Adam Carolla: Asians don’t face discrimination, also make terrible comedians

Let's put it this way: I now have an "Adam Carolla is racist" file photo.
Let’s put it this way: I have an “Adam Carolla is racist” file photo.

I don’t even…

Look, no one is ever going to mistake Adam Carolla with someone who has taste, tact, or wit.

These days, the washed up former host of The Man Show  seems hellbent on staying relevant by saying as many offensive and inane things as he possibly can, and if the last few years are any indication, he’s failing: recently, he’s appeared on Dancing With The Stars and Celebrity Apprentice, and that’s the highlight of his resume.

Currently, he hosts Catch a Contractor, the exceptionally boring play off of To Catch a Predator where the sexual innuendo and moral outrage is inexplicably replaced with bad home improvement contractors.

So, to say I don’t really give a fuck about Adam Carolla would be something of an understatement. It’s clear that very few people in the world really give a fuck about Adam Carolla.

That being said, I really wish this guy would stop making fun of minorities in his desperate efforts to get attention.

Margaret Cho might have something to say to Adam Carolla.
Margaret Cho might have something to say to Adam Carolla.

Back in 2010, Adam Carolla said some insanely stupid and racist shit about Manny Pacquiao and the Phillipines (“he prays to chicken bones” among other comments); he later made a half-hearted Twitter apology, saying he was “trying to be provocative” but “crossed the line”.

Earlier today, Carolla once again “tried to be provocative” in an interview with Salon. Tucked away in a tirade where Carolla also asserted the existence of a coordinated “gay mafia” that humourlessly crucifies comedians for making anti-gay jokes (yeah, really), Carolla also made some wild and bizarre assertions about Asians.

Carolla first asserted that Asians, for deficiencies completely unknown, are just not (racially? culturally?) equipped to be comedians.

I’m fine with the notion that there are genders and races that lean more to comedy — where are the Asian comedians? Maybe there just aren’t any! For that matter, where are all the Jewish roofers? What are female comedians doing about the lack of Jewish roofers? I demand answers!

This came after Carolla denied his own privilege as a straight White male, arguing that his “success” (and note I use air-quotes there) in the field of comedy is due to pure talent, not getting a “leg up”.

I beg to differ.

And then, with a complete absence of irony whatsoever, Carolla insists a few minutes later that Asians face no discrimination whatsoever.

How did Asians pass white people? They got lucky? Someone should look into that, perhaps. I would go ahead and say: The Asians beat the rigged system and did better than white people. You don’t think that’d be something to look into? Do you think we decided to rig the system against certain ethnicities?

Model Minority Myth in full action! Carolla asserts that there can be no racism, because if there were racism, Asians wouldn’t be able to be so “successful” because no one would invent a system that was selectively racist against only certain racial or ethnic groups.

There’s so much to unpack here, I don’t even think it’s worth the effort.

Instead, I’d just like to go back to Carolla’s first comment about there not being any talented Asian comedians because Asians-suck-at-funny-or-some-such-utter-bullshit.

Oh really, Adam Carolla? I ante you a Margaret Cho, throw you a Bobby Lee, and raise you a Mindy Kaling. Then I go all in with a Hari Kondabolu.

Really? There are no Asian comedians?
Really? There are no Asian comedians? Hari Kondabolu is surprised.

Speaking of Hari Kondabolu: if there is a God, He is telling Hari to record a scathing video response to Adam Carolla right now. Please let that happen. Somebody make that happen.

Did you like this post? Please support Reappropriate on Patreon!
  • Yun Xu

    I thought you might be interested in this because you’re all about empowering Asian feminist activists.

    SEE IT: Officers assault, threaten to deport Chicago salon manager – NY Daily News

    https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/video-officer-threaten-deport-salon-owner-article-1.1797895

  • Yun Xu

    Perhaps the best example of white privilege is david letterman hosting….anything.

    the bottom bitch, bobby lee? lol let me show you some of his fine work…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnlkVP7MaB4
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QE8tGdSasjk

    thank you bobbYTCH lee, a true trail blazer.

  • Thanks for the link. I’ll see if I can work in a write-up tomorrow…

    Re: Bobby Lee. Agreed, which is why he’s listed along with three OTHER Asian comics. And in retrospect, the list should’ve also included Dat Phan and Aasif Mandvi. In case you hadn’t noticed, this post is the third that I wrote today, between a really hectic day at work. Cut me some slack?

