Sometimes, it may seem as though the PC crowd just doesn't get the joke. Often, the problem is they do get it and just can't handle it. Likely, the Asian attendees at the event got the Nimesh Patel joke, and that is why he had to be Babu-ed or Baboo-ed. As well-trained dogs of PC(that serves as the manual for status-striving), Asian-Americans were predictably 'triggered'. Yellow dogs have a tendency to seek approval and follow, and in the Current Year, 'gay rights' are blessed Gay Rites.
Now, jokes are generally triggering and 'offensive'. Usually, someone or something is the object of mockery, the 'target' or 'victim'. It could be the other or it could be the self, usually the case with Joan Rivers and Rodney Dangerfield, the man who never got any respect.
Humor usually doesn't go well together with holiness and reverence, matters that call for sanctimony. When mockery of a sacred cow is tolerated, the once holy cow looks like holy shit. Perhaps, it was less Darwin & Marx and more Marx Brothers that did in Christianity & Bourgeois morals. One can never look at opera in the same way after NIGHT AT THE OPERA.
Peter Ustinov's take on an ill-fated production of Richard Wagner's SIEGRIED is hilarious. One can hardly watch that scene with 'solemnity' and straight face anymore. Video at 40:05.
And the Old Elites of Europe relied heavily on pomp and spectacle, the stuff of awe and reverence that kings and noblemen relied upon to justify their privilege and dominance.The Order sensed that, once people began to see the rulers as laughable and ridiculous, the status quo was doomed. Pompous elites could be weakened with humor or fanatical anti-humor. With the rise of modernity, mass media, and growing cynicism(especially in urban areas), people began to chuckle about kings, queens, and idiot prince who seemed increasingly out-of-place and even 'alien' in the New Order created by the power of money and machines. Sometimes, humor and rage aren't that far apart.
In the case of Iran, the mass revolt vilified the Shah as both a ridiculous clown and an impotent shill. The most fanatical within the uprising soon lost their sense of humor and thirsted for blood. Same in Cambodia with the Khmer Rouge. And certain Russian/Jewish communists weren't big on humor either. Think of the character of Strelnikov in DOCTOR ZHIVAGO.
But in the capitalist West, the general way(often Jewish) of subverting The Order was through humor(and pornography as in Weimar Germany). In some cases, laughter at one authority was the flip-side of grim commitment to another authority, the new boss.
Consider how the soldiers laugh at the elite officer in DOCTOR ZHIVAGO, but mockery is soon followed by brutal violence and bloodthirsty hate. Whatever the ultimate agenda or outcome, few things are as effective as laughter in de-legitimizing authority. This is why PC can't abide by humor directed at what it deems holy. If humor could bring down respect/reverence for kings, ideologies, and God Himself, it can bring down just about anything.
Why does the urbane sophisticate finally lose his cool in ALL ABOUT EVE? He becomes the object of laughter. He's used to being the wit than outwitted. And Humbert's biggest humiliation in LOLITA is that he's just a butt of jokes to Quilty.
Humor can be gentle or G-rated(like on the TV show HEE-HAW) but is most effective when racy and irreverent(or, at the furthest reach, surreal). (Potty-mouthed 'X-rated' stand-up routines with nonstop twaddle about sex and genitals are mostly tiresome with few exceptions: Sam Kinison and Eddie Murphy, esp. Mr T. as a 'faggot' routine.) Edgy humor stings its 'victims' with potency. It can be downright lethal. Granted, humor is often self-effacing or double-edged, passive/aggressive. It often mocks the mocker along with the mocked, like with the Mexican Restaurant scene in SANFORD AND SON, a show with many 'Hispanic' jokes that spring back on Fred G. Sanford as a black bigot.
