is she trying to make Veep or write Dave Barry books.

    3. Amy Schumer is often the equivalent of some guy making really idiotic, crude, unsophisticated jokes about women. It’s like calling some chick the worst or something. You know, just dumb and simplistic. Right, Nicole?

      1. Totes.

        1. Oh sure, just nag me why don’t you!

          1. She was negging you…

            Worst. Ever.

    4. She’s wildly uneven. Some things are funny, mostly the quick hits. All the longer piece usually revolve around her complaining that the right sort of men don’t want to fuck her, with a lot of the blame being put on her weight–which only acts as an invitation for the audience to defend her weight and call her detractors haters.

      1. That sounds eerily like the rhetoric of some of the commenters here.

        1. Goddammit, JJ, for the last time, you’re too fat for me to fuck you.

          1. *runs away sobbing*

            I’ll lift for you, Warty, I’ll lift for you!

            1. Don’t neglect your squats. Warty likes a nice muscley ass.

      2. The right kind of guys don’t want to fuck her because she’s a hot mess, as you might expect of Chuck Shumer’s (Douchebag — NY) daughter.

        She actually has a decent figure. It’s her head that is fucked up.

        1. I thought she was his niece.

          1. Wikipedia says:

            Schumer was born on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, New York, the daughter of Sandra (n?e Jones) and Gordon Schumer. . . . Her father is related to U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer, though they are not first cousins.

        2. Yeah, her face ballooned between seasons. I was wondering if she had to go on steroids for some illness.

    5. I tried watching her years ago, before she got her show, and was utterly baffled by the praise. I’m a guy who could understand why people like Dane Cook, but Schumer’s humor struck me as a boring copy of Sarah Silverman.

      Supposedly her show has gotten really strong, and some of the skits I’ve heard about sound clever, but I haven’t tried watching any of it. So long as I remain ignorant, I can shrug off the praise with, “Well, I wouldn’t know.” But if I watch and dislike it, I’ll start hating the fans, and I don’t need any more fan bases to hate.

      1. I can never understand why anybody liked Dane Cook beyond maybe babies who think funny faces and noises are the be all and end all of comedy.

        Her stand up is absolutely Silverman-lite. I wasn’t impressed at all with her Comedy Central special. Her starmaking turn at the Charlie Sheen Roast wasn’t funny either. And how hard is it to roast Charlie fucking Sheen? He smoked crack, he hangs out with Alex Jones without irony, he can’t even keep porn star leeches for girlfriends. If you can’t come up with a good joke or two about just those three things, you shouldn’t be in comedy.

        1. Dane Cook is for preteens I think. The one joke he made that I liked (I think it was him at least) was the one about walking up to someone wearing a superman t-shit and shooting them, and then saying ‘sorry, I thought you were superman’ or something, just because I had that thought myself a while back. I’m sick, I know.

          I kind of liked Anthony Jeselnik during the roasts. He got his own show too largely because of his role in the various roasts I think. Not sure if it’s still on the air.

          But Schumer, like Silverman, basically seems to get so much work so networks can either keep up their female quotas or go out of their way to attract more female viewers. I’d be curious to know what percentage of Schumer’s viewers are even women though.

          1. a superman t-shit


    6. I find her funny if a little too willing to go for the easy dick-joke. But comedy is subjective, maybe you aren’t missing anything.

    7. Humor is in the ear of the beholder, but I often find Schumer’s standup and skits hilarious. But there’s no argument over taste, so to each their own.

      I also think anyone who doesn’t get that the whole point of her racial humor is to poke at the stereotypes rather than support them should really avoid listening to comedy as it clearly isn’t something they can appreciate.

  2. Can anybody speak about illegal aliens being problematic in any way whatsoever without being shouted down?

    Asking for a friend…


      1. Thanks – I’ll pass that right along.

      2. “Immigration has never once been a net loss to anyone anywhere ever. Fact.”– GKC

        1. I think that should be ‘FACT’ in all caps – then it becomes inherently true by interweb rules.

        2. “”Immigration has never once been a net loss to anyone anywhere ever. Fact.”– GKC”

          Who’s this GKC you’re quoting?

          1. Golden Knights of Columbus…?

            The Pope’s own precision parachuting team?

          2. NGKC-

            Who’s this GKC you’re quoting?

            I’m thinking Goofy, Knutball, and Cytotoxic…

  3. I agree with Patton and Leonard that Rush Limbaugh’s and Donald Trump’s rhetoric is ugly and incendiary, especially regarding immigrants.

    Whew – signal sent! All clear!

    1. I thought they were all pretty cool with actual, you know, immigrants – or are you joining in with the language hijacking that all the cool kids are doing?

      1. Yeah, I’m thinking there’s an “illegal” missing from that sentence.

        1. And, misspelled ‘alien’.

      2. Nah, Nick and some others, like to make sure the right people know they have slight regard for those icky people. It is not necessary to the substance of their articles, but they do make sure they throw that in…with Nick, I think it might be a “Daily Beast” hangover/effect.

    2. Does Limbaugh speak out against immigrants in general, or just illegal aliens? And I keep hearing about Limbaugh’s “ugly rhetoric”, but can we see some actual quotes to back up the assertion? Or is he just guilty of ungoodthinkfulness?

      1. Sometimes he makes sardonic comments that leftoids pounce on as evidence of that rhetoric. But no, I don’t recall ever hearing any of that sincere badspeak that he is known for.

      2. Most people don’t get his schtick, or don’t actually listen to the guy.

        Actual cites would be nice when one refers to such ‘ugly rhetoric.’

        1. Yeah- The only time I ever listened to RL was when I had a car with only an AM radio in 1993, and listened while eating lunch at McD’s or Wendy’s- It beat listening to country, oldies, or Paul Harvey “That’s the rest of the story”…

          It was just “schtick” even back then, but at least he had funny song parodies like “Sha-Layla” about Donna Shalala etc.

    3. Nick will be receiving his cocktail party e-vite shortly.

    4. Nick had to add the obligatory “I am not a Republican” comment.

      Of course, I don’t think he actually listens to Limbaugh. Rush in general doesn’t have ANYTHING against legal immigration. That may be worthy of a different discussion here, but it certainly isn’t a racist thing. And Trump is just being “The Donald”. Anyone who takes what he says too seriously was going to snap anyway.

    5. Thank you. The Jacket has turned into a real annoying schmuck with this constant signaling.

      1. Nick’s always done that. The across-th-board signalling for all the editors is relatively new.
        I just hope the mag doesn’t turn into the Canadian Libertarian Party.

        1. The editor sets an example.

        2. The magazine is going to turn into a party of three people?

    6. And just to make sure, added ” Donald Trump suggesting that the majority of illegal immigrants from Mexico are rapists.”

    7. Ever notice that whenever Limbaugh makes a serious comment about something the Progs dismiss him as an ‘entertainer’? But when he makes a joke or off-color remark about something he’s suddenly elevated to the status of ‘political pundit’ and/or leader of the Republican party?

    8. I’m waiting for the day when left-leaning writers say things like “of course I agree that Al Sharpton is a bigot” or “of course Maureen Dowd’s rhetoric is thoroughly sociopathic” to make sure that sane people understand that they’re ‘one of the good ones.’ Somehow I don’t see that happening, even though the average ‘writer’ at the Guardian has said worse things than Limbaugh about certain demographic groups.

    9. Stupid Micks! AMIRITE?

      1. Almost as bad as the Dagoes. Btw, what do you do when a Pollock throws a grenade at you?

        1. Pull the pin & throw it back.

          1. I denounce myself!

  4. Stacey Patton is a senior enterprise reporter for the Chronicle of Higher Education, an adjunct professor of American history at American University, and the author of “That Mean Old Yesterday.”
    David J. Leonard is Associate Professor and chair in the Department of Critical Culture, Gender and Race Studies at Washington State University, Pullman.

    I don’t think these two are as perceptive as they think they are.

    1. Department of Critical Culture, Gender and Race Studies

      I have a degree in navel-gazing!

    2. The Chronicle of Higher Education is to academia what the NYT is to the leftist establishment. It demonstrated it’s commitment to free dialog a few years back:


    3. Entertainment is their Business!

  5. Insanity? Hardly. One of the standard plays in the Progressive Media Playbook is to link the behavior of crazy individuals to every Republican and/or libertarian in existence, even if the linkage utterly defies logic. For instance, the shooter in the Gabby Gifford case was blamed on Sarah Palin simply because of the infamous “bullseyes on the map” despite there being zero evidence that the shooter was even aware of said map.

