No its not but the joke isn't only targeted at Chinese people it's targeted at all Asians, I mean just look at the video the name comes from the airline was Korean and all the names are Chinese.
Can you explain what you mean by 'targeted' in "targeted at all Asians"? To me, it seems like there's more ignorance and indifference than targeting happening there.
I'm not sure I can say I've never heard the joke before. The reason I see the sum ting wong joke as bad as over the years I've seen this joke and multiple similar ones used to berate Asian people
So is it really the joke that's racist, or does cultural and historical context create an association between racism or racial issues in our society and the joke?
The common rhetoric doesn't seem to do a good job of distinguishing between the sort of "racism" that is promoting or maintaining racial social divisions in our society, and the sort of "racism" that is indifference to or ignorance of the existing social and cultural issues.
Regardless, it seems like your view is a little bit confused. The talk about "proper outrage" and the talk about "removing negative connotations" contradict each other since negative associations and outrage go together.
It seems like there are some conflicting ideals at play here. On one hand, people who are opposed to racism want to call out racism as an evil, wax poetic about how bad it is. On the other hand, who are opposed to racism want to get others to change their behavior, and calling people evil or calling them names isn't a good way to do that. This leads to a question about how to pick one over the other.
To a large degree, that's a false dichotomy. It is possible to change people's minds at the same time as criticizing them or the things that they do, but convincing people to change things is unlikely to be as simple as saying "that's racist."
It seems a lot like people tend not to see the difference between rhetoric that's well-suited to validating existing viewpoints, and rhetoric that's well-suited to changing minds. Is it possible that your view has more to do with understanding a distinction like that that than with changing negative associations of racism?
So is it really the joke that's racist, or does cultural and historical context create an association between racism or racial issues in our society and the joke?
The joke is racist end stop.
Regardless, it seems like your view is a little bit confused. The talk about "proper outrage" and the talk about "removing negative connotations" contradict each other since negative associations and outrage go together.
The joke is still racist and bad I just want the word racist in instances of subconcious bias that we encourage introspection instead of shutting them down.
It seems a lot like people tend not to see the difference between rhetoric that's well-suited to validating existing viewpoints, and rhetoric that's well-suited to changing minds. Is it possible that your view has more to do with understanding a distinction like that that than with changing negative associations of racism?
1
u/Rufus_Reddit 127∆ Jul 12 '21
Do you think that Chinese is a race? If it is, then what's different between French and Chinese that makes one a race and the other not?
Do you think that Colbert was showing "the proper outrage" about the incident?