The passive/aggressive nature of humor elicits both self-pity and confidence in the audience. On some level, the audience identifies with the comic/clown(for whom nothing seems to go right) because everyone has problems. And by laughing at the comic's 'problems', the audience 'therapeutically' comes to laugh at their own with similar overtones. Thus, there is no clear line between comic-as-them and comic-as-us. Because the comic is given to exaggeration, the audience is relieved to find that their problems aren't so bad, and yet, the exaggeration is of situations all-too-familiar to many people. But then, because the comic has the balderdash to spell out his 'problems' and give the middle-finger to the world, he is also a figure of confidence, even arrogance. He becomes kind of 'heroic'. And yet, there is ambiguity in his middle-finger. Is it for the audience or for the audience?
Now, in our post-religious age, nothing should be sacrosanct, but as Jonathan Haidt and others have remarked, human psychology is drawn to righteous holy-schmoliness, and new 'gods' are elevated by cultural consensus shaped by elite academia and mass media. Certain figures and narratives become de facto sacred even if ostensibly part of secular culture & politics. MLK, (Harvey)Milk, and Mandela aren't regarded as gods in the literal sense but treated as figures of idol-worship nevertheless. Homos are associated with New Agey 'rainbow' colors, Jews always with the Shoah, and blacks with slavery(as an evil second only to Shoah according to the current Jewish-dominated narrative hellbent on milking 'white guilt' for all it is worth) and Civil Rights Movement, the Manichean Narrative of which is about stark Good vs Evil with no grey in between.
Granted, there has been a schizo element in trying to sustain reverential thoughts about Jews, blacks, and homos. After all, even as Jews insist on being regarded solemnly as the Shoah People, their natural tendency is to be subversive, perverse, and insulting. So, when we think of Jews, the mask of Anne Frank often peels off to reveal Sarah Silverman. Blacks demand we see them as the 'We Shall Overcome' people, but so much of black culture is crazy, trashy, ugly, and demented(and proud of it). We live in the Age of Mandela and Twerking, of black reverends and black rappers. In a way, Quentin Tarantino's INGLORIOUS BASTERDS and DJANGO UNCHAINED conveyed this schizo aspect of Jews and blacks as Sacred Monsters: Consider their Moralism + Sadism, or Sado-Moralism. And then, there are homos. It's amazing how many people have been led to remember the AIDS epidemic as a kind of homo-holocaust when it was the result of sodomites butt-banging one another like rabbits-in-heat.
Now, what was Nimesh Patel's great 'sin'? It was simply that he mocked blackness and homosexuality. (Good thing he left out the Jews or else the controversy would have been greater.) Now, one could argue that his jokes were ultimately sympathetic to blacks and homos, i.e. those groups have a tough time due to 'racism' and 'homophobia'. Still, he made a joke of issues related to sacrosanct groups, and PC will not tolerate mockery of the holy-schmolies. It undermines sober reverence of the main idols of PC. Humor, inebriated with anarchic spirit, forgets what is holy and pokes fun at just about everything. PC demands a teetotaler brand of humor that is always mindful of what can and can't be said. One might say humor has entered the Prohibition Era, and who knows, maybe humor(with anarchic intoxicant content) will go underground as a form of gangsterism.
If Patel had joked in such manner about any other group, even Asians, there wouldn't have been a fuss. But Jews, homos, and Negroes are are not to be mocked; and the insistence is the product of both PC indoctrination/idolatry and craven cowardice. After all, surely the yellow dogs in college campuses know that the most vocal and hostile groups tend to be Jews, blacks, and homos. Piss off one of them, and all hell may break loose. So, to prevent homo and/or black outrage directed at Asians, Asians shut down a fellow 'bad' Asian to preemptively signal that they are with the PC program 100%. They understand that we must all revere and quasi-worship the Holy Schmoly Three of Jews, blacks, and homos.
If anything, the joke-that-no-one-got within the purview of the recent event is that these Asians sure lived up to racial stereotypes as the ever-so-obedient, ever-so-conformist, and ever-so-predictable yellow dogs. They made it plain as day that they suck up to power and kowtow before the Official Narrative. Since blacks and homos are holy in the Jewish-controlled West, Asian yellow dogs worship at the altar of Obligatory Iconography. The perimeters of humor are to remain within permissible bounds.