    1. I know I always use printer registration marks to aim my evil assault rifle with the thing that goes up, loaded with cop-killing bullet cartridge shells in high capacity magazine clips.

      1. It’s the shoulder thing that goes up, you assault rifle ignoramus!!11!!!

        1. Sorry – I was distracted looking for the bayonet lug and the compass in the stock…

          1. YOU’LL PUT YOUR – OR SOMEBODY ELSE’S – EYE OUT!!111!1!11onerolajhdssfo!1

            1. Somebody else’s, if I’m doing it right.

    2. The amount of logic fail in the Giffords shooting was astounding, even by current derp standards.

      1. The best part was Krugman explicitly refusing to retract his initial claim that the shooting was politically motivated, even when it had become obvious to everyone else that the shooter was just crazy. I believe that’s when he trotted out the “climate of hate” trope. The irony of him making such a complaint was weapons-grade.

        1. Not to mention that one of the lefty websites had Giffords’ pic (along with some other Dems), covered by a bullseye because they were not sufficiently leftist enough.

  6. Uh-oh, I share a last name with one of those reporters. I better shun her at the next family gathering.

    Esp. since the bulk of my (white and very much hillbilly) family is virulently anti-illegal immigrant.

    1. So your last name is Weather Girl – first name Mexican?


  7. It’s far clear, however, exactly what role any of these people (even King, a longtime congressman) has on violence against Mexicans or anyone else in America, especially since violent crime is way down even as harsh rhetoric is up

    I assume Nick for got to put “from clear” in the initial clause. Otherwise the sentence makes no sense. Assuming he meant that, (and if he didn’t I apologize for my mistake) No Nick. It is very clear. It plays no role whatsoever. Why do you feel the need to equivocate like this? Their point is completely idiotic. Call it what it is.

    Nick speaking about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion

    Its far from clear what role any Jewish conspiracy plays in our current financial crisis especially since it seems to be getting better.

    1. I assume John meant “forgot” instead of “for got” in his grammar lecture.

      1. It wasn’t a grammar lecture. I was just hedging against my misunderstanding what Nick meant. If he didn’t mean what I think he did, then I apologized for that mistake.

      2. Substantive as always, buddy.

  8. “Did the Washington Post Cause Dylann Roof’s Shooting Spree?”

    I haven’t heard them deny it yet.

    1. Knowing deep down in your bones that someone did it, is the best kind of correct.

    2. It has to be more likely that the Post had something to do with it than Schumer.

  9. Lisa Lampanelli causes interracial dating but no one wants to talk about that.

    1. Well…she sure does. It’s most of her shtick.

  10. They feel that words cause actual harm and hurt. Saying vile, violent, and racist things about someone, whether it’s a joke or a straight out verbal attack is the equivalent of actually physically assaulting them. I don’t get it. Even if I said something horrible about you how is that the same as punching your face in?

    1. Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can really kill me.

    2. I remember in a comments section of Wired, where the consensus among commenters was broadly in favor of outlawing ‘online harassment’ and prosecuting the ‘perpetrators, the argument went like this: some psychological research has found that ‘verbal abuse’ can cause psychological harm and trauma that is similar to the long term effects of physical abuse. Ergo, ‘verbal abuse’ should be treated the same way physical abuse is: prosecuted, and the ‘perp’ presumably sent to prison.

      Ironically, being your garden variety lefties, I’m certainly many of the commenters like to believe they oppose overincarceration. It also apparently did not occur to them that exposing a fundamentalist Christian to gay people tongue kissing might cause the former ‘psychological trauma’, thereby justifying outlawing the latter, by their standards. Of course, the main concern of those who want to outlaw verbal or online ‘abuse’ (which usually includes exposure to opposing viewpoints they find ‘triggering’) are mainly concerned with protecting the precious womenfolk from the throngs of evil misogynists, so that may explain the logical inconsistency. But I was amazed at how so many people (like, the majority) at a magazine supposedly read by smart people basically wanted to outlaw saying mean things (or things subjectively perceived by the listener to be mean).

  11. Ms. Patton’s twitter feed is a sight right now. She can’t think of anything to defend herself with, so she’s throwing out insults a 10 year old would think are childish. My favorite so far is “fiber-optic micro penis”.


    1. WTF. There are many words I want to use to describe her, but I think I’ll limit it to “insecure.”

      1. No – she lacks the warmth and the depth.

        1. *slow clap*

    2. And, yet, academics continue to think of themselves as superior to ordinary mortals and attribute rejection of academic norms to inbred, uneducated hicks who are led by latter day Svengalis.

    3. Holy shit, that pathetic idiot actually is employed by The Chronicle of Higher Education to spout he racist stupidity. What a proud day for academia.

    4. The vanity of referred to herself as “Dr.” for having earned a piled high in derp, the yummy projections of labeling every monster in her head as a racist while stating that she and her ilk alone cannot be racist (all while relishing her offense of the “beckys and connors” while I’m sure she’d go apoplectic if someone referred to the “tyrones and laquishas”), the weighty and academic insults of “fiber-optic micro peen”…. wow, this woman is the kind of caricature that one could not believable write into a novel. And yet she’s actually real.

    5. This is not a serious person.

    6. Stacey Patton ?@DrStaceyPatton 2h2 hours ago
      @AV8PIX Black people can’t be racist.

      Yeah, she’s that kind of person.

    7. fiber-optic micro penis”

      Is that anything along the lines of those blue, glowing cables in Aliens?

    8. Isn’t small-penis-shaming a form of gender discrimination? I demand a university course be taught on the subject.

      And btw, how did fiber-optics get mentioned in a discussion on micro-penises? That’s not even remotely cogent. Like “well, you have a smelly coral reef cunt.” Huh?

    9. Her tweets are now ‘protected’.

      Guess she didn’t like the feedback on the article…

  12. I agree with Patton and Leonard that Rush Limbaugh’s and Donald Trump’s rhetoric is ugly and incendiary, especially regarding immigrants.

    But, why not Schumer’s? Sorry, but all I see here is the rhetorical equivalent of an eye roll. If it’s obvious, then explaining it should be straightforward. I mean, strictly speaking, she did call all Hispanic men rapists, without even the Trumptard’s perfunctory ” And some, I assume, are good people.”.

    Sorry, a little bit of the pass you’re writing Schumer smacks of a double standard. Just because she’s someone whose subculture you’re more comfortable with or because she’s more witty, doesn’t change the fundamentals of the equation.

    1. I mean, strictly speaking, she did call all Hispanic men rapists, without even the Trumptard’s perfunctory ” And some, I assume, are good people.”.

      Whether Schumer is a problem, Trump is a problem, both, or neither, we don’t need to completely ignore Grice. Schumer was telling a joke, and Trump wasn’t, and everyone knows she was telling a joke and he wasn’t.

      1. Sure. Since when does “it was only a joke” get anyone off the hook? If Limbaugh made a joke about black people running off with TVs in the Baltimore riots, do you honestly think Nick would buy the “it was only a joke” defense? I sure don’t.

        Schummer is “cool” in Nick’s eyes and Trump and Limbaugh are not. So Schummer gets leeway the other two don’t. That is all that is going on here.

        1. Since when does “it was only a joke” get anyone off the hook?

          I’m not interested in getting anyone off any hooks. If Bill is serious and not just playing rhetorical games, he’s saying comedians telling jokes “mean” the things they say in jokes the same way politicians “mean” the nonjokes they tell in stump speeches. This is clearly bullshit, and I’m not playing rhetorical games.

          1. No, I’m saying that there is an opinion implied in humor. Are you going to try to tell me, that if someone said, “I used to date Jewish girls, but I decided to date non-whores.”, you wouldn’t see an implication that the guy was calling Jewish girls whores? Are you telling me you’d be okay with it, because “Hey, he was only joking!”?

          2. Okay Nikki. How is calling all Hispanic men rapists okay as long as you do it in a clever way?

            How about this.

            I used to date Nikki from Chicago, but now I prefer my girlfriends to sleep with me free of charge.

            Is the fact that I phrased it as a joke make it okay for me to call you a whore? Do you not have a right to be offended by that because “it was only a joke”.

            1. But Nikki is a whore. Don’t you know anything?

            2. I might be offended, but I wouldn’t think you actually meant the words literally. Which Trump did. Because that’s the difference between a joke and a serious statement.

