Comedy

WaPost Writer Who Called Amy Schumer's Jokes Racist Never Even Watched Her Show

Colleges are no-joke zones.

|

Amy Schumer
Youtube

The Washington Post contributor who branded Amy Schumer a racist for telling jokes about black people and Mexicans didn't even bother to watch any episodes of Schumer's show, or clips from her stand-up routines, before writing the piece.

This information comes from The Interrobang's Debra Kessler, who interviewed Stacey Patton—the author of the WaPost article—about her motivation for blasting Schumer. Kessler also consulted WaPost Deputy Editor Mike Madden, and immediately uncovered a contradiction:

I asked Madden if he knew why the article's author, Dr. Stacey Patton had chosen Amy Schumer as the topic for her article. "I think she pitched this piece because Schumer was in the news, at least in some circles in the news. Probably because of that Guardian piece," he said, and suggested that I talk directly with Dr. Patton.  I did.

I was also surprised to learn that Dr. Patton hadn't "pitched" the article to The Washington Post. She said it wasn't her idea at all, and in fact she initially turned down the story, because, she thought there wasn't much there.

"… And so when I kind of looked at some of the coverage on Schumer, I initially thought meh," [Stacey Patton told Kessler].  "This woman is joking.  You know, myself and a lot of people are still grieving the lives of those people in Charleston.

"But then I thought about Donald Trump's remarks and then the fact that a few days layer Dylann Roof stands up in a church and before shooting nine people says, "taking over my country you're raping our women" despite the fact that most of his victims were black women.  And then it was Schumer's comments about Mexican men and rapists.  And I thought, see, that's when I had to say something."

But Patton didn't give Schumer's material even a cursory examination before labelling it racist, according to Kessler:

The Interrobang; Have you ever watched Amy's television show… in preparation for the article?
Stacey Patton: Nope. Not at all. 
The Interrobang: Her stand up set[s]? have you ever watched any of them?
Stacey Patton: Nope. None of them.

Despite seeing the quotes out of context, and without the benefit of knowing anything about Amy's comedy, she was comfortable making judgements about whether Schumer's comedy was or wasn't racist.  She also was comfortable deciding whether Schumer's audience was or wasn't racially diverse (she characterizes Amy's following as predominately white), and she was comfortable to conclude that Schumer's comedy breeds racism in others.

Keep in mind that Patton's accusations were quite weighty. She lumped Schumer in with Donald Trump and suggested that their statements inspire "monsters like Dylann Roof to craft a manifesto with deadly consequences." This is quite a stretch, obviously; I would be surprised to learn that Roof was a fan of Schumer's comedy.

But the problem with Patton's article is not merely that it's incendiary. It's also ill-considered and unsubstantiated, as evidenced by the fact that Patton didn't do a remotely passable job of investigating the work she was blasting.

People who have watched clips from Schumer's show and routines (like me!) know that these racially problematic comments aren't coming from her own point-of-view. Schumer is often playing the part of a stereotypically obnoxious, culturally oblivious white girl. Her comedy is as much a slight against people who make casually racist comments as it is a slight against anyone else.

Schumer is hardly a pioneer of this kind of comedy. Think of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia's Kaitlin Olson, whose character on the show occasionally dresses up as "Martina Martinez," an offensive caricature of a Latina newscaster. The act is hilarious—not because Olson is making fun of Latina women, but because she's making fun of people who don't realize how racist they are.

Patton's condemnation of Schumer has already drawn an apology from the young comedian and a promise to be more responsible in the future. But it would be a real shame if Schumer decided to start censoring herself, writes Kessler:

To suggest that Schumer needs to be more responsible with her comedy with one hand, while casually branding a young artist with powerful words like Racism with the other, seems to have its own irresponsibility not only toward Schumer, but toward other young artists trying to decide what they can and cannot talk about.  And to tie an artist– particularly an artist who is herself breaking down long standing barriers–  in with murder, the Klan and the burning of black churches is something that should not be done lightly.  There are serious consequences to such statements.

It's hard not to connect Patton's treatment of Schumer with the recent Huffington Post op-ed instructing Jerry Seinfeld on how to be more politically correct. Patton is a reporter for The Chronicle of Higher Education, and her co-author on the Schumer piece, David Leonard, is an associate professor of race at Washington State University. The author of the HuffPost piece is a student. Many college liberals seem to suffer from an inability to contextualize offensive comedy, and as a result, campuses are becoming no-joke zones, it seems.

NEXT: Arizona's Unconstitutional 'Revenge Porn' Law Is Officially Dead

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’ve seen her show, and it IS racist and sexist. So what?

      1. Not with those videos, it isn’t.

      2. LMAO!!

    1. I’d hit it.

      1. It’s like I don’t even know you.

        Actually, I don’t. Who are you?

  2. …David Leonard, is an associate professor of race at Washington State University.

    I’d pay good money to hear Mike Leach’s thoughts on that.

  3. Isn’t all comedy racist and sexist? I mean I thought thats what made it funny?

    1. Ugh. Do you wear a confederate flag shirt when you man-spread on the subway?

      1. Nope but there is a guy at work thats been complaining about the confederate flag, and how it needs to be torn down all week, and so I went into his office when he wasn’t there, and taped a big confederate flag on his wall. Wish i could have seen his face when he walked in there.

          1. No, but Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressives don’t GET subtle.

        1. Would have been better if you had *painted* it on.

          1. …his forehead

        2. and you weren’t brought up on charges by HR?

        3. tactful

    2. Well, some comedy is merely classist.

  4. everyone is way to serious

    1. Your dismissal of these people’s lived experiences 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.

      Obviously, the next step is just raping people. Which you’re probably just about to do.

      1. Don’t make him pull out just to reply…

    2. What the fuck is that linked in your handle?

      1. You clicked it?!

        Speaking of interrobangs…

        1. No. But he appears to be trying to link an address in GA.

          1. Actually, somebody else had something similar… I even snooped a bit and commented with a hint, thinking I’d stumbled on something clever… I never got a reply. I wish I remember who it was. Not eldrick, but a regular.

            1. IIRC, that was when Reason shipped all of us a magazine with our house on the cover.

            2. Yeah, I saw that. He said he couldn’t see it though

  5. Journalism…..bwahahahahah

  6. I blame the SoCons. The Right does it too you know. A pox on both their houses.

    Now that the obligatory cultural signalling is done (I’m one of you, not those bad others) I’ll move on to my comment:

    Patton’s condemnation of Schumer has already drawn an apology from the young comedian and a promise to be more responsible in the future.

    ^This explains why Donald Trump is an exciting and popular candidate^

    Many people don’t like sniveling, grovelling cowards like Amy Schumer, and they really hate that shit from politicians in a party that purports to represent their interests.

    1. Yep, This is why Duck Dynasty was successful fighting back, and why Paula Dean was not. Why should people stand up and defend those who will not even defend themselves? It’s such a simple lesson you think people would learn it by now.

      1. Never apologize, never explain. Stand up for yourself and tell the people criticizing you to go piss up a rope, and the mob will back down once their attention span moves on to something else.

        1. Which is why the outrage is strongest on college campuses, where they know people are most terrified of them.

    2. SIV nailed it. many people are tires of watching the laft shout people down just because they don’t agree with them.

      Trump is standing up to them even at the personal cost of business relationships and people seem to be responding to that. I don’t want him to be Presiden and don’t think he has a cut dog’s chance but I find it resreshing to watch someone throw their caca right back in their faces. People are scared to be tagged racist even if by true proggie racists and the left will continue to use that club as along as it remains effective.