Because Jews control the Power and designated themselves, blacks, and homos as the Holy Three, most Americans are nervous about saying anything that might be construed as neo-blasphemous and offensive to precious sensitivities of the Holy Three. Granted, Jews can joke about Jews, blacks can joke about blacks, and homos can joke about homos... but everyone else better watch out, and furthermore, Jews, homos, and blacks must be careful not to step on each other's toes in their Holy Culture Waltz. As for Asians(especially yellow East Asians), they come from status-obsessed conformist cultures, and therefore, they(especially sheepish and dog-like East Asians) tend toward conformity with the Prevailing Dogma(of whichever society they happen to reside in) to gain status points. This isn't really about 'safe spaces' but about status-points. Especially because Asian Identity lacks intrinsic value in the Western PC scorecard, Asians yearn to latch onto one or all of the Holy Three. Asians-as-Asian having no value, Asians seek value in roles as Asians-for-Jews/Israel, Asians-for-blacks, and/or Asians-for-homos. In this way, yellows are like pseudo-white-people. Just like whites, having been robbed of autonomous worth by PC, have no choice but to gain moral worth by latching themselves in service to Jews, blacks, and/or homos(as the Holy Three), Asians feel they must also latch onto the Holies to have any worth. So, Asians-for-Asians is regarded as a yawn or irritation, and that means Asians can feel righteous only by cheering or championing the Holy Three. Because Asians-for-Asians is regarded as petty and selfish by PC(whereas blacks-for-blacks, homos-for-homos, and Jews-for-Jews are regarded as the noblest commitments), 'woke' Asians go out of their way to show that they prioritize the interests of Jews, blacks, or homos over their own. Whether it's Nikki Haley or Amy Chua sucking up to Jews OR the Asian Alliance at Columbia University sucking up to blacks and homos, it's obvious that Asian themes have no moral or spiritual currency in the West. Hindu browns and Far East yellows must suck up to the Three Holies. Incidentally, one crucial difference between whites and yellows is that, whereas whites lack intrinsic value due to the cult of 'white guilt', yellows lack intrinsic value due to their perceived 'lameness'. Asian women have some 'hot' value but as sexual subjects to be owned by other races.
Now, why are some peoples holier than others? After all, isn't our 'progressive' society all about 'equality'? One reason is Jews have the power, and Jews get to decide who is or isn't holy. It's simple as that, and Jews are of course going to favor themselves and their key political allies. The other reason is that the core formula for being part of Holy Three is as follows: Possession of Superior Ability + Possession of Victim Narrative. Why does a particular group receive more sympathy for its victimhood IF it is perceived as having superior qualities? Because there is the sense that a SUPERIOR and even god-like people have been wronged. Thus, it seems more tragic than if a 'lame' or mediocre people had been wronged. Why do we feel more tragic when a lion than a warthog is killed(even though warthogs are intelligent animals too)? It's because we admire lions as the superior hunter, the king of the jungle, whereas we regard warthogs as just ugly prey animals. After all, who ever got enraged in the West over some white hunter who killed a warthog?