              The premise of this blog post is that offensiveness is not the problem. The problem is if you actually mean vile shit. It’s the morons in the Washington Post who think offensiveness is the problem, yet all of you guys are rushing to agree with them.

              1. I didn’t mean the words literally because I never actually dated you much less paid you by the hour. The fact that I don’t mean those words literally doesn’t change the fact that I used them to imply that you are a whore. Calling you are whore is pretty offensive. The fact that I did through a joke and not just calling you one, doesn’t make it any less offensive.

                1. And…that’s fine, because who gives a shit if it is offensive? The premise of this blog post is that offensiveness is not the problem. The problem is if you actually mean vile shit. It’s the morons in the Washington Post who think offensiveness is the problem, yet all of you guys are rushing to agree with them.

                2. The fact that I did through a joke and not just calling you one, doesn’t make it any less offensive.

                  …You’re joking, right?

                  1. Think about it Warty. There are two pieces to this, the actual joke and the message it conveys. Whether the insult is conveyed by a joke or by direct words, the message is the same. If I called you an ape or make a joke that implied you were one, I have called you an ape in both cases. My doing it via a joke doesn’t change the message.

                    1. Exactly, John — there is the actual joke, and the message it conveys. The literal words of the joke are not the message! So when Amy Schumer said she used to date Mexicans, but now prefers consensual, she doesn’t actually mean that she used to date Mexicans, but now prefers consensual. Whereas when Trump says something in a stump speech, he actually means that thing.

                    2. So when Amy Schumer said she used to date Mexicans, but now prefers consensual, she doesn’t actually mean that she used to date Mexicans, but now prefers consensual.

                      Of course she doesn’t. But what is she doing when she says that? She is calling Mexicans rapists. Her message is Mexicans are rapists. She just conveys it by a joke. And Trump’s message was in fact much less offensive. He just said some Mexicans are and we need to close the border to keep them out. Schummer’s message is that all of them are rapists.

                      If your logic were valid Niki, no joke could ever be offensive since in your view the metaphorical nature of the actual words means the person isn’t responsible for message they convey. No. It doesn’t matter if I have actually think black men all have a 90 IQ, if the joke I make implies that.

                3. The fact that I did through a joke and not just calling you one, doesn’t make it any less offensive.

                  Context. Matters.

                  1. Yes it does JW. But so what? Warty and Nikki’s positiion is that no joke can ever be offensive since it is not meant literally. And that is nonsense. Jokes are as offensive as the messages they convey. If the message is something benign like Asian guys are smart or black people have histrionic ministers, then you really can’t call it offensive. If the message is something not so benign like Jews are money hungry, black people are stupid or any group, Mexicans or not, are all rapists, the joke is offensive.

            3. Here’s my assessment: People of any political affiliation should be allowed to make jokes about illegal immigrants or black people or white people etc., and the same standard should apply. I don’t think Schumer’s joke was wrong (except for those who lack a sense of humor); but if someone like Dennis Miller (right-leaning) had made a comparable joke, it would be no more wrong. Or if Donald Trump had made it.

              Here, the issue at hand is that Trump’s statement was serious while Schumer’s was a joke. What you seem to be saying is that even if Trump were joking, he still would get flayed in ways that a left-leaning comedian wouldn’t for making the same joke. This is I think largely tangential to the issue at hand but an accurate claim. The assumption popular is that right leaning people are default bigots and when they make racial (or ‘sexist’) jokes, they reflect their own bigoted sentiments, and therefore ‘problematic.’ A left-leaning person who does it however is more forgiven because ‘we know they’re on the right side and actually oppose “right wing” bigotry etc.’

              I think you’re discussing two separate things here: 1) the distinction between a serious comment and a joke, which I think is a valid distinction; would hate to live in a world without risque humor. 2) the double standard applied to prog vs. non-prog people making jokes/statements that may be racist.

          3. Is a criticism of politicians that they don’t mean what they say. Why is that suddenly an escape hatch for comedians. Both humor and politics have a performative aspect its simply mood affiliation to give comics a break for spouting things they don’t believe. This is getting precariously near the premodern culture of status dictating privileges. If Steve King is a bad guy for logically stating facts and data that oppose illegal immigration, but Schumer is just being funny when she accuses all Mexicans of being rapist the we’ve really departed from any sense of a marketplace of ideas.

            1. The reason politicians get in trouble for not meaning what they say is that they purport to, and make promises that are effectively lies. The reason comedians don’t get in trouble for not meaning what they say is that no one has any expectation that they mean what they say.

              I mean, shit, if you tell people you are a doctor and you aren’t a doctor that’s fraud, but if an actor says he is a doctor in a movie, it’s not! DOUBLE STANDARD! STATUS DICTATES PRIVILEGES!

              1. Again Nikki, if Schummer’s joke wasn’t offensive, then by your logic what joke ever could be?

                1. There is no objective standard of offensiveness.

                  Also, you of all people…

        2. Limbaugh’s “most incendiary” statements are almost always jokes. Of course he is an entertainer and has never pretended to be anything else. Trump does the entertainer thing too but I suppose we’re required to take him seriously since he declared his candidacy.?

          1. I can honestly say I have never taken Trump seriously – candidate or not…

      2. I’m still trying to figure out what “subculture” Schumer is representative of.

        1. Chubby white girls that begrudge the fact they have to buy their own drinks?

          1. When did we start talking about your mom?

            1. After your mom finally passed out face down in her own ass.

              1. She does that.

                1. Is that how you were conceived?

            1. Jokes are a Jew conspiracy, apparently.

              1. You have that reversed, I believe

              2. You are a rabid anti-Dentite!

          1. You know who else had an issue with Jews?

            1. Jesse Jackson?

            2. Pharaoh?

            3. Titus Flavius?

            4. Ray Scheider?

      3. So, your stance is, as long as you’re joking while accusing an entire ethnicity of being rapists, it’s all good.

        1. My stance is if you tell a joke like that, you aren’t accusing anyone of anything.

          1. So you think Amy Schumer doesn’t play politics with her comedy schtick?

            1. Is that what I said? No, it is not what I said. It is that jokes aren’t meant literally, as opposed to sincere statements in stump speeches. Apparently this is controversial.

            2. It seems to me that you’re trying to hit progressives with their own book: rendering offensive jokes (which let’s face it are generally the best kind) socially unacceptable when made by the opposition.

              I would prefer we go in the opposite direction: a comedian who leans more to the right (Dennis Miller, maybe Bill Burr?) should be allowed to make their own offensive jokes, be it about race or gender or whatever, without having to worry about being shouted down and made a pariah for telling fucking jokes.

              In short, the problem to be fixed here isn’t that a ‘liberal’ comedian can make offensive jokes and get away with it; the problem to be fixes is that only ‘liberal’ comedians enjoy that privilege (or they enjoy it to a greater extent).


          1. No, I’m saying “It’s only a joke” is a cop-out. If you want to say that what Trump or Limbaugh said was despicable, turning around and saying that what Schumer said was honkey-dorey is absurd, unless you’re focused on principals, rather than principles.

            1. Unless you’re focused on what the person speaking actually believes, you mean?

            2. Bill, I’m with you generally, but the direct comparison is Limbaugh to Schumer. Trump isn’t saying what he’s saying for laughs.

            3. Yes. Moral principles impel us ignore things like “context” and view the world from the perspective of someone with high-functioning autism.

            4. “honkey-dorey”


      4. Ok but that still doesn’t deal with the fact that Gillespie omniously lumps Limbaugh in with Trump without identifying any of this supposed rhetoric. So what we have is Gillespie giving a pass to Schumer and on top of that roping in Limbaugh on the basis of nothing. I’m sorry but an offensive joke has to be considered more incendiary than simply Gillespie’s vague notion that maybe Limbaugh said something mean because Gillespie doesn’t like Limbaugh.

        1. Here comes Sam Haysom to make the argument infinitely dumber. Where’s Hihn, your braying jackass-in-arms?

          1. Here comes sugarfree with his contentfree response. I love reducing you to butthurt and spittle. Or as I call it the Sugar Free. It’s like a libertarian Santorum.

            1. Oh Tulpy-Poo…you just couldn’t stay away from this thread, could you. Your patheticness is so astoundingly delicious.

            2. Oh, Sam. Your retorts are so feeble.

              I’m sorry your big fat idiot ass-buddy got insulted by Mr. Mean Jacket Man. Go hug Coco. Coco make Sam better.

