A race joke by Stephen Colbert has massively triggered biscuit-headed attention whore Suey Park. This has created something resembling news on the social networks.
The overreaction and ridiculous twitter crusade reveals to us a culture that is utterly devoid of political dialectic. Chop Suey’s butthurt also hilariously proves the stereotype that Asians have as difficult a time with humor as they do with sounding out “L.”
The Theden article linked above points out the ridiculousness of Asians claiming to be oppressed in a society they are largely thriving in. It also points out the ridiculousness of a woman screeching oppression and discrimination while simultaneously getting a massive degree of media attention in a very short period of time. It’s a funny result of progress that the crying victims always wind up in a dominant position.
But who is the oppressor, here? Don’t forget that Stephen Colbert is a satirist, that he is a liberal playing a conservative. In a world where Glenn Beck is more interested in modeling pedophile glasses, where Fox News has vapid broads kicking their toned legs between AARP commercials, where conservative politicians are only interested in conserving their political careers, Colbert found a well-paid gig impersonating that which doesn’t exist in this country: a right-wing pundit.
It would be simple to write this kerfuffle off as a woman being too stupid to handle a liberal portrayal of a caricature, that she is reacting to something that doesn’t exist. This would also open up a wicked quip about the Japanese not being totally off-base when it came to their opinion of the Chosenjin. Unfortunately, Suey happens to be a mouthy yellow-skinned canary in our societal coal mine.
Ping-Pong-Park’s misguided rage is a symptom of a greater disease gripping our modern “progressive” state. In a world with no opposition or enemy to speak of, foreign or domestic, the system and it’s adherents must invent problems. #Cancelcolbert is an example of what I call “Make-Work Politics,” a political discussion or argument that has less political or social benefit to the society than it costs to support.
Park’s ideological crusade against Colbert, despite the both of them being more similar than opposed ideologically, amounts to a kitsch substitute for meaningful discussion in a world suffering from abject dialectical poverty. Her demands that Colbert be sacrificed to Confucius, Dragon-Buddha or whatever is in reality a cry for attention.
Park and her ilk demand relevance and reverence in a very irrelevant and irreverent world. TRS remains content with heckling from the Peanut Gallery.