Because blacks are admired as superior athletes, singers with louder voices, and studs with bigger dongs(or sexy ho's with bouncier booties), they are admired in the West as the superior race. People may not consciously think so but they sensually feel it, and feelings go a long way in shaping society. (It's like most men are more likely to help a pretty woman in distress than a fat ugly one. It's not conscious but subconscious bias. Most men probably see themselves as decent fellers who'd care equally for anyone in need of help, but reality plays out differently based on people's feelings.) Because of differences in perceptions about race, the history of slavery and Jim Crow seems especially unjust because blacks, a Superior People, were wronged. In contrast, there is far less sympathy for American Indians even though they suffered something worse than slavery. They suffered 'genocide' and permanent loss of their land due to massive immigration-imperialism. Given the 'genocidal' impact of immigration-imperialism on American Indians, one might think PC would associate immigration with imperialism & historical 'sin', indeed the Original Sin of America. But not so. Instead, all we hear about immigration is that it's especially great because Jews, one of the Holy Threes, gained so much from it. Also, we are told that the Original Sin of America is black slavery, not the 'genocide' of the Red Man. Why? Blacks are deemed holier. Because American Indians can't sing and dance, don't excel in sports, and aren't seen as super-studs, their victim-hood is acknowledged as sad but dismissed as boring. (In some ways, the American Moral Paradox can be explained in terms of a people trying to cover up 'crimes' with crusades. Because America was founded upon 'genocide', slavery, imperialism, and massive destruction of natural wonders, it is easy to paint its history with blood, sweat, and tears, a saga of greed and plunder. Because of this moral crisis, one way to justify Americanism was to tirelessly associate its growth with never-ending crusades. "Offense is the best defense" as they say. The most surreal version of this is Tim Cook fulminating about necessary crusades against the 'sin' of 'hate speech' before the ADL. As we all now, Apple is a vile, greedy, and corrupt globalist company that uses semi-slave labor around the world. It has no qualms about doing business with tyrannical regimes like Saudi Arabia, one of the biggest sponsors of terrorism. It is also joined at the hip with the neo-imperialist Deep State that pushed wars that destroyed millions of lives. As for ADL, it is a hateful Zionist-imperialist organization that seeks to silence any criticism of Israel's murderous policies against Palestinians. If anything, Apple and ADL have a lot to answer for, but notice that Tim Cook goes on the moral offensive and accuses other people of 'sin'. But then, it's hardly surprising that homo-supremacist Tim Cook is so deferential to Jewish-Supremacist ADL. After all, Jewish Power was behind Homomania that elevated homos and trannies to the status of angels and demigods. Jews made people like Cook the new gods of America, and homo vanity is just fine with Jewish power. With Anno Sodomini, homos get to decide what is 'sinful'. So, it is 'sinful' to refuse to appease the filth of 'gay marriage', but homos waging ugly war on true morality and decency is never 'hateful' since Jews and Homos get to decide what is 'hate speech'. Tim Cook is of Christian background, but post-religious ilk like him, having lost their faith, seek new meaning in New Age lunacies like Homomania, especially as it stokes their 'gay' vanity as a superior breed.)
The formula for the Holy Three has roots in Christianity. If Jesus was just a man who got beaten and killed, it would have been just another sad story of a good man undone by powerful forces. Such men were dime-a-dozen throughout history. So, why did His story become so powerful? Because a Narrative developed that He wasn't just some guy with a helpful message but the Messiah. Humankind didn't just kill a Nice Person but the one and only Son of God. And so, Christians were filled with both great awe and massive guilt.
If white folks had brought over scrawny Vietnamese or meek Bolivian Indians to toil as slaves in America, there would have been no great respect or reverence for those peoples. And not much in the way of 'white guilt'. Even after Emancipation, such peoples would not have excelled in sports or pop music. And small Asian men or short brown men would not have been regarded as studs that can inspire 'fever' among white women and cucky-wuckery among white men(reduced to hapless 'white boys'). Also, as Asians and browns have weaker voices, men of oratorical power like MLK would not have emerged among them. Brown natives of Latin America suffered 'genocide', slavery, and oppression for centuries, but the attitude of even American Progressives is essentially "bring them over to cut our lawns, do our laundry, and change diapers." Americans of all ideologies regard browns as a race of permanent helots. In contrast, Americans regard blacks as the superior race due to black success in song, dong, and strong. Thus, whites feel more guilt about blacks because they came to realize that they'd once oppressed a 'cool' superior race of 'the greatest', as Muhammad Ali anointed himself. So, even though Americans like to tell themselves that they are all about 'equality' in terms of ideology, they favor some groups over others in terms of idolatry. Some groups have more idolatrous value than others, esp. because American sense of worth is largely determined by celebrity of sports, song, and sex.