    2. Allegedly, Schumer gets a pass because she claims to have dated Black and Hispanic men so she’s allowed to reinforce negative stereotypes with her jokes. Well, I’ve fucked a few Black women in my life (and currently live with a Polynesian girlfriend), so how come I get called a racist any time I criticize Obama?

      1. Well, I’ve fucked a few Black women in my life (and currently live with a Polynesian girlfriend)

        Go on…

        1. She’s half my age, was working as a stripper when we first met 3 years ago and walks around the apartment completely naked ALL the time. Plus she has a sex drive that rivals that of a guy. Uh, what were we talking about again?

            1. Yeah, I lucked out. I met her right after I hit my midlife crisis and my ex decided to leave me. Just wish I was young enough to fully enjoy it…

          1. Anus pics or you’re lying.

            1. Hmmm…gotta admit that’s my least favorite part of a woman’s anatomy. Shame since she keeps pressuring me to do something to that part of her body but I don’t want to.

              1. You have just damned yourself in the eyes of a fairly largish part of the commentariat.

                1. Yeah…is that what you call a humblebrag? Damn, I wish my young girlfriend would stop asking me to do her in the butt!

                  1. Go suck a log being fed into the wood chipper. Brags on Reason and then claims he doesn’t like the ass sex…someone take his card.

                    1. Which card is that? My Libertarian card or my Man card? Or both?

              2. You are dead to me, Antilles. Dead to me and every other woman everywhere.

                1. Sorry to disappoint you. My aversion stems from a bad experience back in the ’80s with a Black hooker in a Northern Californian almond grove (don’t ask). Why is it wrong for a guy to pressure a girl into a sex act she doesn’t want to do, but OK for a woman to pressure a guy into doing a sex act he doesn’t want to do?

                  1. You know by denying her butt your sausage, you are kinda sorta raping her, right?

                    1. Damn, never thought of it that way! OK, I’m going home in 15 minutes and will finally do it…

  13. Honest to God, I’d love to read an article on Reason about some controversial figure on the non-lefty/proggy side of a cultural issue that doesn’t have wink-and-nod social signaling that the writer is on the “correct” side of the issue by denigrating or insulting the people the SJWs are attacking..

    Even in an article on SJWs silencing their critics, Reason just has to make sure that everyone knows that its sympathies are with the SJWs, even if their tactics are a little over the top. Seriously, guys, these articles are falling into a pattern: “We deplore the narrowing of acceptable discourse, but . . . ”

    And its getting worse, I think. Stop it. Just, stop it. Either man up and say you hope the SJWs win and the Limbaughs and Trumps are permanently exiled from public life, or say you think the SJWs are vile, hateful people who need to be ridiculed and mocked. I don’t think there’s any middle ground.

    1. Psst, RC, your persecution complex is showing. Badly. Also, your fly is down.

      1. He has a point. As Bill points out above, there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between what Schummer said and what Trump and Limbaugh said. Yet, Schummer gets a pass and they don’t. Why is that Episiarch?

        Sure, Schummer meant it as a joke and Trump and Limbaugh were serious. Since when, however, is “it was only a joke” get anyone off the hook? Ultimately, Nick just can’t bring himself to say Schummer is just as bad as Trump and Limbaugh, even though he agrees they all three should not be blamed for murders (way to go out on a limb).

        It is not a persecution complex to make fun of Nick’s biases.

        1. Because not accepting that sometimes things are just a joke is the SJW tactic of choice.

          If you want to be like them, feel free.

          1. And I’m sure you were 100% okay and saw nothing whatsoever wrong with Limbaugh’s calling Sandra Fluke a whore, right? After all, that comment was pretty obviously a joke based on her claims of the cost she spent on birth control.

            1. I can’t speak for NutraSweet, but I don’t generally give a shit what one KULTUR WAR opportunist says about another KULTUR WAR opportunist.

            2. I think it was bad optics and played right into the hands of the left pushing a War on Women narrative, but Rush Limbaugh can say whatever he likes.

              I do shudder to think at the amount of people who think he’s some sort of deep thinker, but if the yammering left can have John Stewart, the AM radio right can have Limbaugh.

            3. I certainly didn’t have any issue with that. She IS a whore. And she wants me to pay for her birth control.

              Fuck her. But get in line – cause she’s a WHORE.

              Fuck everyone griefing about any of this stupid shit. I’m enjoying the retardation of everyone over Trump’s remarks. It makes him look like the smartest guy in the room. Think about what it takes for THAT to happen….

              1. I rather suspect that she’s on the whory side of slutty. I mean, who needs so much birth control that they, in a position of economic privilege, need hundreds a month in subsidies, just to finance their sex lives?

            4. Bill – I am amused that you are butthurt over Limbaugh calling Fluke a whore. how are you able to read the H&R comments without blowing a gasket?

              1. I’m not particularly “butthurt” about Limbaugh’s, Trump’s or Schumer’s stupid comments. I’m just pointing out that it’s a little pathetic to beat your chest over how awful and offensive some are while pretending others are just fine.

              2. “Blowing a gasket?”

                Figuratively, or literally?

            5. I’m offended by nonsensical jokes. Why would a particularly promiscuous woman need more birth control pills than other women?

              1. She needed the chewable kind and couldn’t stop taking them by the mouthful.

            6. Personally, I though Limbaugh was being generous in calling her a whore, even if he didn’t know it. There’s nothing wrong with selling sex. There is something wrong with extorting the taxpayers, which is what Fluke wanted to do.

              Personally, I would say that if Limbaugh came out and said that prostitution should be legal and there is nothing wrong with it, he would not in the least be in the wrong for his comment. If I say to a thief “what are you, a janitor?” Is the thief really right to be offended?

        2. Trey Parker and Matt Stone say outrageous, offensive shit all the time and people let it go because they’re known outrageous comedians. You see, comedy often works like that.

          I don’t think you’re capable of seeing how fucking insanely butthurt a whole shitload of you are about this stuff and how it completely distorts every single thing you look at. But it’s also insane of me to expect you to be able to step back from that, so I shouldn’t waste my time.

          1. Sure they do. And last I looked they only get away with it because they do it with cartoons and have children saying it. They have said on numerous occasions this is the case.

            And are you really telling me jokes can’t be offensive and racist? It doesn’t matter what Schummer said, it is totally okay because it is only a “joke”? I am pretty sure no one on planet earth would buy such a claim. Jokes can be really offensive. In fact, more offensive because they ridicule and demean the target so much. Yeah, I am sure you are fine with someone coming up to you and complimenting you on getting such a skilled job even though you are a Guinea and all. I mean parking lot attendant is high skilled for you people. It is just a joke right?

            The point of the article is that it is fucking ridiculous to blame anyone for the acts of a deranged psychotic. And that of course is correct. Everything else beyond that simple point is just Nick posing. And if pointing that out and calling him the poser he is makes your butt hurt. Well, maybe if you weren’t a fucking Italian you might have a better sense of humor. What can I tell you?

            1. I mean parking lot attendant is high skilled for you people. It is just a joke right?

              Actually, that’s a pretty funny joke.

              I’ll try just this one time: you’ll note that you immediately took my point about you being butthurt and…proceeded to get butthurt. Even to the extent of seemingly completely going “I’m not butthurt, YOU ARE!” and not realizing how absurd that is.

              You are becoming just like the SJWs you hate. Humor is not humor to you if it’s not “right-thinking” at this point. You are constantly outraged. I know you can’t see this, but to some of us, you are becoming nearly indistinguishable from SJWs, you just have different obsessions.

              Like I said, this is the one try, but I implore you: think about what I just said. Really.

              1. Why does calling Nick a poser make me butt hurt? If Nick wants to get his panties in a wad over what Limbaugh and Trump said, fine. But he can’t then say it is just no big deal for Schummer to make a joke that calls all Hispanic men racist.

                I am not butt hurt at all. I just find Nick’s obsession with never completely siding against Progs to be entertaining. The guy spends hundreds of words jumping thought his ass to make sure that he always takes a pox on both houses stance no matter how one sided the actual issue is.

              2. Ehhh, he pretty much cribbed it from Caddyshack, when Rodney tells his caddy “Hey,I thought for Italians this is skilled labor?”

              3. Epic, you’re my hero.

                1. Epi, not Epic. Not ever epic. Fucking phone.

            2. Jokes can be offensive, but that doesn’t mean Schumer actually meant that Mexicans are racist. Offensiveness is a different issue. She clearly did something materially different from Trump.

              1. I can’t read her mind Nikki. But why should I assume she didn’t mean it? I really don’t understand where that joke even came from. Are Mexicans known to be rapists or something? I have never heard that. It struck me as just a gratuitous insult.