      1. ” many people are tires of watching the laft “

        I think that’s something to do with this

        That said, i couldn’t find a single comment @ the WaPo piece that wasn’t moaning about how fucking stupid and boring these endlessly-offended people are.

        1. Yet the edgy and provocative comedienne apologized. Schumer isn’t much of a comic if she can’t deal with a heckler.

          1. Agreed.

            There have been a number of recent cases where comedians have been targeted by the Social Media douchemob – jerry seinfeld, joan rivers, trevor noah, michael che, steve martin…

            “Martin was joking with fans when a follower asked him, “Is this how you spell lasonia?” Martin replied: “It depends. Are you in an African-American neighborhood or at an Italian restaurant?””

            …. etc – and there *are* more…

            …very few have refused to apologize and taken a strong stance, defending themselves and their profession with the classic, “Fuck ’em if they can’t take a joke”

            Jim Norton sort of did – but he was commenting on Trevor Noah’s bad-taste jokes., not defending himself and his own career.

            There was one guy not so long ago… black, SNL cast member? who made some remark that the twitterati came after him for, and he fought back… but i can’t remember exactly who it was or the context.

            1. jesus. brainfart there. Michael Che *was* the person i was thinking about. I didn’t even read that whole article.

              double brainfart – should generally not link to Steve Sailer articles when looking for “straightforward description of facts”

            2. Norton is a brilliant know-nothing. He’s ignorant, but he’s not an idiot. In fact I suspect he’s a quiet genius. But he knows comedy, and better still, he knows how to defend comedy against all comers?including, sadly, comedians themselves, who often (like Schumer) attempt to entreat with the perpetually offended to ward off controversy.

              I’m thinking about buying tickets for a benefit he’s doing here in town next week. It’s barely $30, probably the only chance I’ll have to see him in Albuquerque, but it’s a small fortune for me right now.

            3. There was also ex-SNL’er Tracy Morgan doing a routine about how much he hated Lady Gaga’s “Born This Way”, saying if he heard his son listening to it and agreeing with it “I’ll stab that little nigga.” A gay audience member sent stuff about it to Huffington Post and they tried to get him fired from 30 Rock. So he apologized.

      2. “will continue to use that club as along as it remains effective.”

        There have been past comedians – Lenny Bruce, Dick Gregory come to mind – that used the ‘n’ word while espousing he same argument: If it gets used enough, it loses its effect.

        1. I can attest to this. I grew up in the 60s and 70s when the n-word was just a basic insult and not that big of a deal (and Negro was a perfectly acceptable term). But when someone says it these days it’s like someone set off a nuclear bomb. We should all start using it in order to take away its power. You guys go first…

          1. Shoulda used it as the first word in your post.

    3. Sorry, I don’t begrudge anyone for doing things to keep the SJW mobs from destroying their livelihoods.
      Especially those sympathetic to the left; no one supports them.
      Watching the all of the Left sit there as the SJ mobs go after people reminds me of a mother just standing there while an abusive father beats his kid, “you shouldn’t have forgotten to bring him his beer” (while she is just secretly happy it isn’t her being beaten).

      1. Yeah, but they rarely stick on something for long. They have “the outrage of the week” (sometimes not even that long) and then they get bored and move on to something else. I’d just wait them out and not give them what they want. If you asked them to list everything they protested in 2015 thus far, they’ve probably forgotten most of it.

    4. I think she’s pretty funny, so her groveling is disappointing. I guess you can’t expect the big media corporation you work for to stand up for you, so maybe that’s what she has to do to keep working.
      Still, I think you are right that a lot of people would like her more if she just said “fuck off, it’s comedy”.

      1. What she should have said was suck my big nigga’ dick ho. That would be funny.

    5. I’m disappointed in Amy… She never struck me as a PC apologizeer.

    1. “Suidobashi, you have a giant robot, we have a giant robot. You know what needs to happen.”

      USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

      1. I know, right? I was so expecting some ass.

          1. That’s not helpful, and you know it

          2. I prefer my ass to be robotic and magnificent!

            https://vimeo.com/132952244

            Probably not safe for work

            1. I don’t believe for a minute that those are real scientists.

              1. Just because they are wimmen? You libertarians are horrible!

      2. Twerkbot

        The new twerking butt experience. By PornHub.

        1. CRAP!!!!

          Sorry for my link above. I am so ashamed that I didn’t even notice your link 1 fucking entry below

    2. We had a Japanese friend in Uni that we used to call “Advil” because he was little, yellow, different. He loved that nickname and told people to him that. Can’t see that flying today.

      1. I believe you meant ‘Nuprin.’ Sorry for being a dick…

        1. Thank you! You’re right.

        2. I believe you meant ‘Nuprin.

          Well, he could have been a ganguro cross-dresser.

          1. That reminds me of the Steven Wright joke that ends with Bucky Goldstein.

            1. Good share. Reminds me of the quote “how do you like them eggrolls, Mr. Goldstone.”

      2. Advil is brown, you racist.

        Nuprin was small, yellow, and very good at math.

        1. We had a fellow we called “Nuprin” on our rugby squad…Little. Yellow. Different. Improved!

  7. Patton’s condemnation of Schumer has already drawn an apology from the young comedian and a promise to be more responsible in the future.

    That’s the problem, right there. I’d love to see, for once, one of these people go in front of the camera and instead of apologizing, simply saying fuck off!

    1. A real comedian would do exactly that. I’ll let you know if I ever see one again.

        1. Which ALMOST makes me want to watch DVDs of his old show. ALMOST.

        2. Jerry has “Fuck You” money, Amy still has a show she’s working on. It’s a shame, but she was almost certainly pressured by the network to apologize as a condition of her show continuing.

      1. Ari Shaffir made fun of a comedian who had her hand ripped off in a car accident.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf01JfJDYZw

        It’s really something to behold. It contains the line ‘I knew her when she had two arms. She was just as annoying then. The only thing that changed is that one day her arm to annoyance ratio shot way the fuck up.’

        The outrage storm over that dwarfed anything related to the Amy Schumer stuff and he basically just told everyone to go fuck off. In his case, the stuff he said actually was pretty fucking offensive, but it was heartening to see a comedian basically refuse to apologize, even if the comedian himself seems like a bit of a dick.

    2. I really want Doug Stanhope to get into shit with the politically correct crowd, that guy would spend YEARS mocking them.

      1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwKGaK_xpcM

        Your wish is my command. He got called an anti-Semite and responded by writing an entire bit called ‘fuck the Jews.’

        1. Oh, the days where one could make a joke where the punchline was “I bash Muslims, but I’m afraid to bash Scientologists

        2. Speaking as a Jew, that was fucking funny.

          -jcr

      2. He’s unfortunately under their radar, although that’s by choice because he’s repeatedly said he doesn’t want to be a huge star. He’s just “that guy who was on Louie” basically to them, so they don’t care. If they did, his routine about Africans from a few years back would have made him public enemy #1. But it was one of the funniest things I’ve ever heard in my life.

  8. Prog-vs.-prog catfights…at least they’re leaving normal people alone. For once.

  9. You know what’s racist?

    Obama’s racist war on drugs.

  10. “You know, myself and a lot of people are still grieving the lives of those people in Charleston.”

    Was it Stacey Patton that said this?