  • Yun Xu

    I will show you an irresistible cat video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxpaYhIm768 ……

    but I will never cut you slack, you miserable serf.

  • Awwwwwww…. that was just…..

    Awwwwwwwwwwww…..

  • loppy

    yeah nobody cares about the most popular podcaster in the world….
    biased, uninformed, out of context, terribley written article.

  • cheeky

    Screw Corolla—I used to kind of like him when he was hosting this sex advice show with Dr. Drew over a decade ago, and even back then he could get on your nerves.with his cocky-ass attitude. At least you can take solace in the fact that some of the Asian comedians you mentioned are still bigger names than he is,or ever will be—ha ha ha!

  • TheNomdeguerre

    Nice way to completely avoid his point. How did Asians pass white people? They got lucky? Someone should look into that, perhaps. I would go ahead and say: The Asians beat the rigged system and did better than white people. You don’t think that’d be something to look into? Do you think we decided to rig the system against certain ethnicities?

    Care to answer the questions? Or do you simply need more time to “unpack” the obvious?

  • MelaninManson

    “The Asians beat the rigged system and did better than white people. You don’t think that’d be something to look into? Do you think we decided to rig the system against certain ethnicities?” — TheNomdeguerre

    Never heard of systemic bias or institutional racism, huh?

  • TheNomdeguerre

    Oh, I’ve heard plenty of people whining about it using those ridiculous buzzwords, but I’ve never seen them actually point to a “system” or “institution” that has codified racism in it (or a specific “bias” towards whites). And as far as “institutions” are concerned, show me a LAW that specifically targets people of color to give whites an advantage. If you can, then I’d be happy to address it, because I, like you, abhor racism, but the sad truth is, the exact OPPOSITE is true; there are plenty of racial quotas instituted by our government that specifically favor certain minorities in hiring (for government jobs), test taking, for loans (HUD) , and for collegiate applications. Some even to the detriment of Asians, ironically. This is anecdotal, but at least it’s recent and relevant: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/18/rejected-asian-students-sue-harvard-over-admissions-that-favor-other-minorities.html

  • MelaninManson

    One could easily point to drug laws that penalize crack cocaine with significantly higher prison terms than that applied to powder cocaine users; we all recall that when these laws where written crack cocaine found public association with people of color, especially low-income Black communities, while powder cocaine found fans among wealthier White addicts.

    But that’s not really the point of your response. You, like many, disagree with the entire literature that interrogates systemic bias and institutional racism. You do so in error.

    Housing discrimination persisted in the real estate market throughout much of the Twentieth Century; Black Americans with steady employment could not find homes outside low income, often crime ridden urban enclaves. It simply did not matter what capital Black would-be homeowners amassed; a number of discriminatory measures were used by state and local governments to intervene in the real estate market to curtail Black housing opportunities.

    From “The Future of Fair Housing: Report of the National Commission on Fair housing and Equal Opportunity”

    Because federally-backed mortgages were rarely available to residents of “transitional,” racially mixed, or minority neighborhoods, lenders began “redlining” those neighborhoods, circling on a map the areas where people of color lived to denote that mortgage lending would not be available. Redlining significantly contributed to segregation by encouraging White Americans to purchase homes in stable White communities and discouraging any investment in communities where people of color resided.

    In addition, federal agencies “endorsed the use of race-restrictive covenants until 1950” and explicitly refused to underwrite loans that would introduce “‘incompatible’ racial groups into White residential enclaves.” These government policies were also adopted by the private sector. For example, from the 1930s to the 1960s the National Association of Real Estate Boards issued ethical guidelines that specified that a realtor “should never be instrumental in introducing to a neighborhood a character or property or occupancy, members of any race or nationality, or any individual whose presence will be clearly detrimental to property values in a neighborhood.”

    Together, these federal agencies financed almost half of all suburban homes in the 1950s and 1960s, helping the American homeownership rate to increase from 30 percent in 1930 to more than 60 percent by 1960. However, these discriminatory lending policies resulted in the widespread use of race to determine eligibility for housing credit. Consequently, Whites received essentially all (98 percent) of the loans approved by the federal government between 1934 and 1968.

    All this is well-documented public knowledge. The problem is not that systemic bias and institutional racism that privileges Whites at the expense of people of color does not exist. The problem lies with those who — aware of the evidence — choose to believe that systemic bias and institutional racism do not exist.