                1. But why should I assume she didn’t mean it?

                  Because you’re at a comedy club watching a standup set.

                  1. But is is as Mullatto said below, insult comedy. Is there in your view no insult of any group that could ever be offensive? And if there is, how is calling them rapists not qualify?

                    Again Niki, if she had made my joke about black men and 90 IQs, wouldn’t that have been outrageously racist? I don’t see how “it is just insult comedy” gets her off the hook. And if that excuse doesn’t tere, i don’t see how it gets her off the hook for calling Mexicans rapists.

                    1. John, I’m not claiming it isn’t offensive. The premise of this blog post is that offensiveness is not the problem. The problem is if you actually mean vile shit. It’s the morons in the Washington Post who think offensiveness is the problem, yet all of you guys are rushing to agree with them.

              2. “that doesn’t mean Schumer actually meant that Mexicans are racist.”


                Trump didn’t actually mean that all Mexicans were rapists. He was just pointing out that some rapists and murders do cross the border and that is bad, and we need better border controls.

                Funny how you are willing to bend over backward to adjust the meaning for one person, but not for Trump.

                Also, shame on you for making me defend Trump.

                1. Did I ever say Trump made the claim about “all” Mexicans? No, I did not, because I heard his statement. In fact I was careful to avoid that. He is still making a sincere claim, and not a joke.

                  1. It was Nick, not Nikki, who said that Trump said that.

                2. Fuck all of this parsing of words and wondering who meant what. Who cares? Most of them are lying about their actual feelings in the first place, nor will any of them likely implement policies that much change the status quo. Yet here we are, like fools, debating it all.

                  1. Except for me. I took the high road and just watched you all debate it! Ha, for once, DenverJ isn’t the biggest fool in the room!
                    Also, who cares if Amy Schumer’s jokes are as offensive as The Trump’s stump?
                    Free speech, y’all.
                    Also, I’ve yet to see a quote from the bombastic Mr Rush where he actually said something offensive about immigrants.
                    All you supposed lawyers on here, isn’t it libel to claim someone made offensive comments about x if they didn’t actually make offensive comments about x?

    2. But, but, but how else are they going to get invited to the parties?

      1. Become terrifically skilled at mixing drinks?

      2. As long as Nick is The Jacket, he’ll be fine. If the leather gets damaged… Well, ask Bettys are off.

        1. Or, for people not cursed with auto spell, “all bets are off”.

          1. Actually, it would work as “if the leather gets damaged, well asking Bettys out is out.”
            But isn’t Nick gay? So that don’t work, because I’m pretty sure “Bettys” are all female. I would watch “Encino Man” to find out, but I think the SCOTUS decorated that cruel and unusual punishment.

    3. Of course there’s a middle-ground. You can say, “I don’t agree with or like what Trump is saying, but SJWs are completely wrong for trying to shut them out public life altogether.”

      That’s a middle ground, IMO. I don’t get why people around here seem to feel that saying “I don’t agree with what some conservative has said” = “I agree with SJWs and hope they win.”

      1. Because a reasonable middle-ground doesn’t feed the TEAMS, JJ.

      2. They can and do. The problem is when you hold one side to a different standard than the other. How can you call what Trump and Limbaugh said “ugly and incendiary” and then turn around and then turn around and say “it is ridiculous to even talk about Schummer” when Schummer said virtually the same sorts of things?

        Nick is just doing his typical “yeah the SJWs are wrong her but lets not forget how evil the Conservatives are” two step. He is of course free to do that but his readers are also free to call him out for being a phony for doing it.

        1. Are you saying that Amy Schumer’s jokes are the same thing as Donald Trump’s serious statements?

          1. Apparently, yes.

          2. So, I’ll ask the same question, you were cool with what Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke, right? After all, he did it in the context of making a joke.

            1. What? Sure. He can call that skank a whore all he wants, why would I care?

            2. Well, Limbaugh was making an actual point, namely, that Fluke’s argument depended critically on contraception being expensive, but the only way to run up the kind of numbers she was talking about was to fuck like a two-dollar whore trying to make payments on a Mercedes.

              1. The math doesn’t work. Birth control pills are taken everyday. It’s relevant *how* much sex you have as long as you keep taking the pill.

                You could be relatively chaste or a raging nympho and pay the same each month.

                Note, this does not excuse Fluke from being amazingly stupid.

                1. Irrelevant, not relevant. Ugh.

          3. Yes. Why does it being a joke make it less offensive? Understand, I don’t care that any of it is offensive. It is a free country. But since when are jokes given a pass from being offensive?

            I used to date Hispanic guys, but now I prefer consensual.”

            She just called every Mexican guy a racist. How is that not offensive. How about

            I used to date black guys but now I prefer IQs over 90.

            I don’t see how claiming either of those things as being a “joke” makes them less offensive. In both cases you are using humor as a way to state a pretty nasty accusation. How is that joke nothing but a clever way of saying “all Hispanic guys are racist”? Just because you phrase it in a humorous way doesn’t make it less insulting.

            1. Those are both pretty good jokes. Hey, I used to hang out with Jews, but then I got tired of always washing all the ash out of my hair. HEYYYYOOOO

              1. That Warty, he’s a pretty strong guy. Too bad smell isn’t everything.

              2. Hey, I used to hang out with Jews, but then I got tired of always washing all the ash out of my hair.

                Use the soap. HEY NOWWWWW!

            2. Do you honestly think these two things are equally offensive:

              Someone said, with 100% seriousness, that Mexicans are rapists.

              Someone told a joke involving saying that Mexicans are rapists.

              Even if you are offended by the joke, you know the comedian isn’t actually saying Mexicans are rapists. If you say, “take my wife…no, really!” is someone supposed to believe you actually mean that and proceed to take your wife from you? No. Everyone fucking knows this.

              1. Nikki what makes a joke offensive is the message it conveys. So, if you stand up and make jokes that play on people’s foibles or stereotypes that is one thing. If you make jokes that play on the accusation that an entire race of men are rapists, that is entirely another.

                Yeah, it is racist to claim all Mexican men are rapists or have a greater chance of being so. The joke conveys just that message. The fact that she made a joke conveying that message doesn’t make it less offensive than if she had just said, “Mexican guys, they are such rapists.”

                1. To me, there’s no such thing as an offensive joke, because it’s a joke.

                  Your methods may vary.

              2. Nikki, I think you are making a very clear and acceptable point.

                On the one hand you have:
                Statement X stated in the form of a joke

                On the other hand you have:
                Statement X stated in the form of a serious utterance

                A reasonable person should be able to acknowledge that statement X can be offensive in joke form or as a serious utterance, but if we imagine the statements taken to an extreme — let’s say stated to be as offensive as possible — eventually the serious utterance will edge out the joke as being more offensive as a result of their base nature. Because while jokes can be very sharp, that sharpness is curtailed by necessary formation of the statement into a joke. Which is a weakness that doesn’t exist if the statement being formatted into a serious utterance.

              3. so Mexicans were called rapists twice?

            3. Just because you phrase it in a humorous way doesn’t make it less insulting.

              That’s why it’s called “insult comedy”. We laugh at things that make us uncomfortable. You never knew someone who would laugh when they are scared?

              1. Sure Mulatto. That is totally it. And the question is how offensive is the insult. I am pretty sure calling Mexican men rapists is offensive. Not all insults are the same and not all insults qualify as offensive rather than just humor. Rapist, however, does.

                1. You see, Team Red members are just as much humorless twats as Team Blue members. Everything has to be super cereal now, ok gais?

                2. I don’t believe you can quantify offense like that. Someone sensitive enough that he or she doesn’t find the humor in poking fun at the long-held stereotype of the overly-passionate Latin lover need might assign a different value to a Schumer joke than someone else. Drawing a stick figure and writing the word “Mohammad” under it might induce murderous rage in a pious Muslim; however, I’m guessing you’d just laugh at the picture. So who’s “correct” in that case? Context matters.

                  I would also note that neither Patton nor Leonard seem to have any Hispanic heritage. As such, I would judge their valuation of the offensiveness of the joke less than someone actually in the population described by the joke.