    When she said she was grieving “those people” what did she mean exactly?

    Did she actually cry?

    Did she take some time off and some bereavement pay?

    Or is she lying? Did she really just go about her business like every other day when someone gets murdered in the news?

    1. Went about her business. But she did ‘tsk, tsk’ quite a bit that day.

      1. I think you guys are unfairly slamming Patton. Surely she said, “Tsk, tsk, tsk” in addition to blaming get a lot of people other than. Roof for the killings, and thus proving her compassionate bona dudes

  11. Can we please just drop the pretext and get back to calling people heretics?

  12. “and as a result, campuses are becoming no-joke zones, it seems.”

    No kidding?

    As have workplaces and most other social gathering spots in daily life.

    1. When reason hires Ellen Pao to moderate HnR comments we’ll know the end is nigh.

    2. “most other social gathering spots in daily life”

      I’ve been told that the comment section of some political magazines are like a swamp of inane, juvenile bluster.

  13. I only started watching her show after SJW pounced on it. Because if you’re pissing those people off, you’re probably doing something right.

  14. Here’s what I don’t get: was this vacuous race hustler with a pseudo degree too lazy to watch the episodes or did she intentionally not watch them as some form of protest? She had to have realized that this question would come up at some point and could have easily prepared for such a predictable question by spending 2-3 hours watching this shit show. Hell, she could have fucking LIED and said that she watched a few episodes, then deflected any specific questions by the interviewer. Why did this lout choose to totally destroy any credibility that she may have had left?

    The progressive mind, man…it’s vexing.

    1. “I don’t need to stick my head in a sewer to know it stinks!”

      The attitude of both SoCons and modern Proggies. They have more in common than they realize…

      1. I get that and agree entirely….but Patton holds credentials blessed by the state, no matter how trivial I may find them, and should have expected to be held to a higher standard. Even after the backlash that occurred right after the shitty article went to press, she STILL doesn’t take the time to watch one goddamned episode in preparation for such an obvious question? I just have a hard time accepting apathy as the culprit.

        1. Good luck with that, airheads like Patton are what the state has chosen to sanction and that won’t be changing anytime in the near future. She should be mocked in a merciless fashion for being a fucking idiot for the grievance act that is her only schtick.

          In a just world she’d be scorned, in this world she’s some sort of expert. And being a protected class she’s immune to criticism in polite society, we’re fucked.

    2. When your argument fundamentally comes down to ‘I believe this culture conception/symbol/abstraction/whatever is dangerous to society and must be controlled’ you tend to be a little narrow-minded when it comes to actually experiencing the content. You wouldn’t want that show/movie/video game/Elvis’ hips infesting your mind with corruptive memes that turn you into a racist/sexist/school shooter/teenage mom.

      1. Please, correct me if I misinterpret your view, but here’s where the two of us differ: I believe that she doesn’t believe the horse shit that she puts on paper because she is a grievance industry tycoon and you believe that she actually subscribes to such nonsense. Would you say that’s entirely accurate?

        1. I think I’ve encountered far too many true believers who believe they can justify any behaviour so long as it supports ‘the cause’ and are so arrogantly self-assured of their own moral righteousness to rule it out. There are certainly people who ‘cash in’ on a movement, but there’s plenty of others obsessed with their own moral superiority and the lambasting of those that don’t tow the line.

    3. we don’ need no stinkin’ credibility because…RACISM…BIGOTS…(gasp) CONSERVATIVES!!

      Seriously, they’ve never needed to answer questions before; why would they think it would be suddenly necessary to start now.

    4. Keep in mind it’s WaPo – the newspaper that just now learned the reason why the Libertarian Party would support a Nevada brothel owner running for the Senate despite the fact that he’s a Nevada brothel owner. (Spoiler alert: Apparently the LP has a few members who don’t think prostitution should be illegal. I know, weird, right? I mean, who knew? Thank God WaPo is right on top of that breaking news story.)

      1. Apparently the LP has a few members who don’t think prostitution should be illegal. I know, weird, right? I mean, who knew?

        I did not. I am turning in my LP card.

        1. You were never issued one. Not a true Scotsman Libertarian.

  15. as evidenced by the fact that Patton didn’t do a remotely passable job of investigating the work she was blasting

    Oh, that’s incredibly common. Most people are comfortable doing this about tons of shit they’ve never actually seen the tiniest bit of. But the fact that a “journalist” feels free to do so sure tells you something about that journalist. Case in point:

    And then it was Schumer’s comments about Mexican men and rapists. And I thought, see, that’s when I had to say something.

    No, that’s when you felt the time was ripe for an opportunistic attack based solely on what you perceived as attackable and outrage-provoking. This woman is an opportunist and a bully and gives no shits about any kind of merit to her attacks. Because it had nothing to do with “having to do something” and everything to do with getting SJW cred by finding someone to attack. Because…that’s what they love. They’re always hungry for new, oblivious targets who they can blindside and make capitulate with apologies (which Schumer moronically gave them, thereby guaranteeing they will attack again).

    1. And then it was Schumer’s comments about Mexican men and rapists. And I thought, see, that’s when I had to say something prop up the Narrative.

    2. Oh please. If the Klan lynches a black family, which happens approx. every 3.6 minutes somewhere in the South, I, as a serious journalist, don’t have to interview the klansmen involved to get their side of the story. They are self-evidently evil and wrong, and this is no different.

      1. Evil is a patriarchal concept, JJ. You just tried to mansplain to me. Check your privilege. Didn’t you know I’m dark-skinned?!?

      2. Wow, that’s 146,000 lynchings a year. Are 1 in 5 black families lynched?

        1. Yes. Actually, eventually they all are.

  16. Yeah, for sure. Kinda like all the folks here who complained about the Pope’s encyclical on climate change, and yet didn’t even read it. Like everyone here.

    1. Thanks for your input, joe. It’s just as short and pathetic as you are.

      1. Welcome!

        1. My point exactly. Keep it up, joe. It’ll be fun to have you back as a punching bag.

          1. If you like short, angry and stupid, Joe is your man.

          2. Keep swingin’!

    2. “Yeah, for sure. Kinda like all the folks here who complained about the Pope’s encyclical on climate change, and yet didn’t even read it. Like everyone here.”

      I read the entire thing and it was dumber than I possibly could have imagined. I’m glad you’re happy to have a semi-literate nitwit who talks about Earth Spirits and shit (despite the fact that such talk seems to contradict the precepts of his own religion) on your side of the aisle. Really scientific stuff.

      BTW, how’s Venezuela doing, you sociopath? Still the Democratic worker’s paradise you’re always babbling about?

      1. Yeah , you read it. Tell me, he quoted a song in it. Who wrote it? Hmmmm?

        1. Are you serious right now?

          The encyclical is available online. What would quoting something from the encyclical tell you regarding whether or not I’d read it? I could just read it right now.

          Secondly, Laudato Si is huge, so the fact that I don’t remember one quote is irrelevant. I read it and it made no actual arguments and presented no actual facts. In the true mode of religion, it presented biases and then made vague appeals to a nonexistent authority by quoting various Christian thinkers as if their opinions have any merit when discussing climate change.