Now, why do Jews and homos also have holy power? Jews are not successful in sports and the sexual attractive sweepstakes. Granted, many Jews were talented music composers(though often for black singers with more powerful voices). Still, Jews also have a combination of Superiority and Victimhood so essential to the Holy Formula. Jews can invoke the Shoah(as the greatest evil of all time) & history of persecution under Christians for their Victimhood Narrative. But Jews can also promote themselves as the Chosen People, the Genius People, the people of wit, and the people of wealth. So, Jews are regarded with awe. Awesomely tragic and awesomely triumphant. In contrast, Palestinians get no respect despite their undeniable victim-hood because they are seen as mediocre, uninspired, and lame. After all, where is the Palestinian Einstein or Mendelssohn? Where is the Palestinian Bob Dylan or Steven Spielberg? So, victim-hood isn't enough for a people to gain Holy-Schmoly status. To be one of the Holies, you need the formula of Victimhood + Superiority.
Homos also concocted a victim-narrative for themselves(of course with the invaluable support of the Jew-run media), but no less crucial is their perceived superiority. Because homos tend to be vain and narcissistic, they've gained notable success in fashion, entertainment, and upper echelons of privilege. It's like the rich in THE WOLF OF WALL STREET feel prestige in hiring a 'gay butler'. And because homos love to rub shoulders and dilly-dally with the rich and powerful, the privileged classes have come to see homos as loyal partners-in-crime(with better taste in decor and design). Granted, the homo victim-narrative centered around AIDS relies on twisted logic. HIV spread far and wide among homos because they were indulging in wild orgies at all times in all places. But because Jews control the media and prize homos for Favorite Ally Status, they've spun a PC narrative about homos as saints & angels destroyed by some 'homophobic' tragedy. So, HIV epidemic was more the product of Ronald Reagan's wickedness.
Anyway, the reason why the Asian Alliance shut down Patel was simply because he mocked two of the Holy Three. He didn't show 'due' deference when speaking of homos and blacks. Asians are sheepish status-seekers and predictably conform to prevailing socio-cultural dogma. It's a pattern we see over and over. Why was it that East Asians, despite possessing intelligence comparable to that of Western folks, failed to achieve the kind of progress and revolutionary breakthroughs that came to define European Civilizations? Because the Asian Character tends to be sheepish, obedient, and conformist. So, their minds were used mainly to gain status and seek approval from the existing power structure than to expand freedom and seek truth(beyond the dominant dogma). If not for the impact of Western incursions into East Asia, yellow people there would still be preparing for eight-legged Confucian essays to pass exams to become the same-old-same-old bureaucrats mouthing the tired truisms. Then, it is not surprising that East Asians in the West are such unoriginal yellow dogs who predictably toe the dominant line. Furthermore, having no intrinsic value or powerful self-identity in the West, the yellow dogs seek worth by begging for approval from the Holy Three: Jews, blacks, and homos. But then, dogs always seek out masters to serve. The main Asian trait is 'to serve' than 'to lead'. It is to be the dog than the master of history.
Apart from the Holy Three, no other people really matter in the West, especially if the people in particular have been wronged by the Holy Three. So, when blacks riot and burn down businesses, no one cares about the store-owners, many of whom are Arab or Muslim in depressed communities. Or when Zionists use brutal force on Palestinians, people look the other way or support Israel(as Congress and US presidents always do). Or when homos use their privilege to shut down bakeries & organizations that won't bend over to the 'Gay' Agenda, there is either sullen silence(among craven and cowardly 'conservatives' who dare not infuriate Jews who are behind Homomania) or ecstatic support of homo tyranny(among 'progressives' for whom immorality is the New Morality). The Holy Three are like the 'made men' in GOODFELLAS. They are free to roam and rule as they please.