                3. Yeah, I’ve read up to here and kept my mouth shut.
                  Here’s the deal, John, jokes are stories. They are lies, people know they are lies, and people know the people telling the jokes are purposely trying to make you say “did she just say that? OMG, that’s hilarious.”
                  Whereas, with someone, say Trump, saying it seriously, it’s just “did he just really say that? What a racist asshole.”
                  Of course it’s offensive; that’s how a large part of comedy works. There comedian says some thing that they know is offensive because they think it will be funny.
                  Trump says his bullshit, but he’s not trying to be offensive, he really believes his shit, which is why it’s more offensive than somebody purposely trying to shock just for the lolz.

              2. Sometimes humor has to hurt a little.

                It’s a natural healthy reaction to laugh at things that scare or trouble us. Visit a Marine unit in a combat zone – they are laughing all the time at some really dark humor. It’s how they stay semi-sane in a highly stressful environment.

                1. It’s how they stay semi-sane in a highly stressful environment.

                  Doctors, EMTs, firefighters, police officers, Hell, pretty much everyone that deals with the public has some sort of internal gallows humor that would shock and upset outsiders. And, as you note, it’s perfectly healthy.

          4. Amy Schumer purposely plays to an SJW crowd. Really no different than Garafolo. So it’s idiotic to put her in a different class of show biz than Limbaugh. Bringing Trump into it is just moving the goalposts.

            But we live in an age of social signaling where you can’t admit that both Schumer AND LImbaugh can be offensive in a comedic tone. Nope, you have to a goddamned annoying Kulturkamper and pick a side.

            1. That is what I don’t get. Whether you find Limbaugh or Shummer more offensive or neither offensive has nothing to do with Nick’s point. Neither of them or Trump can be blamed for murder. Nick can’t just say that. No, he has to make sure everyone knows that he understands who much more awful Trump and Limbaugh are.

              That is the kind of posing bullshit that he deserves to be called out for.

              1. Plus the fact that Limbaugh is nothing but a signaler’s strawman at this point. The last thing anyone remembers about him was the Sandra Fluke thing which was over 3 years ago.

              2. This I agree with. And calling The Jacket out I also agree with. But I agree with The Worst about the difference between a joke by a comedian and a speech by a presidential candidate.

          5. According to Gillespie Schumer’s joke is less offensive than unmentioned Limbaugh rhetoric that just has to exist dagnabit. If this was just about Schumer vs. Trump there might be point (although the fact the Schumer is feted by the elite and Trump reviled might make me wonder if I were a Mexican) but Gillespie brought a whole mess of other “malefactors” like Steve King into his argument without actually you know demonstrating this supposedly mean rhetoric.

            Using guilt by association to smear people without evidence while at the same time letting off someone you like, Schumer, for saying something indentical in content to Trump is a ludicrous way to argue. It’s pure mood affiliation.

      3. Why do you even need to signal whether you agree with Trump or not? Its irrelevant to the argument that the SJWs are completely wrong, isn’t it?

        And that’s the problem, IMO. Validating their opposition to people, and merely carping about tactics, is giving up ground to them. Why say you think Trump is an idiot, when it is irrelevant and can and will be used by the SJWs to do exactly what you claim they shouldn’t do?

        The middle ground is a compromise. A compromise with fanatics is just a pause for them to resupply and regroup for their next advance, because fanatics can’t take “yes” for an answer.

        I’m not on any of the all-caps TEAMs. I just loathe SJWs and the way they wrap their hateful, spiteful, vicious selves in prissy moralism and patronizing condescension.

        So, yeah, my persecution complex is showing. Because these people are the modern-day inquisition, whose daily work is persecuting people. If your persecution complex isn’t a little inflamed these days, you should ask yourself what’s wrong with it.

        1. So I have to think Trump isn’t an idiot to signal that I’m not a SJW? Fuck that shit, I’ll think anyone I feel like is an idiot.

          1. C’mon, Sug. You’re smarter than that.

            My point, which apparently I have to beat into the ground, is that saying Trump is an idiot in an article ostensibly about how vile SJWs are, is a bad move, rhetorically.

            It distracts from your main point, because it is irrelevant to the main point.

            It detracts from your main point, by conceding ground to the SJWs.

            To me, it comes off as unreflective, even reflexive, social signaling that manages to do some damage to the point being made. For no good reason.

            1. OK, then start your own blog.

              Why come here to complain? You realize this is how Bo got started, right?

            2. He’s really not; where have you been?

            3. My point, which apparently I have to beat into the ground, is that saying Trump is an idiot in an article ostensibly about how vile SJWs are, is a bad move, rhetorically.

              That’s not what the article is ostensibly about. It’s a critique of a column that equated Schumer’s joke to Trump’s statements in an SJW critique of racist statements in public life. Why only critique half of it?

            4. Your obsession with the SJWs is turning you into their equivalent, just with different obsessions. You will go to the ends of the earth to explain why “wrong” humor isn’t funny…just like they do. You are outraged and butthurt all the time. You would rather tear down some humor than even possibly “concede ground” to your hated mortal enemies. Which is exactly how they behave.

              Apparently you can’t see this happening. Some of us can. Like I implored John: think about it.

              1. Culture Justice Warriors always need something to war against.

              2. Your obsession with the SJWs is turning you into their equivalent, just with different obsessions.

                Eh, you have a point here. In my own defense, all I can think of is that, regardless of whether I am interested in SJWs, they are interested in me.

                You will go to the ends of the earth to explain why “wrong” humor isn’t funny…just like they do.

                I honestly don’t recall ever doing that. My point has been more along the lines of “it doesn’t matter if a joke is funny” . . . . Where have I ever said any humor was the “wrong” humor?

                You are outraged and butthurt all the time.

                Oh, pls. The majority of my postings here, by number, are snarky one-liners aiming for a chuckle, and I’m pretty sure I’m an equal opportunity mocker.

                You would rather tear down some humor than even possibly “concede ground” to your hated mortal enemies.

                What are you talking about? What humor am I tearing down? The SJWs who I have no tolerance for are famously non-humorous. My goal is to get them to shut the fuck up so that we still have room for humor.

                Now, the one thing I share with SJWs is that I regard them (as they undoubtedly would regard me) as a cancer on society that I have no tolerance for. But, on that front, I’ll plead guilty.

                1. Don’t forget though, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean that they aren’t out to get you.

          2. No, but I think pretending Trump calling Mexicans rapists is fundamentally different from Schumer calling Mexicans rapists might signal that you have double standards.

            1. I’m sorry that I’m not outraged about what you think I’m supposed to be outraged about. I thought I was on Hit and Run, not Jezebel.

              1. As I said above, I’m not “outraged” by either comment. I just don’t understand the need to announce how much you find one set of comments terrible while excusing others.

              2. There’s a difference?

            2. Or it might “signal” that you understand the distinction in profession between someone who 1) tells jokes for a living, or 2) wants to rule people for a living.

          3. So I have to think Trump isn’t an idiot to signal that I’m not a SJW?

            Of course not… Trump is an idiot, and what he said was stupid.

            However, the difference in condemnation stuck out to me, too.

            Schumer’s jokes are merely an “off-color brand of humor.”

            Limbaugh’s and Trump’s rhetoric is “ugly and incendiary, especially regarding immigrants. There’s a large number of other public figures, including idiots like Rep. Steve King of Iowa, who are similarly messed up on that score.”

            I see the signalling, how about you? I don’t particularly care about the signalling, but I can certainly see how conservatarians would be offended that Nick pulls punches when talking about TEAM BLUE’s moron de-jure, but goes all out on TEAM RED’s morons de-jure.

            Further, where are the “ugly and incendiary” comments about Bernie “Jackboot” Sanders? All I hear is that he’s a bit kooky and not a real threat to win the Presidency.

            I certainly see where certain Reason writers fall into the “TEAM RED is backwards and stupid and offensive, but TEAM BLUE just sometimes has too much zeal and pushes things just a bit too far when expressing themselves” paradigm.

            1. I see the signalling, how about you?

              I see it, but I also don’t really care. Nick doesn’t write just for the few hundred people that comment here.

              Trump, Limbaugh and Schumer were brought up in the original article, so Nick addressed all three.

              Limbaugh is just a buffoon, addressing an audience of baboons, but Trump and Schumer said something quite equivalent. That the Hit and Runpublicans can’t see the difference between a basic cable comedienne and the polling #2 in the GOP primary calling Mexicans rapists is po-faced in the extreme.

              1. Ok you just did it yourself: “Limbaugh is just a buffoon, addressing an audience of baboons”.
                Evidence needed?
                I read his first book a million yrs ago, nothing brilliant but not wrong, either. Don’t listen to him anymore, because my views have changed, and I pretty much know his opinion.
                You threw that sentence in for signaling, just as much as I wrote the preceding paragraph for the same reason.
                I was going to erase that paragraph, but left it in to show how hard it is not to signal. Even for someone as perfect as me.
                Call Nick on his BS. Call me on mine. Then give us space to admit our errors, so we can avoid getting defensive.