          1. Also:

            “The Sacraments are a privileged way in which nature is taken up by God to become a means of mediating supernatural life. Through our worship of God, we are invited to embrace the world on a different plane. Water, oil, fire and colours are taken up in all their symbolic power and incorporated in our act of praise. The hand that blesses is an instrument of God’s love and a reflection of the closeness of Jesus Christ, who came to accompany us on the journey of life. Water poured over the body of a child in Baptism is a sign of new life. Encountering God does not mean fleeing from this world or turning our back on nature. This is especially clear in the spirituality of the Christian East. “Beauty, which in the East is one of the best loved names expressing the divine harmony and the model of humanity transfigured, appears everywhere: in the shape of a church, in the sounds, in the colours, in the lights, in the scents”.[164] For Christians, all the creatures of the material universe find their true meaning in the incarnate Word, for the Son of God has incorporated in his person part of the material world, planting in it a seed of definitive transformation.

            Terribly written mystical nonsense. The fact that progressives are pretending this dross is important to anyone other than an ignorant rube tells me how little progs actually care about science.

            1. Nonsense to you, not to him. You know what isn’t nonsense? His undersranding of the science behind climate change. He quotes it, and he relies on it. You think he relies on fantasy? I suggest you consider a typical libertarians take on climate change for real fantastical thinking.

              Yeah, you read it.

              1. His undersranding of the science behind climate change.

                Ah, that’s why he anthropomorphizes mineral resources and constructs an emotional abstraction in regards to how humans harvest resources to illustrate a moral point. Clearly a very scientific mind.

                Yeah, you read it.

                    1. That cartoon reporter looks like Lea Thompson.

                      IBIMB

                1. Looks like joe’s days as a punching bag are here again. It’s almost like he likes getting trounced.

          2. Just as happens when we fall in love with someone, whenever he would gaze at the sun, the moon or the smallest of animals, [St. Francis of Assisi] burst into song, drawing all other creatures into his praise. He communed with all creation, even preaching to the flowers, inviting them “to praise the Lord*, just as if they were endowed with reason”

            *Or in the original medieval Italian “Laudato si, mi’ Signore” or “Praise to you, my Lord”, which is lyric found in Laudes Creaturarum or Canticle of the Sun, the melody of which can be heard here.

    3. My you’re really stretching for an analogy, aren’t you. “But, like, you never read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, so like, don’t criticize it.” When they publish in the Washington Post maybe I will.

      1. right. I have not read almost any of mein kampf but I do hate fucking nazis because I have been to the camps and seen the evidence. are you saying i need to read it? there are shittons of wacko alien abduction/ aliens-built-the-pyramids books i haven’t read, but I think the’re all full of shit. Do i need to read them? are you claiming to be agnostic about all that nonsense?

        If i were paid to review one of those books for a national media publication, i would read it first and (I presume) find no shortage of factual errors and illogical bs to ridicule

    4. Just like clockwork Jackass shows up and says something stupid…gotta be a Tony sock, their M.O is fits to a T.

  17. I just watched a few minutes of CNN on the tv in the break room. They were covering some “protests” at a Trump appearance it was great. I’m paraphrasing below, but this is very close to the actual exchange that took place.

    Anchor: “Asian reporter, this is expected to be a sizable protest, correct?”

    *camera pans around, shows a few people standing around with signs* Asian Reporter: “That’s right. There’s only a few gathered here now, but that’s expected to change very soon.”

    Anchor: “What’s really surprising is that despite his comments, Trump continues to get a great deal of support from republicans.”

    Asian Reporter: “Yes, his views and outspoken manner really seem to strike a chord with many republicans.”

    Translation: Look! Republicans all believe that brown people are all rapists!

    1. Trump’s entire campaign so far is about how brown people are racists. To the extent that Republicans support him, that’s what they care about too.

        1. My God, he managed to clarify it AND have it make even less sense.

        2. Tony, there is vulgar intolerance on both sides of the partisan political aisle. Libertarians seem to quickly acknowledge this, while partisans such of you only point the finger at one side. You want evidence of Team Blue intolerance? Spend a few minutes perusing the comment threads at NPR, Daily Kos, or Democratic Underground. They ESPECIALLY seem to hate da JOOOOOS on those sites.

          1. The same people who think Trump is the devil for when implying illegal aliens are criminals think nothing of calling every white southerner a racist and every Christian a terrorist in waiting.

        3. So Tony continues to prove he’s stupid…who knew.

      1. To the extent that Republicans support him, that’s what they care about too.

        Careful there, Tony. You’re making it sound as if not all Republicans think this way.

  18. Okay, I’ve never heard of this chick before so I clicked the link and watched the vid.

    Mutherfucker pleez!

    Oh, and the way she dresses I can’t tell if she’s a 1 or a 0. I’m leaning towards 1, because let’s face it, when push comes to shove, most women are 1s. Thoughts.

      1. I’m with you. Def. a 1. It isn’t a proud 1, but still a 1, nonetheless.

      2. As a gentleman I refuse to comment on the attractiveness of a woman just for the sake of doing so. I am more interested in what a woman has to say, and how she says it, than what she looks like.

        You sicken me.

        1. For the articles, right? That’s the reason you bought it.

          1. I am such a gentleman I have no idea what you are referring to.

            1. Did you ever get around to actually using that luffa?

              1. Luffa’s carry disease!

        2. Virginia Postrel called, and she said she’s very, very proud of you and she thinks you’re glamorous.

          1. That’s what he really wanted to hear. Back to business.

        3. As a gentleman, Crusty decides whether he would, not on any crass metrics of “attractiveness”, but based on the results of his magic-8 ball.

          1. This is why there are no libertarian women.

    1. You need to watch your trash talk, bitch. I’m no 1.

      1. Also, Amy is something like a 5. Have you seen any real women recently? She’s a bit overweight and could use a nose job, but overall she’s decent to look at.

        The average American women is a size 10 and weighs 160 lbs., for fucks sack.

        1. Binary system.

          1=yes
          0=no

          I’m too old to care about the 0-10 scale anymore.

          1. Alright then.

            I apologize for overreacting.

              1. I saw what you did there.

          2. The older I get, I find there are shockingly few women on my zero list.

            1. My list remains unchanged.

              I get older, and they stay the same age.

          3. There are only 10 kinds of people in this world….

            1. There are only 10 kinds of people in this world….

              I’m intrigued. Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to? Perhaps it includes photos?

              1. Binary Puns Monthly, it’s not very popular

                1. You can either subscribe or not subscribe.

                2. It’s very hit or miss.

        2. “The average American women is a size 10 and weighs 160 lbs”

          It makes me feel vain, but I like being reminded of this in light of the weight I’ve gained since I turned 30. 134 pounds doesn’t seem so bad. (still trying to lose weight though)

          1. Awww. 134 is pretty fantastic.

            With little effort I lost 15 lbs when I went low-carb. I was a size 6/8; I’m now a 4/6 at 125 lbs. It really works.

            Here’s a great book if you’re interested:

            http://www.amazon.com/Big-Fat-…..at+suprise

            1. I’m rockin an almost solid 208 over here.

              1. Weight means nothing without height or body composition.

                It you want to lose weight low-carb is terrific, though.

            2. With my small bone structure it’s too much, but I will check that book out. Thank you.

          2. You can do side bends or sit-ups,
            But please don’t lose that butt

        3. Lol. Welcome to the internet.

  19. Good lord, I’d confused Amy Schumer with Pohler. I *did* think it’s odd having nobody journalists going after an industry stalwart.

  20. Speaking of the commiepope, I am anxious to hear what our resident devout Catholic has to say about capitalism being the dung of the devil. That is really some Chavez-level commie drivel.

