Noah has been under fire for tweets posted as early as 2011 that were viewed as misogynist and anti-Semitic by critics, so Oswalt critically analyzed a joke that dates back even further.
“Why did the man throw butter out the window? He wanted to see butter fly!” Oswalt wrote before apologizing to anyone who may have taken offense to his use of the words “man,” “throw,” “butter,” “window,” “see” or “fly.”
Oswalt concluded his epic response to the controversy occupying cable news networks’ air time by sarcastically noting, “But context, as we know, does not matter. Only individual words and feelings do.”
Read Oswalt’s response, in its 53-tweet entirety, below:
(1/53) Q: Why did the man* throw* butter* out of the window*? A: He wanted to see* butter fly*!
(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
(5/53) “subject” of the joke, and thus should not denote privilege nor exclude any sexuality, religion, nationality or offend any
(7/53) NOT meant in any way to imply an exclusion of the differently abled, or even someone who@may have ever felt excluded from
(9/53) ANYONE who may be lactose intolerant, might KNOW someone who is lactose-intolerant (or knows someone who is ka to-vegan) or
(11/53) or insensitive to the abuses in our current factory-farming dairy industry, including neglect of animals or additions of
(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
(15/53) Also, again, privilege. What else? Oh yes…
(17/53) could EASILY be construed as placing the butter-thrower in a house which
(19/53) The triggering potential for “out the window” is not to be underestimated.
(25/53) The pronoun “he” in the 2nd part of the joke should, again, NOT be taken
(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
(39/53) And the fact that Twitter does NOT offer a Braille version of its website is part of a larger problem
(41/53) Finally, the fact the man wanted to see butter “fly”
(43/53) or symbolic/empathetic thought which was NOT the aim of the joke
(45/53) as always, and from now on, no matter what the intent, aim, or satirical content
(49/53) who found any offense in the previous joke.
(51/53) A simple series of clarifying post-joke Tweets like the ones I just sent out will insure EVERYONE a gentle, comforting chuckle.
(53/53) Also, the “come” part of “welcome” shouldn’t be construed in a “faggy” way.