            2. I can certainly see how conservatarians would be offended that Nick pulls punches when talking about TEAM BLUE’s moron de-jure, but goes all out on TEAM RED’s morons de-jure.

              I think people see what they want to see.

              They only see their own oxes being gored.

              1. I’ve always wondered… who’s ‘goring’ the ox? I thought that’s what Oxes did? So, there’s *another* ox, only he’s an asshole? Fuck oxes.

                1. Or, or, now stick with me here, what if we Uck foxes?

                2. It’s a gore or be-gored world out there.

      4. No middle ground!

        Either man up and say you hope the SJWs win and the Limbaughs and Trumps are permanently exiled from public life, or say you think the SJWs are vile, hateful people who need to be ridiculed and mocked.

        Sure, Nick says the authors are suffering “something close to insanity,” but that’s not really mocking the SJWs. “The gesture would be funny if it didn’t so perfectly illustrate the overboard attacks on all sorts of free expression.” God, why won’t Nick pick the right side and stand up against these bullies!!

        1. But Nick said something bad about conservatives–and on a board about libertarianism! He must be destroyed!

          1. Threading fail, Sug.

            You must be looking for someone else on this thread who wants to destroy Nick, rather than have him tighten and focus on the task at hand.

            1. I’m fine with both houses being poxxed.



        2. Point taken, docile one.

          Still, to me it comes off as Nick trying to have it both ways. And the seemingly irresistible urge to put up a social signal that you’re really on the side of the cool kids just rubs me the wrong way.

          1. You said up above that it’s irrelevant to the point that the SJWs are totally wrong.

            I don’t think Nick, or many of the editors here, believe they are totally wrong. Being totally wrong would include them being wrong about the shittiness of what Trump et. al. said. So in that one thing, they’re right. However, they are wrong about most everything else.

            So I find it baffling that so many people come on here all the time and continue to get so angry that the editors don’t share their particular cultural predilections. You KNOW they identify more with the “young hip” type crowd, so why constantly get riled up when they do exactly that?

          2. But we’re not talking about Robby and his dramatic denunciations of politically incorrect comments. I understand if some of that rubs you the wrong way, but Nick’s brief clarification is totally justified. There are plenty of good reasons to include it. Two of the most immediate:

            1. He believes it and wants to share.

            2. Making it clear will hopefully shut down some of the dumber responses and misrepresentations of his argument. E.g. “Nick Gillespie and Reason Magazine think there’s nothing wrong with what Donald Trump said.” I make these kinds of clarifications all the time, for this exact reason. Don’t you? Do you never stop an argument to point out, “Now, I agree that the GOP is shitty and corrupt, but on this point…”?

    4. Yes, and even in articles that are critical of conservatives or Republican fiscal policies, Reason just has to make sure that everyone knows they really are in favor of cutting taxes and regulations.

      It’s like a lot of libertarians are socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

    5. I don’t think there’s any middle ground.

      Your words have betrayed you. Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

  14. I’m a fan of Amy Schumer even though her progressiveness gets in the way of her comedy. Comics are here to make us laugh. That’s it. NO need for an agenda. No need to be politically correct. No need to explain a joke. Unclinch you prudes of media and society, unclinch.

    1. I laughed at both jokes as I read the article.

  15. She has also called Latina women “crazy.”

    I’ve dated several Latinas, some of them bringing a fair amount of crazy to the relationship.

    But crazy ain’t confined to any ethnicity.

    1. So, in her defense, she has actually met some Latina women, then.

      They inherit this behavior from the super-type of ‘woman’, I think.

      1. She doesn’t need to be defended. She’s a comic. She makes a living saying crude, offensive and shocking things to people who need that to help lighten up.

        She was telling a joke that was meant to shock her ultra-PC audience with its un-pcness. It’s the part of her schtick that often is funny. But even if I hadn’t found it funny, good on her for taking comedic risks and cutting across the grain of her audience’s sense of propriety.

        1. That is reasonable and fair-minded.

          Are you new?

        2. I guess they’re not going after Lisa Lampenelli for her love of the brothers.

  16. “I agree with Patton and Leonard that Rush Limbaugh’s and Donald Trump’s rhetoric is ugly and incendiary, especially regarding immigrants. There’s a large number of other public figures, including idiots like Rep. Steve King of Iowa, who are similarly messed up on that score.”

    I may be wrong, but I believe their focus is on illegals, not immigrants. There IS a difference. Unless Reason believes it’s all the same and there is no need for border controls. Oh , wait, that’s exactly what the editors believe. Fortunately, the rest of us believe in the need for border security and immigration laws.

    1. Re: FloridaProf,

      I may be wrong, but I believe their focus is on illegals, not immigrants.

      Then you haven’t listened to Limbaugh long enough. He along with Coulter and others believe the canard that jobs belong to “Americans”, instead of the EMPLOYERS. Limbaugh pays lip service to the Free Market many times EXCEPT when it comes to the labor market. Then he becomes this huge protectionist, agreeing with Coulter’s economically-ignorant prescriptions.

      1. Sorry, but the problem is with illegals–not immigrants. They don’t want employers hiring illegals over Americans because they can pay the illegals less.

        That doesn’t work with immigrants–who are subject to the same labor laws as all other citizens.

  17. Never take a man who uses the term “White Supremacist” seriously. Show me one! If you’re referring to the White Separatists or White Nationalists, where do you ever see them demanding supremacy over anyone? I’ve never read any of them demanding any thing besides being left alone in their own communities or countries among their own kind. I’m pretty sure you’ll never see Gillespie referring to black nationalists as “Black Supremacists”.

    1. Fuck off, Slappy.

    2. Principals, not priceless.

      1. principles – damn auto-correct

        1. I was kind of wondering wtf that was…heh.

    3. Whatya know! A poster on Reason who has an understanding of what many (but not all, yes not all) White Nationalists desire. I doff my hat to you sir…..

  18. “The ability to connect obviously distinct people (nightclub comics, low-I.Q. ramblings by America’s favorite idiot moneybags, and deranged psychopaths who go on murder sprees) is either a sign of Sherlock Holmes-level genius or something close to insanity, a JFK conspiracy theory applied to everyday life.”

    It may also be the sign of a slow newsday.


      1. I think you spelled his name wrong. As did he.

  19. Yet nobody wants to take responsibility for spewing rhetoric that breeds the fear that results in soaring gun purchases

    It’s been a long time since I stopped believing the concerns of these creeps for things like “civility” and rational discourse. You only have to dig a little deeper to find the true agenda of Stacey Patton and Douglas J. Leonard when accusing people of “spewing rhetoric that breeds fear”. They simply don’t want people buying guns ? that’s it.

    1. … and falling violent crime.

      Progressives are math-deniers.

  20. A brief note to everyone who apparently only learned about signalling in the past month: complaining about signalling is itself signalling. EVERYTHING YOU DO IS SIGNALLING UNLESS YOU DO IT ALONE AND DON’T TELL ANYONE ABOUT IT.

      1. He’s about to turn, of course.

        1. Going left around the world, apparently…

          /George Carlin joke

    1. Ugh. Privilege much? You are aware you’re drowning out minority voices with your Caucasoid Matriarchical instincts right? Educate yourself.

      1. She may be the worst, but she is not here to enact your labor!

    2. oh come now.

      slinking off by yourself is the strongest signal of all.

      it’s anti all of us!

      1. Wow, cis-groupist shitlord much?

    3. What if you didn’t intend on telling anybody, but somebody asks you point-blank about whatever it is you did, and you tell them because they asked nicely?

      1. That’s when you remind yourself that hell is other people and society prevents the existence of authenticity.

        1. That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you! That’s why I want to live in the country-side with nobody around. You and the SO are free to join me and the other racist survivalists on my ranch in Wyoming, when the time comes.

          1. We will. We will.

        2. Shut up, Nicole.

          1. But not Episiarch. He can’t join us.

            1. Shut up, JJ.

  21. “David J. Leonard is Associate Professor and chair in the Department of Critical Culture, Gender and Race Studies at Washington State University, Pullman.”

    I am shocked that a not-even-really-a-professor of blahdy blahy blahdy Victim Studies @ Pacific Podunk U. would rush to write editorials accusing otherwise harmless people of Passively Contributing to the Racist Holocaust of America. This is something I would never have expected and have never seen before, like ever. At least today.