    I find it troubling that in the course of just a few decades it has gone from shameful to a point of pride to call yourself a socialist. When I was a kid you could easily get your ass whipped for openly calling yourself a socialist. I am tempted to think it is because the USSR and it’s evil is just a memory now, but hell, we can see socialism elsewhere. Right now Venezuela is a festering hole of misery and deprivation. Greece is headed in the same direction.

    1. Only during a very specific moment in history (now) has any form of Christianity been compatible with laissez-faire capitalism.

      1. I’m quite amused when lefties say things like this. Because you’re anti-Christianity and anti-capitalism, so shouldn’t you be trying to argue that they go hand in hand, just to make for closer targets? Or do you just regard Christianity as the lesser evil and therefor seek to co-opt it for the war against the Great Satan, the market economy?

        1. Christianity is Santa Claus for adults and I don’t give a shit. Capitalism is the means by which the landed fleece the working. I could do with so much less of each.

          1. “Capitalism is the means by which the landed fleece the working.”
            Landed? I see, you’ve managed to convince yourself that that we live in rural 18th century Europe and that’s how you can pretend that your ideas still have currency. If you actually acknowledged the last 200 years of industrial capitalism catapulting the entire world from perpetual poverty into prosperity no one before could ever dream of, even your head would explode from cognitive dissonance. We live in a time when poor people have life expectancy in the 70s, are worrying more about procuring advanced schooling than finding affordable bread to avoid starvation like they did back when mercantilism ruled the day.

            You do get that your anti-capitalism makes you every bit as absurd in the modern era as a creationist or a flat-earther, right? That such a breed exists in the 21st century is just another monument to insurmountably of human stupidity.

    2. What’s this – dung of the devil?

      I’ll have to look that one up…

      Ah, yes…

      “No, Pope Francis Didn’t Call Capitalism ‘The Dung Of The Devil'”

      http://dailycaller.com/2015/07…..the-devil/

      It seems that the Pope denounced the *worship* of money. I wonder where that came from (cf, Matthew 6:24)

      Of course, Christians denounce worship of the Sun, as well, without denying the power of its health-giving rays.

      1. Well, until you need halos, then its ‘fuck it, Egyptian-Greco-Roman solar discs representing divinity ahoy!’

    3. “our resident devout Catholic”

      I’m flattered, but no. If I were more devout, I wouldn’t be wasting so much time on H&R, sorry to be so blunt.

      It’s not as if the Church is going to send its A-team to debate on H&R. Or even its B, C, or D team. I’m more the F team.

      1. You are certainly no Father Guido Sarducci, I can tell you that.

        1. The “I cause men to be obsessed with me because I am so gosh dern adorbies” team?

      2. Eddie, calling you a devout Catholic was not intended as an insult.

        What he said was that the unfettered pursuit of money is the dung of the devil. Put that in context with the other things he has said about technology, global warming and prosperity and it is pretty clear what he means.

        You can see this shit plain as day when a Chavez or an Obumbles spews it. You know exactly what they mean. So the same rhetoric means something different coming from the Pope?

        1. Look, like I said, he’s no libertarian, but my main job is to learn from him, not to instruct him – with the proviso that in looking over his worthy goals there are market answers – eg, with poisoning the poor’s water.

          As for denouncing the worship of wealth – well, you can approve that attitude or condemn it, but it’s not original with the Pope, it goes back some time.

          Now, preaching the need not to be attached to wealth, and the need to share one’s wealth during one’s limited time on earth – that doesn’t automatically mean having the government do it for you.

          The great “counsels of perfection” – sell what you have and give to the poor – is not required of everyone, but only of those who voluntarily accept such a duty – eg, in the monastic orders or among nuns.

          I’d also put in a good word for my man Rodney Stark about how Catholic Europe managed to do fine economically even while all this non-attachment stuff was being preached.

          1. Look, like I said, he’s no libertarian, but my main job is to learn from him, not to instruct him

            So if the pope told you to kill babies, would you agree with him?

            1. No, Fd’A, because then I’d know he was an antipope.

              1. So do you agree with the pope when he berates capitalism?

                1. I thought he was against selfishness, “I’ve got mine” individualism, the throw-away culture, and the like.

                  Let’s at least look at things from his point of view before condemning him – there *is* a culture of waste, manifested by people spending money they don’t have to get stuff they don’t need, which also, by the way, describes the policies of the legislators there same people vote for (coincidence)?

                  Contempt for the earth *does* manifest itself in poisoning the water of the poor – which by the way libertarians don’t like either.

                  And there *is* a culture of selfishness and throwing away, not just plastic bags, but one’s own children and one’s own elderly relatives. I know enough about libertarianism to know that (after outgrowing Ayn Rand) they don’t preach pure selfishness, and that you even preach the virtues of voluntary associations. So “let the galled jade wince, *your* withers are unwrung!”

                  He’s not going to be buying any Adam Smith ties anytime soon, but seriously, if he were a commie, he’d have loved that hammer-and-sickle cross.

                  1. So you are making excuses for a straight up socialist/communist. I thought as much. Thanks for playing.

                    1. *

                  2. You don’t honestly believe that pretzel, do you? There is no doubt the man is a Socialist and a Luddite. These are not uncommon bedfellows of Catholicism, but were recently beaten back into the closet by electing a pope who actually got to experience the joys of those pathologies first hand. I have no trouble envisioning this one with an AK slung over his shoulder.

        2. “Eddie, calling you a devout Catholic was not intended as an insult.”

          I didn’t take it as such, I simply reject the compliment because I know I’m not devout.

          I’m simply stating a fact. Not false modesty, but fact.

          I’m not really the best Catholic I could be.

          And don’t take this the wrong way, but my spiritual defects may influence the large amount of time I spend typing on a computer keyboard to argue with libertarians.

    4. Trigger warning: James 5:1-4 makes the Pope look like Robin Leach”

      “Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you.

      “Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten.

      “Your gold and your silver have rusted; and their rust will be a witness against you and will consume your flesh like fire. It is in the last days that you have stored up your treasure!

      “Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and which has been withheld by you, cries out against you; and the outcry of those who did the harvesting has reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth.”

      NASB

      1. And my New American Bible has this note:

        “Continuing with the theme of the transitory character of life on earth, the author points out the impending ruin of the godless. He denounces the unjust rich, whose victims cry to heaven for judgment on their exploiters (? James 5:4-6). The decay and corrosion of the costly garments and metals, which symbolize wealth, prove them worthless and portend the destruction of their possessors…”

        http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P11Z.HTM

      2. Silver can tarnish, but gold can’t rust.

        Yeah, I know- it’s figurative. The gist of it is “you can’t take it with you”. I agree with that part.

        1. Also, I would find the Pope’s criticism of materialism to be more sincere if he did not live in a giant palace filled with treasure.

          If he really believed this stuff, I’d think he’d ditch the papal vestments for second-hand clothes.

          1. Sell it and give the proceeds to the poor.

            1. I think some guy in Bible might have said that.

          2. “a giant palace filled with treasure”

            To which he gave the poor a tour.

            http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/26/…..r-vatican/

            Now, consider the following paradox: There have been many mendicant monks who renounced possessions not only for themselves but for their entire order. Not everyone liked this, because these monks went from town to town engaging in the a sacred counterpart to aggressive panhandling. Many members of the public would have preferred the monks to be less self-denying! Other religious orders generally have their members work, with the proceeds going to the order (not the individuals).

