Comedy Central Backs Trevor Noah As Patton Oswalt Shits On Outrage
Not even 24 hours after being announced as the new host of The Daily Show, South African comedian Trevor Noah had his Twitter feed scoured by Internet sleuths who were shocked – SHOCKED – to find out that he made a few stupid jokes about Jews, fat chicks and atheists. Except, in a surprising move in our polarized political state, pretty much everyone agreed that Trevor Noah wasn’t offensive, he just sucked at being funny on Twitter five-to-six years ago. (To this day, I still suck and will probably only get worse.) In the wake of all this horseshit, Comedy Central is fully backing Trevor as other comedians have come to his defense, and none more than Patton Oswalt who tore a brand new 53-tweet anus into outrage culture (below). And if you haven’t read his fucking amazing interview with Salon – who he frequently shits on – it’s a goddamn case-study on why “outrage” has nothing on satire/straight mocking idiots even though the two get conflated, but now I’m using nuance on a titty site. Where are my manners?
(1/53) Q: Why did the man* throw* butter* out of the window*? A: He wanted to see* butter fly*!
(2/53) “Man” in my previous Tweet should not be construed as privileged, misogynist or anti-trans.
(3/53) Nor should there be ANY assumption of said man’s race or religion. It could be an African American man, Asian, or any one
(4/53) of the vast multi-cultural mosaic which make up the world we live in today. “Man” was simply an archaic placeholder for the
(5/53) “subject” of the joke, and thus should not denote privilege nor exclude any sexuality, religion, nationality or offend any
(6/53) feelings the joke listener may or may not have or have ever experienced in the past. Furthermore, the action of “throwing” is
(7/53) NOT meant in any way to imply an exclusion of the differently abled, or even someone [email protected] have ever felt excluded from
(8/53) or knows someone who was thus excluded.
(8/53) And the choice of “butter” as the object being thrown was in NO WAY an insult to those with a strict lacto-vegan diet or
(9/53) ANYONE who may be lactose intolerant, might KNOW someone who is lactose-intolerant (or knows someone who is ka to-vegan) or
(10/53) may meet someone of those two persuasions anytime in the future. Also, “butter” does not mean the joke-teller is unaware of
(11/53) or insensitive to the abuses in our current factory-farming dairy industry, including neglect of animals or additions of
(12/53) hormones, pesticides or other contaminants. Also, PLEASE accept this pre-emptive apology if the word “butter” was a trigger
(13/53) for any time in the past the joke recipient may have been called a “butter face” or knows someone who was insulted in such a
(14/53) fashion. Aesthetic shaming is real and bullying hurts us all.
(15/53) Also, again, privilege. What else? Oh yes…
(16/53) “Out the window” was NOT meant as any sort of insult to the homeless population, in that the phrase “out the window”
(17/53) could EASILY be construed as placing the butter-thrower in a house which
(18/53) the butter thrower owns.
(19/53) The triggering potential for “out the window” is not to be underestimated.
(20/53) Nor should the act of THROWING AWAY food, which can be read as a violent, corporate-centric status maneuver.
(25/53) The pronoun “he” in the 2nd part of the joke should, again, NOT be taken
(26/53) as a patriarchal assumption.
(27/53) Parts 28 through 36 will simply be the word “problematic” for your use in any other interpretation of the pronoun “he”
(37/53) “See” is, we all know, VERY POTENTIALLY TRIGGERING to any seeing impaired or blind people hearing the joke
(38/53) And, again, a pre-emotive apology is meekly offered.
(39/53) And the fact that Twitter does NOT offer a Braille version of its website is part of a larger problem
(40/53) which the joke was IN ABSOLUTELY NO WAY making light of.
(41/53) Finally, the fact the man wanted to see butter “fly”
(42/53) implies a flippant attitude towards mental illness or the subjects lack of abstract or
(43/53) or symbolic/empathetic thought which was NOT the aim of the joke
(44/53) or the joke teller. But context, as we know, does not matter. Only individual words and feelings do, so
(45/53) as always, and from now on, no matter what the intent, aim, or satirical content
(46/53) the deepest apology is offered to ANYONE
(48/53) for ANY REASON WHATSOEVER
(49/53) who found any offense in the previous joke.
(50/53) Jokes should always entertain. EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO HEARS THEM.
(51/53) A simple series of clarifying post-joke Tweets like the ones I just sent out will insure EVERYONE a gentle, comforting chuckle.
(52/53) Welcome to comedy in 2015, @Trevornoah!
(53/53) Also, the “come” part of “welcome” shouldn’t be construed in a “faggy” way.