How about Muslims? They are mere cannon fodder. Since Jews are holy and control the US, they continue to steer foreign policy to destroy any Muslim nation reviled as a 'threat to Israel', even though Israel is the main threat to all peaceful nations in the region. As a result, millions of Muslims have had their lives ruined in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Iran through wars, invasions, terrorism(sponsored by US and Israel), and sanctions. But who cares? After all, Muslims are mediocre and have no special talents. Sure, Jews feign sympathy for Muslim 'refugees' while willfully ignoring the fact that those nation-less Muslims are the result of Wars for Israel pushed by Jews who control the US. Ending Wars for Israel will stop turning Muslims into refugees, but Jews keep using whore-politicians(Clinton, Bush II, Obama, and Trump) to wage more Wars for Israel because Israel-Uber-Alles is the neo-religion of the West. Also, notice that Jews steer those Muslim 'refugees' into the West while Israel takes in not a single one(nor hands back stolen Golan Heights to Syria). If anything, Jews continue to steal more land in the West Bank. At any rate, the reason why Muslims get no love despite being victimized in a Jew-controlled world is because they aren't superior in wit(Jews), athleticism(blacks), or creativity(homos). So, who cares if millions of them die?
Same with Asians. Americans may have killed up to a 300,000 Filipinos(by indirect as well as indirect means) in the US-Philippines War, millions of Japanese in WWII(in a conflict in which the Western Imperialists were just as much to blame), millions of Koreans and Chinese in the Korean War, and millions of Vietnamese in the Vietnam War. The greatest killings done by the US were mostly in Asia. These wars resulted from US imperialist hegemony over Asia, but Asian victimization at the hands of the US doesn't count for much because Asians are seen as lame and boring grinds whose dominant theme is "Hey, be quiet, this is the library". Victim-hood without perceived superiority doesn't stir up much sympathy.
A single dead Jew, black, or homo is regarded more tragically than a million dead Muslims or Asians because Jews, blacks, and homos are perceived to possess superior qualities, whereas Muslims and Asians are seen as masses of faceless lame folks. But then, it seems most Asian-Americans are indeed pretty lame, conformist, and predictable given their attitudes in the West. Most being mere teacher's pets, they just regurgitate PC fed to them since kindergarten. They are 'good little boys' and 'good little girls' who never had an independent idea or value in their heads. Even when they act 'defiant' or 'rebellious', it is in total imitation of other peoples, esp. Jews, blacks, and homos. Asians are yellow dogs and copycats. There are exceptions to be sure, but as they say, two swallows don't make a summer. Likewise, two yellows don't do it either.
Now, one could argue that Arab Muslims and East Asians are both superior to blacks in IQ. After all, the Arab World and Asian World are far more advanced than black Africa and better-run than black-dominated cities like Detroit. But not every advantageous trait is 'iconic'. After all, people with superior engineering skills just do their jobs. They are not celebrated as stars or celebrities. Only a handful of uber-smart people like Einstein become well-known to the world. To appreciate science, technology, and most brainy professions, it takes time and patience. In contrast, it is immediately fun to listen to music, watch sports, get excited about sex, laugh at comedy, and rhapsodize about celebrity. Homos are creative with fashion and celebrity, Jews are funny & brilliant as comics, and blacks dominate pop music & sports, both of which are closely aligned with sex culture.
In some ways, Jews have both the easiest and most difficult task in maintaining their 'iconic' status. It's easy because they control media and academia; as such, they get to pick and choose what is holy and unholy. But, much of 'iconic' Jewish value reside in elite levels of achievement. Jews gained renown as writers, intellectuals, and scholars. Despite the high regard for Jewish Genius among the educated classes, most people don't care such things. For every person who read Philip Roth, a thousand people heard rap songs. Jews have been dominant in comedy, but as culture becomes dumber and trashier, future Woody Allens may not be properly appreciated. Worse, PC is doing to comedy what HIV did to homos, and this is bound to cut into Jewish wit. And as athletes and singers, Jews have been unable to compete with blacks. Also, someone of Bob Dylan's vision and genius isn't likely to be highly regarded in future America where the culture just keeps getting stupider. The key to Dylan's success was wit and brilliance because he wasn't a conventional song-and-dance man. But, in an idol-obsessed world, there is less space for eccentric artists like Dylan. And Shoah is too much of a downer. In contrast, homos have the wild-celebration thing that gets people all excited, and blacks got song, dong, and strong. Straights can join in the celebration of flamboyant homos, and non-blacks can enjoy blacks showing off on the sports field, but how can non-Jews really enjoy Jewishness?