        2. Gold can rust (oxidize). Gold chloride is pretty unstable though. In the presence of potassium or (in solution) cyanide it is easily reduced back to metal.

          1. You sure? Everything I’ve found says it can tarnish a little but doesn’t rust.

            1. I use gold chloride in photography all the time.

              Also, my father is a metallurgical engineer who specializes in reducing oxidized gold to metal using the cyanide process.

              As I said, it isn’t stable. It would much rather be reduced and if there is any other metals around the chlorine jumps to that and leaves metallic gold.

              1. I should add that for all intents and purposes you are correct. It is very difficult to oxidize gold. By oxidize I don’t mean combined with oxygen. It takes a more powerful oxidizing agent, most commonly chlorine.

                1. Yeah, I should have realized you meant oxidize as in what happens in a battery.

                  When I hear rust, I automatically think of oxygen.

        3. “Silver can tarnish, but gold can’t rust”

          The phrase in my Catholic Bible is translated “your gold and silver have corroded.”

          His Holiness has in fact avoided taking advantage of some of the trappings of his office. He lives in the same modest apartments as normal clergy, not in the ornate digs available to him, he drives around in a modest car – he sold a fancier car to give the proceeds to the poor.

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..88214.html

          (caution: autoplay)

          I seem to recall he eschewed bulletproof windows when he visited the Israel/Palestine area, which is pretty ballsy.

          And he lets the homeless bathe and get haircuts in Vatican facilities

          http://www.nbcnews.com/news/wo…..ss-n307031

          (autoplay again)

          Back in Argentina, IIRC, he took public transit.

          1. Here we go:

            “Pope Francis is shunning bulletproof vehicles during his [2014] trip to the Middle East…insisting that he use a normal car and be allowed to be as close to people as possible, the Vatican said on Thursday.”

            http://www.reuters.com/article…..6K20140515

            1. perhaps he is just trying to be a matyr in order to start WW3. catholic vs muslim. it only takes one suicide bomber to kill the pope and thus glass the country where this incident happened.

  21. AAAND…just because there isn’t enough stuff over which we can roll our eyes:
    Asshole: A Primer

    (blows out kisses) Enjoy.

    1. Winning comment:

      “Chattolanee
      Police are in a no-win situation these days. Consequently, there are fewer recruits to supplement those retiring or moving on to other less problematic careers. All one has to do is look at major cities’ compromised and demoralized police departments to understand why the cities will burn and there will be no one to provide law enforcement.”

      1. “Dammit! All the judicial immunity, steady paychecks, and benes out the whazoo. But I can’t seems to make friends with the citizens!”

        1. But…thugs….thugs everywhere! Everywhere!

          1. It’s like Chattolanee has written an actual cop soap opera.

              1. Oddly enough, I used to love HSB when I was a kid. But, I never considered it a soap.

                I was actually envisioning this when I wrote that comment.

  22. The Rococo Bang is greater than The Interrobang.

  23. And, besides, SEXISM!:

    “Pao Out as Reddit CEO; Co-Founder Huffman Takes Over”
    […]
    “Ellen Pao is stepping down as Reddit CEO, a move that comes amid mounting pressure after a series of management mishaps that has angered its very vocal online community.”
    http://www.msn.com/en-us/money…..MSNMoney11

    Had nothing to do with her inability to understand a business is not the vehicle to push her ’causes’. Nope, nothing about that.

    1. Good to see her go. That said, Reddit is full of retards.

    2. I hear a tech position just opened in Obama administration. Time to try the public sector?

      1. Your insight suggests you might be a proggie messiah…me thinks you have a new racket

  24. Biggest retard in history writes article arguing we should send people to jail for flying the Confederate flag.

    The best part is when he quotes Frederick Douglas talking about the ‘malignant spirit’ getting handed down from father to son. Clearly Douglas meant actual white supremacist racism and not people flying a fucking flag, but morons never tire of appropriating the words of dead men who aren’t around to set them straight.

    1. To black Americans, meanwhile, these flags send a clear, painful, and frightening message:You don’t belong here. By being here, you are in danger. This nation is not for you.

      You know, I’m really sick and tired of White people telling us how Black people feel.

      1. English professor decries freedom of speech.

        Genius.

        I remember an art professor from university who did the same thing. They really are useful idiots as they most certainly will be hoisted by their own petard if they get their wish.

      2. By being here, you are in danger. This nation is not for you.

        Also, not to get technical, but the ‘ship all the black people to Liberia/Brazil/whatever’ crowd historically weren’t flying Confederate flags most of the time. They were flying Union ones.

      3. “To black Americans, meanwhile, these flags send a clear, painful, and frightening message:You don’t belong here. By being here, you are in danger. This nation is not for you.”
        What degree do you have to have to dictate what all symbols mean to everyone?

        For example, if I see an Obama-Biden 2012 bumper sticker, can I reinterpret this to mean that I am not welcome in this country, and am in danger, and have that person arrested?

        I suppose this is what can be expected from people who refuse to distinguish between how things are and how they feel about things.

        1. if I see an Obama-Biden 2012 bumper sticker, can I reinterpret this to mean that I am not welcome in this country, and am in danger, and have that person arrested?

          Well, except for the “arrested” part, sure.

          1. Um, but I was addressing the fact that some people want confederate flags made illegal (a form of ‘hate speech) and such illegality would presumably be enforced by imprisoning or at least fining the ‘perpetrator.’ So that’s kinda the point.

    2. Give unto Ceasar-see that means taxes are good? *Son of God returns* “you guys ever stop and think I meant that Ceasar deserved zippo?”

    3. I watched some of the ceremony where the confederate flag was retired. There were people crying and cheering like WW2 had just ended or something. Others looked like the famous crying Frenchman watching the Nazis march through Paris.

      A lot of people really get worked up about symbols. What sad way to go through life.

      1. I love this paragraph:

        “That defeat is still mourned by many sympathizers with the Confederate cause across the nation, who have somehow forgotten that the Lost Cause was the cause of slavery. To them, the Confederate flag is an innocent symbol, a symbol that honors the Confederate dead and preserves the memory of their gallantry and fighting spirit.”

        So he acknowledges that to people who wave the flag it’s an innocent symbol, but wants them thrown in jail for hate crimes anyway, even though they don’t consider the flag hateful.

        He wants you to be jailed for hate crimes that don’t actually contain any hate.

        This is Orwellian in a way I never thought possible.

        1. The arguments used for taking down the flag the exact arguments as the ones against:

          1. Mohamed cartoons

          2. the word “nigger”

          3. pornography

          4. Catcher in the Rye

          5. Anything Bill Donahue doesn’t like

          and on and on!

          Once you concede that it’s OK to ban something offensive, anything could be banned.

          1. I understand why a state government would eliminate the conf. flag. Its not an official symbol of the state and the South did lose, right?

            Obviously, it’s stupid to attempt a ban on an unofficial level where the 1st amendment protects it.

            1. the South did lose, right?

              So tear down all memorials to the too? Or to the Mexicans?

              1. *So tear down all memorials to the Natives too? *

                1. Whaaa?

                  Governments use flags as official symbols. They display them. Why would that apply to Native Americans or Mexicans?

                  1. So no flying the Rainbow flag then either?

                    1. People are apparently flying it upside down, anyway.

              2. Let’s start with Lee Highway.

                1. Destroy the Four Olds and Cultivate the Four News!

                2. Why are you conflating flags with other non-symbolic display items?

                  1. Now, just a doggone minute, there, Mrs.!

                    Your “non-symbolic display items” are *symbolic* of flags.