    If you’ve never noticed a system or institution that codified racism TheNomdeguerre, then you are not paying attention.

  • TheNomdeguerre

    Let me preface this by thanking you for the civil reply. That’s becoming a fairly rare occurrence nowadays.

    Having said that, perhaps I should let you know where I’m coming from when I hear buzzwords that ring hollow to me. For example, when I hear the term “white privilege,” I find it rather ironic that it’s chiefly used to silence one specific group of people in an effort to blame them for everything from their own hard work and decent choices to the Kardashians. It robs blacks of their own agency and responsibility. Essentially, I find it to be a bullshit term that’s meant to say “shut up” because you’re not a member of a minority group in the leftist space. It’s racism of the highest order because you’re basically saying to white people, who aren’t racist, and you can’t find any proof of their racism, that they MUST be racist because they’re white. That’s racism. If you’re accusing somebody of something without any evidence, solely on the basis of their skin color, then you’re a racist, full stop.

    “One could easily point to drug laws that penalize crack cocaine with significantly higher prison terms than that applied to powder cocaine users; we all recall that when these laws where written crack cocaine found public association with people of color, especially low-income Black communities, while powder cocaine found fans among wealthier White addicts.”

    Except that the reason for the disparity in sentencing was twofold; 1) prior records (most black drug users have them for myriad reasons), and 2) crack cocaine had become the bane of black neighborhoods because of its ease of production, distribution, and efficacy, so BLACK LEGISLATORS in the inner cities (at the behest of their church and community leaders) voted in favor of harsher sentencing over powder cocaine because CRACK was ruining their communities, not powder cocaine.

    “But that’s not really the point of your response. You, like many, disagree with the entire literature that interrogates systemic bias and institutional racism. You do so in error.

    Housing discrimination persisted in the real estate market throughout much of the Twentieth Century; Black Americans with steady employment could not find homes outside low income, often crime ridden urban enclaves. It simply did not matter what capital Black would-be homeowners amassed; a number of discriminatory measures were used by state and local governments to intervene in the real estate market to curtail Black housing opportunities.”

    Okay, but if we have to get into a time machine and travel back 50-80 years to show how systemically biased or institutionally racist we are today, then there’s a problem with the premise. Look, nothing I’m saying (or have said) was a denial of there having been discrimination in the past, but to somehow suggest that it’s a continuing factor in American life – that we’re putting blacks under the boot of the ‘white establishment’ – is just factually nonsense. As a matter of fact (and like I said in my prior post), the opposite is true; being a minority TODAY gives you a distinct advantage when it comes to getting federal loans, jobs, or schooling. If I’m a poor white (or Asian) kid who scores higher on my SAT’s than a middle-income black kid who gets accepted to the college we’re both applying to simply because of his skin color, then we really should be redefining what white privilege and systemic bias is.

    Having said that, I’m concerned with what’s happening today, not what happened the better part of a century ago. Especially when that’s not what’s affecting people’s lives in 2017.

  • MelaninManson

    @TheNomdeguerre: Civil replies present the method by which people can discuss controversial topics. I enjoy controversial topics, so for me civility matters. Let’s keep the discussion going.

    On White privilege, as a term:

    I disagree with your characterization. No one’s telling White people to ‘shut up’; rather people are challenged to account for the massive material benefits this broad demographic draws upon in legal, economic, political, and cultural spaces.

    Silencing White people helps no one, but all of us need recognize the United States of America as a multicultural, multiracial space. That’s just history. People of color on the Left challenge White Americans to deal with the institutional racism that continues to privilege their number at our expense; right now, the Democratic Party’s public hand-wringing over Secretary Clinton’s loss threatens to force both major parties to focus heavily on the economic and social concerns faced by straight White male voters without college degrees, a demographic Secretary Clinton lost handily to the President-elect.

    The problem here is that this focus, justified by White male fears over globalization and a palpable loss of status, obscures concern over the economic and social plight endured by millions of Americans of color, who often face more dire economic and social concerns, according to social statistics.

    Put another way, the normative claim inherent in the term ‘White privilege’ is that White Americans benefit from their racial identification, without their consent or knowledge, and that this systemic benefit harms their fellow citizens. Unjustly. People do not have to accept this claim as valid, but to disagree with this claim requires one to disagree with overwhelming historical and current statistical evidence and the accepted conclusions of modern social science.

    On sentencing disparities:

    Black legislative support for Draconian anti-crack cocaine sentences does not counteract the claim that crack cocaine and powder cocaine sentencing disparities provide evidence of systemic bias within our criminal justice system.