Anyway, Asian yellow dogs are a confused lot. In a way, they are almost like closet-white-supremacists. In Japan, they have all these animation or 'anime' where characters tend to look Caucasian. Japanese cultural identity is a fantasy of wanting to be white. And, a New Yorker article reported that South Koreans are champions of plastic surgery. They go under the knife to emerge with white-looking eyes and noses. They go for trans-racial fantasies. And they dye their hand blonde and pretend to be pseudo-white-people. Also, Asians prefer whites as sexual mates and want to have white-looking babies. Granted, Asian women have advantage over Asian men in this department because, whereas Asian women have high sexual market value, Asian males have the lowest. Men of all races want to have sex with Asian women(who are seen as very feminine) but women of most races have no attraction to Asian men(who are deemed a bunch of dorks). And in dating sites, Asian women prefer white men over Asian men. And Asian male homos prefer non-Asian men to bugger their bungs. Notice how George Takei's yellow homo-bung is the plaything of some white guy. When Yukio Mishima visited New York, he looked for a blond homo, apparently to bugger his yellow bung.
Also, in terms of immigration patterns, Asians always prefer white-made or white-majority nations. Asian immigration preferences are for Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the US. Or Europe. Asians don't want to move to non-white-majority nations. In fact, Asians would rather move to a white-majority nation than to a fellow Asian nation. Asians feel that whites will treat them better and fairer than other Asians will treat them. So, everything that Asians DO would indicate a preference for whiteness. But to hide this shame(of favoring another race while devaluing their own), yellow dogs bark lots of anti-white noises. But if Asians really feel that way, why not avoid white people by staying in their own Asian nations? Why permanently relocate to white-majority nations? Why prefer white-made institutions over their own? Why take white names instead of keeping Asian names? Why not have Asian-looking babies than having white-looking babies? Why dye hair into blonde or brunette? Why have plastic surgery to look white? Asians bitch about past American policies that excluded Asians, but why were they so eager to flee from their own kind in the first place to live in a white-made and white-majority nations? Aren't Asian immigrants favoring whites over their own kind? Aren't they trying to 'include' more whites while 'excluding' fellow Asians in their own lives? After all, by coming to white-made nations, Asians become part of a white-majority world while excluding Asian Civilization from their daily lives. Such total lack of self-awareness. We should judge people by what they do than what they say. In terms of what Asians actually do, they seem to be closet-white-supremacists who want to live in white-majority nations, have white names, have sex with whites, and have white-looking babies. And it seems to be matter of Like Yellow Father Like Yellow Daughter. Asians see 'becoming white' as a journey of social, racial, and civilizational evolution, improvement, and ascendancy. Whether via plastic surgery or race-mixing, Asians feel no intrinsic value.
In the moral politics of PC, Asians suck up to Jews, blacks, and homos. As Evil Whitey is PC's main scapegoat, Asians join in on the Two Minutes of Hate against Whitey. But the fact is Asian immigrant-invaders moved to white nations because they favor whites over all other races, including their own. And despite their PC rhetoric, they try to settle in white areas and avoid brown and especially black areas. Based on what they really do than say, they are closet-white-supremacists. But then, so are Jews. For example, Jews revile 'racist' Nazi aesthetics of superior Aryan Beauty, but Jewish men have often longed for 'blonde white goddesses' while dumping Jewish women. Men like Woody Allen, Philip Roth, Norman Mailer, and Arthur Miller had quasi-Nazi taste in 'Aryan-looking' women as the epitome of beauty and desire. And brown hordes seem to be closet-white-supremacists too. They run from fellow browns and Diversity to make it to the US that is still perceived as a white country.