                    1. Your “non-symbolic display items” are *symbolic* of flags.

                      See the Dukes of Hazzard controversy.

                    2. Now, just a doggone minute, there, Mrs.!

                      Look, it’s idiotic to try to eliminate any and all “symbols” of racism by whitewashing the Civil War. It’s part of our history – good and bad – and should be remembered and commemorated.

                      The democratically elected representatives of the state of SC chose to remove the Confed. flag from state office buildings because to some citizens it represented oppression. So, what? That’s hardly a suppression of the 1st Amendment.

                      Any dummy trying to criminalize the flag will obviously bump up against the 1st, and Irish’s article is an example of the stupidity of the ignorant. It’s not a real threat.

                    3. It’s part of our history – good and bad – and should be remembered and commemorated.

                      Isn’t the campaign expanding to include every Confederate Memorial everywhere? And many of them include the Battle Flag. And the Duke of Hazzard have gotten in trouble too.

                    4. You’re not distinguishing between state and private. Obviously, the state has no power to control what flag a private individual or enterprise owns or displays. Some commercial interests may bow to public pressure, but that’s not the state exercising power. That’s the market exercising influence.

                      I really don’t take individuals advocating eliminating the Washington Monument seriously.

                    5. Any dummy trying to criminalize the flag will obviously bump up against the 1st

                      Give it a little time.

                    6. When I was at college, the prof wondered aloud if Hitler proved that freedom of speech has its limits. So yes, the argument behind hate speech and hate crimes are literally that we need them because of Hitler.

          2. Once you concede that it’s OK to ban something offensive, anything could be banned.

            So, what happens when the (offensive) idea that it’s OK to ban something offensive is banned?

      2. Fascinating. The whole phony baloney confederate flag flap was whipped up to distract from the serious fuck-ups the progs have been up to and even the rank and file progs bought into it.

    4. Nah, we need to go full Germany to fix this. Ban the flag, disband the Democrats, and expel those who aren’t war criminals from public life.

  25. If you not reading the Iowahawk Twitter feed today on the Ellen Pao firing, you are depriving yourself.

    1. The man is a National Treasure.

    2. “Breaking: Ellen Pao named CEO of Hooters; announces new vegan menu, waitstaff from Oberlin Gender Studies Department”

      1. Don’t forget this:

        Thanks to Ellen Pao, Asian-Americans will no longer be saddled with the insidious stereotype of being bright, hardworking and competent.

        ? David Burge (@iowahawkblog) July 10, 2015

        1. I LOLed at that one.

      2. “Thanks to Ellen Pao, Asian-Americans will no longer be saddled with the insidious stereotype of being bright, hardworking and competent.”

          1. Hey, it’s a great post.

            /no foul

      3. I think this one was my favorite: Breaking: Ellen Pao files 1.3 million sex discrimination lawsuits

    3. Seems like a sad way to spend your day.

  26. I’m a bad person – Young Turks interview with a Marxist professor.

    He starts out by arguing that capitalism has never had a free market. This is true, but then he hilariously invents his own definition of a free market that I have never heard used by anyone else in the history of the time.

    It gets ludicrously stupid within about 35 seconds.

    1. Ooh, sounds like good derp. Reminds me the time a prog tried to tell me that roads are an example of socialism. I guess that makes the Roman Empire a socialist country.

      1. Did you know that in order for something to be a free market there can’t be any large companies because those large companies can impact markets?

        Then they’re not free!

        If you invent your own definition of a term, you can make it mean whatever you want!

        1. It’s even worse than that. It’s like saying geometry doesn’t exist because points, lines, and planes are just ideas.

        2. Does it follow that big people are not really people then? And that us small people cannot be free until there are no more big people?

          Cut the tall trees down!!!

          1. “What are the various ways humans could be engineered to be smaller?

            “Liao: There are a couple of ways, actually. You might try to do it through a technique called preimplantation genetic diagnosis, which is already used in IVF settings in fertility clinics today. In fact hormone treatments are already used for height reduction in overly tall children. You could have drugs that reduce or increase the expression of paternal or maternal genes in order to affect birth height.”

            1. Does this mean… I am the future?!? We imps are the ‘new men’, the ubermenschen of the 21st century?

      2. “a prog tried to tell me that roads are an example of socialism”

        Its some kind of new bullshit schools are feeding kids = any form of wealth-transfer, no matter how minor, is “socialist”. taxes are socialist. Roads are socialist. Sweden is socialist

        (*never mind all that ‘means of production’ & class-struggle stuff you read in college)

        The purpose seems to be to liberate the term ‘socialist’ from its less-than-awesome past, which these same people will insist was *totally not the same thing because wrong people and like it was really sort of right wing and hey, look over there = Nazis!*

        1. Well, it could go either way, depending on how bad things get. Yes, it could mean “roads and welfare are good, so socialism is good! Herp derp derp.”.

          Or, they could fuck around with people too nastily, end up losing a civil war, and instead we create a generation of people who think “public roadz and welfare are socialist, socialists are de debil, therefore onward to ancap libertopia!”

  27. Here’s a pic of French people observing the Nazis march in victory through Paris. For some reason, the woman on the right in this photo reminds me of Amy Schumer.

    1. Considering how quickly she caved, I’d have said the two on the left.

  28. Patton’s condemnation of Schumer has already drawn an apology from the young comedian and a promise to be more responsible in the future.

    “I hear you. You guys are preachin’ to the choir.”

  29. Ah, so her goal was to defend rape culture. Well, that’s ok, then.

  30. Think of It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia’s Kaitlin Olson, whose character on the show occasionally dresses up as “Martina Martinez,” an offensive caricature of a Latina newscaster. The act is hilarious?not because Olson is making fun of Latina women, but because she’s making fun of people who don’t realize how racist they are.

    Yeah, keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. “I’m not laughing at a humorous, caricature of a certain type of person. No, I’m laughing at the white people laughing at this” By the way, what race are Latina women? Also, are all my landscaping jokes racist too?

    To be fair, I always thought she was making fun of how sexists men are regarding women newscasters.*

    *Look I am an intellectual too.

      1. The reaction of the dudes she approaches makes the bit funny. They think she’s a racist fool.

        1. Which is pretty much entirely the point. In addition to being a reversal of stereotypes about racist white laborers (and having grown up around racist white laborers, I can affirm many laborers are indeed white and racist, and also who gives a fuck).

        2. The reaction of the dudes she approaches makes the bit funny. They think she’s a racist fool.

          Just, so I am clear, it is racist to make fun of behaviors and speaking styles of people from a different culture?

          1. That’s not what she’s doing.

            She’s making fun of her own character’s stupidity and insensitivity, you’re just too thick to get it.

            Basically, that’s the whole premise of the show. Perhaps you should watch an episode before offering your opinion.

            1. She’s making fun of her own character’s stupidity and insensitivity, you’re just too thick to get it

              I was trying to make the point, not very well I see, that making fun of people different than you is not in and of itself racist.

  31. I due find it amusing that starting in the 1960s or so comedians really got into the notion that good comedy is offensive and only censorious prudes would complain. And they also got the attitude that good comedy is merely leftist propaganda. So now they are reaping what they have sown.