    First, most Black legislative presence at the time these sentencing guidelines appeared concentrated within metropolitan areas. Few Black elected officials served within state legislatures, and they did not represent majorities in any statehouse. Far from it, actually.

    Black legislative compliance with harsh drug sentences did not grapple with statewide addiction, by and large. In contrast, White legislators did, and they made the ethical calculation that Black drug users deserved harsher sentences than White ones. Black legislators represented stable families and small business owners within Black America who were brutalized by the crack epidemic; their response to addicts in their midst, however unyielding, represents a different, often localized concern with crime.

    In contrast, state lawmakers from outside Black America responded to the crack epidemic with inflated law enforcement budgets and comically harsh sentencing, to respond to arguably prejudiced thinking from White constituents convinced by their prejudice that Black drug addicts presented a clear and present danger to humanity itself. Myths of Black criminality defeated Mike Dukakis’ presidential campaign in 1988; Bill Clinton followed this with a tough-on-crime stance designed to appeal to White prejudice, not the facts on the ground about drug use and crime in American society.

    Black men were generally Willie Horton, or Ricky Ray Rector, and White politicians could convince White majorities that they deserved their votes with promises to keep the specter of violent, crack-fueled Black criminals at bay. It didn’t matter that rates of drug use between Blacks and Whites were and remained nearly identical, nor did it matter that over-deployment of law enforcement resources in urban Black neighborhoods influenced crime statistics.

    All that mattered, then and now, was that government police power directed scrutiny toward Black communities. When state and federal funding dried up, municipalities like Ferguson, MO used this commonplace but elevated law enforcement scrutiny of Black communities for financial gain, all at the expense of Black people, without regard for their individual interest in following the law.

    This is institutional racism. Whether law abiding or not, Black people are more likely to be stopped and searched by police officers in their communities. Increased police scrutiny forces increased fines, increased arrests, increased court dates, and increased perceptions by non-Black citizens that higher criminality and Blackness prove synonymous. Today, we can watch this routine state-sponsored racism turn violent on YouTube, where snuff films of compliant Black citizens proliferate.

    On the belief that discrimination against people of color has ended:

    First, being a poor White or Asian child with a decent SAT score does not and should not automatically mean that said child should matriculate into the selective college or university of their choice.

    Second, concern with today’s state of affairs requires historical knowledge. We should understand, for example, that the higher crime urban enclaves found in American major citizens that feature higher proportions of race minority citizens did not emerge though natural means. The ghetto is a government invention, like the atom bomb, or the space shuttle.

    Federal, state, and local policies created the Black ghetto, just as their created the White suburb. In the ghetto, Black people were denied FHA loans and mortgages were only available ‘on contract’. Thousands of Black people who tried to reach for the American home ownership dream found their fantasies deferred through institutionally permitted theft of their hard-earned dollars. These same Black citizens, many of them veterans in the post-war era, were denied opportunities to live in White suburbs, where federally backed FHA loans primed White families to generate wealth within their communities.

    But if that’s too distant a past for you, consider the impact subprime lending exacted on Black America when the housing bubble burst during the George W. Bush Administration. Mortgage lenders sought out Black families for these odious financial tools even when those families possessed the capital and economic stability to handle more reputable financing. It’s just not reasonable to persist with the idea that racism is not a ‘continuing factor in American life’ in light of these facts.

    And that is my major claim. People who deny systemic bias and institutional racism today do so because they choose ideology over observation, and belief over analysis. It is easier for many people to believe that people of color have no persuasive ethical claims against White Americans than it is to grapple with the benefits White Americans enjoy and have enjoyed that people of color were denied by design. Acceptance of one’s privilege does not require silence; rather, it requires the ability to interrogate if and how racism works in one’s favor, in public.

    To shirk from this responsibility is a political choice. The facts are clear: White privilege is real, and silence in the face of this privilege helps no one.

  • TheNomdeguerre

    Sorry for the hiatus, but work has been hectic.

    On white privilege as a term:

    When someone mentions their color as a reason for inherently understanding some (supposedly arcane) racial issue, then there’s little doubt that it’s specifically being mentioned to give the person who’s speaking an air of unassailability and to undermine the validity of someone else’s opinion with whom they disagree. It’s a weak form of an appeal to authority fallacy. Ergo, shut up whitey, you don’t know what you’re talking about. That’s what I meant by tacitly telling whites to “shut up”.