    1. I’m surprised that an ag school like Wazzu even HAS a Department of Critical Culture, Gender and Race Studies.

  22. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…

  23. Shorter rebuttal:

    There is no such thing as a collective responsibility for anything on the planet.

    That is all.

  24. So a series of bad jokes about Hispanics by someone of the progressive left hivemind outlet known as Comedy Central somehow inspired a white kid in South Carolina to become obsessed with white regimes in southern Africa and murder black churchgoers in his home state?

    There is no point even giving voice to this derp by linking to it. It is unworthy of even a tertiary glance.

    1. If only the killer had left some kind of document in which he explained his motives. I guess it will forever remain a mystery.

      He wasn’t crazy or stupid. He hated black people and said so explicitly. He chose a soft target so he could do the most damage and chose a target with symbolic value to get the most attention. His actions were in line with his beliefs. Some people really are evil.

    2. ^^THIS^^

      And you opinion of the relative offensiveness or lack thereof of Schummer, Trump and Limbaugh has absolutely nothing to do with that underlying fact.

  25. Q) Why don’t blacks and Mexicans marry each other?

    A) They’re afraid their kids will be too lazy to steal.

    1. What’s the difference between Captain Morgan and General Custer?
      Captain Morgan is still killing injuns.

      Why are black men good at basketball?
      Because it involves running, shooting, and stealing.

      Two Chinese guys walk into a bar. Next week, they own it.

      What’s black and blue and floats down the river?
      A Jew who tells Italian jokes.

      How many French soldiers does it take to defend Paris?
      No one knows; it’s never been done.

      1. Know why you never see a black man at a country bar?

        Every time someone someone yells “Hodown!” he thinks his woman been shot.

      2. And of course, this classic:

        “A white man, a black man and an Indian walk into a bar. What a wonderful example of an integrated society.”

        -John Thomson

      3. Q What do you call a white guy surrounded by five black guys.

        A Coach

        1. What do you call a black pilot?
          A pilot, you racist!

        2. Q What do you call a white guy surrounded by five hundred black guys.

          A Warden

      4. How many bodybuilders does it take to screw in a light bulb?
        Three: One to screw it in, and two to tell him “You’re ripped, you’re huge, two more turns, come on!”

  26. So – my takeaway is that Amy Schumer, The Donald, and Rush Limbaugh are worse than Adam Lanza.

    Seems legit.

  27. I think the only person offering any insight to that article is the commenter “Stelios Chaser”

    1:33 PM EST
    A lot of humor by comedians of color (as well as Amy Schumer) involves making fun of white people. Why isn’t it a two-way street?

    Stelios Chaser
    1:34 PM EST
    Because you weren’t oppressed by poc racist

    1:32 PM EST [Edited]
    Some people need to be told to shut-up and get a grip. And its not Amy Schumer.

    Stelios Chaser
    1:35 PM EST
    Yea you racist

    Stelios Chaser
    1:32 PM EST
    If it wasn’t for “liberals” blacks and gays would be lynched you racist homophobic sexist

    Zavid Zavidov
    1:28 PM EST
    Why is this lady listed first on the bi-line? And what the heck is a Department of Critical Culture, Gender and Race Studies and is there anything productive that its graduates actually do, or do they simply go from town to town and protest a la “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” style?

    Stelios Chaser
    1:30 PM EST
    Racist and sexist. These graduates are as important as math and science graduates

    Stelios Chaser
    1:27 PM EST
    These “jokes” get people killed. She should be jailed for her racist talk”

    Quality Trolling.

    1. …Stelios Chaser is Stacey Patton, isn’t it?

  28. Anyone ever read Don Delillo’s book White Noise? Reading that guy’s supposed field of study reminded me of the Murray character from the book who wants to create a major focused on the study of Elvis Presley.

    1. I liked that one.

      Didn’t the main character have a really fat girlfriend? Which he was cool with, because he was also enormous (lineman)

      1. Yep, they were both supposed to be both tall and chunky.

        I enjoy Delillo, but I’m not always sure what the hell he’s trying to say. Even so, he’s still a terrific writer. The opening chapter to Underworld, the scene from the 1951 one-game playoff between the Dodgers and Giants, is awesome.

        1. Wait, I think i mixed White Noise up with End Zone (the one about the football player studying Nuclear Proliferation…or something nuclear?)

          Either way. Its generally the same thing in all his books – the acceptance that narrative isn’t perfect and not all motives are rational. He tends to make his main characters themselves “writers” of one sort or another, who are struggling with an idea they’re trying to express. Often they do spontaneous things they can’t fully explain. Its an po-mo sort of way of giving characters their own internal life. The ‘story’ is often about the character’s inability to get his head around a complex issue that keeps frustrating his ability to crystallize it. i.e. the book is about the intellectual ‘Process’, not the results.

          The first chapters of ‘Underworld’ are freaking amazing, and the rest of the book is one long denouement. I don’t remember if i finished it, because i don’t care.

    2. The secret shame of the Chair of Hitler Studies being unable to read German is the perfect statement of my experience of academia.

      1. At least Jack actually WAS ashamed about that, and was taking German lessons. I doubt many actual academics would feel shame about anything.

  29. So no one’s gonna speak up for the Chinks, the slopes, the zipperheads?



  30. deranged psychopaths who go on murder sprees

    Pedantry alert!

    Roof’s killings took place in one location at one time, so it was a mass murder, not a murder spree.

    1. a spree is multiple events in close temporal sequence. Killing nine people with little time between the killings IS a spree. Even if all in the same place.

  31. Taki had a good article on the subject – starts out with an even less PC joke.


  32. Let’s see if the squirrels in their infinite wisdom allow this to get through:

    For many jokes (*most* jokes?) the point is to be as offensive as possible. Jokes can be (duh) a tool of aggression, as here:


    So of course it’s possible to be simultaneously funny and offensive.

    I would say the general rule is go after people who can fight back, so it’s a fair contest.

  33. I didn’t realize so many seemingly intelligent people take Donald Trump seriously.

  34. Except that I read Trump, and he did NOT say the majority of hispanic illegal imigrants are rapists. He said “SOME”. Which might mean only two. BUT, we know of at least two murderers, hispanic illegal invading aliens who have killed in the past week, at least one of whom was also guitly of solme sort of sexual assault. We also know of at least a handful more who, within the past few months, have been implicated or accused of rape. Proof that Trump is accurate: SOME hispanic illegal alien invaders are rapists.

    1. Nope! Only white, affluent college guys rape. To suggest otherwise is racist and sexist. Get with the program, hater.

    2. What Trump was referring to was how Mexican smugglers would invariably rape the women who they are smuggling into the US. Something like 80%.

      And by encouraging illegal immigration, we are are giving a blind eye to those rapists, if not essentially condoning it.

  35. She’s just a regurgitation of the usual liberal view points. When all else fails make a dick joke. There’s nothing original or funny from her stand up. But considering her audience is college kids it doesn’t take much get laughs.

  36. It seems to me there is also quite the difference between a comedian saying something shocking for laughs and a man running for political office saying something serious.

    I mean, we all say off-color jokes. That doesn’t mean we’re all racist or sexist. It means we’re going for a cheap laugh.

  37. Want some good news? Check out the comments. I cannot find one – one – defender of the two idiot writers of this piece. Even among the admitted moonbat liberals who read the “new and improved” WaPo, there is not a single defender of these two or their moronic positions.

  38. “[…]the Comedy Central star’s off-color brand of humor is connected to the climate that produced Dylann Roof,[…]”

    Well, they both happened on planet Earth, so there is a connection.

  39. “Let em gargle Drano if they can’t take a joke.” – Hunter S Thompson

  40. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com

  41. My all time favorite joke is the trifecta:
    Sexist, racist and misogynistic.

    “how do I like my coffee?”
    “Trussed up in a sack and thrown across the back of a donkey by Juan Valdez.”

    Humor was invented before 2015 – in fact goes back to nearly 2000 BC with the earliest joke a big fat healthy fart joke. She’s an insult comic, like Don Rickles, Lisa Lampanelli, and Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog. Don’t like it…don’t listen. Keep it free

  42. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com

  43. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com

  44. When a progressive makes a racist comment it is art. When anyone does the exact same thing it is a hate crime punishable by the total destruction of the person’s life. Just another example of the danger of progressive ideology and the blatant double standard of the media.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.