    1. Maybe it was inevitable that they’d have to choose someday between the offensiveness and the leftist propaganda. What isn’t is which one they chose.

  32. People who have watched clips from Schumer’s show and routines (like me!) know that these racially problematic comments aren’t coming from her own point-of-view. Schumer is often playing the part of a stereotypically obnoxious, culturally oblivious white girl. Her comedy is as much a slight against people who make casually racist comments as it is a slight against anyone else.

    How is this not racially problematic? Oh, STFU, that’s why. Got it.

    1. So, it provides a reasonable answer to your question and then you just pose the same question again? It’s not racially problematic because it’s fucking satire.

      1. So, it provides a reasonable answer to your question and then you just pose the same question again? It’s not racially problematic because it’s fucking satire.

        First, Mr. Soave, Ms Schumer is a woman, not a girl. Calling her a girl is problematic.

        Mrs. Struthers I know it’s satire. I don’t care what she says. However, this defense of her is garbage. He is making sure he carefully treads the proper pc line: Can’t say its okay to make fun of Mexicans. No, fucking way. Don’t even think it.

        I feel dirty agreeing with Mr. Soave on the main point. My comments help cleanse me and make me feel better.

        1. Okay. I see. You’re all about the feelzzz. Got it.

          1. Okay. I see. You’re all about the feelzzz. Got it.

            Sure, by pointing out the inconsistencies I am just about the feelzzz. You sure made me feel stupid.

        2. Christ, right. I forgot. You’re a sockpuppet playacting a microaggression-obsessed persona. I think you’ve gotten me before. You’re a bit too obvious with the reference to “problematic,” and the cheeky mode-of-speech punctuation.

          1. You’re a bit too obvious with the reference to “problematic,” and the cheeky mode-of-speech punctuation.

            “Problematic”, is the authors choice of words, not mine. I am trying to turn his language back on him to knock over his carefully erected scaffold of what is acceptable humor and who has a right to make offensive jokes.

            1. I see the problem here. Everyone has the right to make offensive jokes. Period. Everyone has the right to bitch about those offensive jokes as well. But you don’t get to tell people what they can or cannot joke about.

              1. I see the problem here. Everyone has the right to make offensive jokes. Period. Everyone has the right to bitch about those offensive jokes as well. But you don’t get to tell people what they can or cannot joke about.

                You can tell people but his article was suppose to be about, “hey, it was a joke, lighten up.” However, he has to go through this twisted path to justify that reaction. It just annoyed me.

              2. But you don’t get to tell people what they can or cannot joke about.

                Wait, what?

                1. Wait, what?

                  More please. Explain your question.

                  1. Could it be satire?

                  2. My question is “How can I experience joy in this life if I can’t control the innermost thoughts of others?”

                    1. Gottcha.

            2. Scaffold? What’s being built? Is the scaffold acceptable humor, and what’s behind it is… what, cultural concrescence? Are you worried that humor is the toolset with which the next generation of culture is built, and humorists like those aforementioned are the architects or at the very least the riveters, erecting the trusses to which society will someday hew?

              Or, to eschew a dumb metaphor, are you worried that unless humorless studies majors are involved in deciding for society what’s funny and what’s off-limits, society will find itself purging minorities?

      2. It’s not racially problematic because it’s fucking satire.

        This is Tony-level stupid.

        D-

    2. Blink, and you might miss it.

      Blink being the duration during which all of blink’s synapses fire all at once and fizzle out. All several of them.

    3. Yes, STFU would be the best course of action.

  33. To suggest that Schumer needs to be more responsible with her comedy with one hand, while casually branding a young artist with powerful words like Racism with the other, seems to have its own irresponsibility not only toward Schumer, but toward other young artists trying to decide what they can and cannot talk about. And to tie an artist? particularly an artist who is herself breaking down long standing barriers? in with murder, the Klan and the burning of black churches is something that should not be done lightly. There are serious consequences to such statements.

    Not the Artists. Please, leave the Artists alone. I assume blog writers are also artist, right Mr. Soave?

    Breaking down barriers? What, of women being funny?

    1. So, what’s your answer to people who use racial satire as humor?

  34. It’s hard not to connect Patton’s treatment of Schumer with the recent Huffington Post op-ed instructing Jerry Seinfeld on how to be more politically correct.

    You can connect more than that. David J. Leonard is also involved in this abomination of political correctness.

    https://archive.is/xzyVU#selection-999.0-1007.128

  35. While I think the people who wrote that op-ed are fucking idiots completely independent of who their target is….

    (mainly for sentences like this, which are cut/pasted from the Black Book of Bullshit Progressive Arguments:

    “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: *Amy Schumer* is responsible for immigrant suffering, the drug war, and racist gun violence.

    A case example of the “butterfly flapping its wings that causes the hurricane”-progressive-argument. its always something “Contributing to a culture of _________” that allows them to tar anything and everything as ‘contributory’, but never having to actually argue for any cause-effect-mechanics between ‘contributions’ and actual Bad Stuff that happens. Its intellectually dishonesty at its worst)

    …it occurs to me that they are probably double-mega-uber-retarded for deciding to go quite so far in quite so high-profile a journal, ludicrously slandering a person who happens to be related to one of the most powerful Democratic politicians in America.

  36. Why not just ignore that nonsense?

    1. What nonsense? The part where liberal academics accuse popular entertainers of racism in national news media based on their knee-jerk reaction to cherry-picked, second-hand exerpts?

      If the same morons had their screed published in the Socialist Worker, it would be more ignorable. That WaPo thinks this is legit role of their rag suggests there are some grade A shitheads in editorial there

      1. So what? Are you prepared to do something about it? No? Then why obsess over it?

        1. anything less than “completely ignore” is ‘obsession’?

          My degree of interest is the same as that of ~2000 other people who read that article and told the authors that they were race-trolling douchebags

          99% of the population is bone sick of the professional-offense-trolling. You must be the other guy.

          1. I just don’t obsess over things I can’t change. What’s the point?

            Anyway, your fixation on things you can’t change reads like the classic definition of insanity, but to each his own methods. Perhaps after the millionth comment you will have different results.

            1. You seem obsessed with telling me this.

              1. Same result.
                Will he try again?

  37. Im making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

    This is what I do! .. http://www.homejobs20.cf

  38. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,, http://www.careers10.tk

  39. OH MY GOD!

    STOP THE INTERNET!

    someone “blasted” something with out first taking the time to understand it?

    lawdy lawd!

    i never thought i’d see the day that could happen on the internet!

  40. The fact that someone makes a negative statement about a member of another race/ethnic group
    is no reason to declare that person a racist. These PC morons are stupidly trying to “correct” White folks who are speaking accurately. Blacks deserve to be viewed as jerks, liars, etc. because that’s what they are, in addition to frequently being rioters and murderers and rapists. If these PC
    people want to stop “racist talk” they need to stop Blacks from behaving the way they do.

  41. “associate professor of race”…

    Really? Being an AssPro of Race is a thing now?

    I knew that the US got its credentialism on a generation earlier that the rest of the West, so that nowadays in the US people do ‘advanced’ degrees in things that are actually little more than hobbies (and by ‘advanced degree’ I mean ‘roughly the equivalent of second year undergrad in any civilised western country’).

    But an AssPro of race?

    What’s next? An Named Chair in Cake? A Senior Lecturer in Call of Duty: Ghost Protocol? (I might have mixed up two different things there, but I didn’t do an any graduate study in playing video games or watching movies).

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.