    And it’s my sincere hope that we don’t engage in talking past one another, but again, you mention “institutional racism” that benefits white people over people of color, but then fail to touch on why whites are getting their asses handed to them (educationally and financially) by Asians of all stripes, including Indians. If it’s a systemic advantage that we’ve specifically engineered to benefit us, then we’ve clearly failed to make it work. This is why I have a fundamental problem with the premise. Asian families have strong family units, avoid unwanted pregnancies, get married, extol the virtues of education, assimilation, entrepreneurship, and hard work. That’s the ONLY secret to success in this country. It’s simply due to a cultural failing of the perpetual victim class when they continually make poor decisions when NO ONE is stopping them from CHOOSING to make better ones. As a matter of fact, they’re given many “institutional” advantages that others are not (including Asians, who ironically don’t need them – e.g. federal loans, educational grants, job opportunities, etc).

    On sentencing disparities:

    As much as I try to understand your position on this, I can’t ignore the statistics. While certain drug usage between blacks and whites may be similar, the aggregate criminal activity committed between the two is not. Black criminality is WILDLY out of proportion to their population size. Police patrol black areas more heavily because that’s where the crime is. It wasn’t that increased police presence made them more criminal, which is a prime example of correlation implying causation. To wit, in light of what’s going on in certain cities like my own (Chicago) – and Baltimore and Detroit – what we’re seeing now is cops abstaining from patrolling there because it’s simply not worth the political risk to them (professionally or personally). It’s a soft revolt, and those areas are ripping themselves apart at an unprecedented rate precisely because cops would rather not be tarnished as “racists” by the MSM for potentially having to shoot a recidivist piece of shit for brandishing a weapon, or because they had to engage in subduing a career criminal who’s emboldened by the current zeitgeist of the BLM narrative, which causes them to resist arrest. The media has also proven (ad nauseam) that they couldn’t care less about journalistic integrity. The best example being (simply off the top of my head) the case of Michael Brown. They actively promoted a falsehood; the “hands up don’t shoot” myth. It was shameful, and examples just like it (which, at this point, are numerous) have cost people their lives, careers, and livelihoods.

    On the belief that discrimination against people of color has ended:

    Here you touch on the subprime mortgage crisis of 07 and 08, and claimed that unscrupulous bankers specifically targeted blacks. I have no doubt that A) they were unscrupulous, and B) they targeted people who they could exploit for their own financial gain (read; poor), but I struggle with thinking that they selectively targeted people specifically because of their skin color. I mean, let’s be honest, the only color those bastards cared about was green. Again, correlation and causation. Lots and lots of white and Mexican families were hurt by that, too (a few in my own family as well). If I’m not mistaken, the majority of the victims of the housing crisis were white, but it’s been a long time since I looked the figures up. Almost certain that I read that, though.

    Anyway, clever screen name. Clearly you have a perspective on this that I don’t share, although I appreciate the input. Tell me a little about yourself (just very basic things) and I’ll reciprocate. I’d like to have a better understanding of who I’m speaking to. 🙂

  • Soul_Survivor

    “Never heard of systemic bias or institutional racism, huh?”

    Yes, it’s prevalent within affirmative action, set squarely against Chinese-Americans. A problem you not only continue to deny, but actually continue to support.

    http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/12/19/fears-of-an-asian-quota-in-the-ivy-league/statistics-indicate-an-ivy-league-asian-quota

  • Alex Law

    Way to strawman everything. There should be equally (if not) harsh(er) penalties for bad accusations as there are for bad actions.

    ‘The Asians beat the rigged system and did better than white people. You don’t think that’d be something to look into? Do you think we decided to rig the system against certain ethnicities?’

    You’ve decided to twist the point completely-from if you work hard regardless of race (Asian culture) you can get ahead to – we think there is no racism at all against Asians. These are two very different points. While we do admit it, getting us to admit there is bias/racism somewhere in the ether is meaningless. The only way you are going to get rid of it is to change the culture.

    The biggest problem I have with the entire article is scale.
    Why aren’t blacks doing better? 95+% is culture, <5% is unfair racism. Look, if they all cracked open an engineering textbook, wear nerdy glasses, housing discrimination would fall to zero (or even negative). Again, not denying the 5% does not exist; the problem is we need to fix the 95. Once we do fix the 95, the 5% will drop to almost (if not) non existent levels.