Anyway, Nimesh Patel the brown Asian was silenced by yellow dog Asians because he violated the PC decree of worshiping Blacks and Homos. Asians, being lame and conformist, seek to appease the Holy Three and are deathly afraid of displeasing them. Patel dared to crack jokes about homos and blacks, and that was simply a capital offense in the minds of conformist and sheep-like Asian grinds whose idea of humor is to serve the Power. (If these Asians really care about justice, why were they silent about Obama and Hillary's destruction of Libya and Syria? Why don't they protest Trump's anti-Iranian and anti-Palestinian policies? And why were they silent when Jewish Madeline Albright was killing 500,000 Iraqi kids?) They're really a bunch of phonies.
Be that as it may, in some ways, PC may be saving comedy.
Comedy reached its greatest heights as a subversive form of expression. Someone like Oscar Wilde would have been redundant and irrelevant in a permissive society. Best kind of humor always had to be risque. Lenny Bruce certainly got mileage of going against the system.
For a time, there was total freedom for comedians to be as outrageous as they wanted to be. The burst of freedom greeted as liberation and was fun for awhile but became pointless and tiresome because wanton vulgarity saturated everything and become just another mundane feature of life. People using F-words and discussing graphic sex became the New Normal, from elite-educated to the unwashed. The only way comedians could remain 'edgy' was by getting grosser and more putrid than the next guy. It was like a bunch of drunkards wallowing in their own vomit and urine.
But now, PC is once again creating a climate of repression and taboos, and that means real comedy can become risque again. But what is especially perverse is that PC considers itself to be edgy and subversive. After all, PC is the dogma of 'radicals' who take pride in their subversive attitude toward society. (Of course, the mindless dogs of PC, lacking agency and individuality like Mao's Red Guards, must be told by Central Command what to 'subvert' and attack. So, if Big Sister tells feminists to subvert the dead horse of 'patriarchy', you bet feminist dogs do just that and only that.) PC's delusional rationale for repressing free speech(now almost synonymous with 'hate speech') is to protect ‘radicalism' in a safe space. (It's as if 'radicalism' is now an infant that has to be babied and nursed. But then, we live in an infantile age.) It’s like a blade that has to be perpetually sheathed to keep it from blunting or breaking. But, this defeats the knife's purpose. A knife is designed to be a sharp instrument in order to cut. Then, cut it must despite the risk of tear-and-wear. The radicals once took pride in being edgy, but that edginess has been institutionalized. The blade has been placed as a sacred relic in the PC museum, and any weapon that dares to call on the knife to a knife-fight must be silenced & suppressed because the knife, having been consecrated as holy, no longer needs to prove itself. Everything institutionalized comes to be protected and preserved, shielded from further challenges. So, PC’s radicalism has become in name only. It is a protected blade that remains in the safety of the sheath. And the Power tells us there is no more needs for duels or knife-fights to see who or what is better because the 'debate is over', that's that, so you better shut up, and just learn to love PC and the Holy Three of Jews, blacks, and homos.
But this provides a new opportunity for comedians to subvert the Power. Political Correctness, in the name of protecting the 'weak', has come to protect the powerful. Once this state of affairs is exposed for what it really is, comedy comes alive again. We are living in a time when Jews, homos, and blacks wield immense power. Pretending that the Historical Clock stopped in the late 50s or early 60s is pure fantasy. Blacks today aren't like blacks back then. Jewish Power today isn't like what it was back then. And heaven knows homo privilege today isn't anything like homo reality back then. It's like the Chinese today aren't the coolies of yesteryear pulling rickshaws carrying white imperialists. Time passes, and things change. In a world where homos can destroy bakeries for refusing to bake a 'gay wedding cake', it is laughable to treat homos as some pitiful victim group. (What is the next frontier for 'marriage equality'? Same-Family or Incest Marriage?)