Yeah, and that sometimes weakens legitimate criticism leveled by the show. Sometimes (not always or even often) their interview segments are investigative journalism in all but presentation, but the persistent self-labeling as comedy makes it very easy for detractors to dismiss it as material for the leftist circle jerk only.
Jon Stewart is to blame for Trump.
- Thread starter abradley
- Start date
sophie
Break My Heart
The Daily Show as I remember it wasn't so much concerned with ideology as it was with hypocrisy. Most of the segments of his show dealt with politicians aggressively claiming one position, and then playing a video montage of all the times on film they took the opposing position, attacked their nominally held position, or swore they didn't say something they actually did. The Daily Show came off as a leftist show, in part because, yes, it was written by leftists and so had a natural bias, but also because nobody does blatant, unbelievable hypocrisy quite like Republican politicians do. He'd go after Democrats too when they would do something blatantly hypocritical. Yes it was less often because bias, but also because the Democrats don't tend to do things like rant up and down Capitol Hill that homosexuality is a sin and needs to be banned and then get caught soliciting sex in a Men's bathroom. Or complain about government earmarks and how we need to get rid of them and then pin on millions in earmarks to bring back to their home district. It's not the ideology, it's the hypocrisy. Some guy being an <snip> is not funny. Some guy being a hypocritical <snip> is very funny.
Even the correspondent editorial bits revolved around this concept. It was going to some place then manipulating/editing/tricking an interviewee into denying something they actually said, avowing against an obvious truth, or getting caught performing mental gymnastics to defend a hypocritical position:
Link to video.
Even the correspondent editorial bits revolved around this concept. It was going to some place then manipulating/editing/tricking an interviewee into denying something they actually said, avowing against an obvious truth, or getting caught performing mental gymnastics to defend a hypocritical position:
Link to video.
GoodEnoughForMe
n.m.s.s.
I love this hot take, that liberals 'crying wolf' about Bush et al are to blame for Trump, because a man who started a war that created thousands of dead bodies and even more refugees and presided over a massive economic crash was actually and ok and wasn't really all that bad. A good hot take. I award it 8/10 fire emojis.
I also award the "liberals are smug" take 8/10 fires, respectively, because there is no smugness whatsoever towards "city folk" or the "educated" or "scientists" and so called "experts" of the factonista.
I also award the "liberals are smug" take 8/10 fires, respectively, because there is no smugness whatsoever towards "city folk" or the "educated" or "scientists" and so called "experts" of the factonista.
As robots and globalization reduce workers' income to a level that a Pakistani bricklayer would consider prosperity, somewhere an elite is lecturing those workers about how it's all a good thing, and they should shut up.
As new people start out life massively in debt, elites tell us this is a good thing:
https://studentloanhero.com/student-loan-debt-statistics-2016/
Retirement incomes are down by half, but elites tell us low interest rates are a good thing:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/04/world-faces-pensions-crisis-warns-oecd/
Everything is slowly going off the rails, and the smugness grows.
As new people start out life massively in debt, elites tell us this is a good thing:
https://studentloanhero.com/student-loan-debt-statistics-2016/
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016...s-not-harms-the-u-s-economy-white-house-says/
Retirement incomes are down by half, but elites tell us low interest rates are a good thing:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/04/world-faces-pensions-crisis-warns-oecd/
Everything is slowly going off the rails, and the smugness grows.
GoodEnoughForMe
n.m.s.s.
The White House is not saying the debt is good, it's saying in aggregate the debt is a sign of lots of college graduates, who generally speaking earn more and have higher productivity.
This also is part of the problem. The results of conservative policies is that things are going to hell for a lot of Americans. And then you get conservative voters riled up to vote for ever more extreme conservative politicians who will make things even worse for those conservative voters. Rinse and repeat.
And all the while they'll be blaming liberals for all of their ills.
Sssshhhhh, they still think they're being empowered
Hmmm, and I've been corrected many times for using IQ as a guide ... always by the left.
Guess it depends on what the '...meaning of is is...'
Link to video.
Narz
keeping it real
The problem is the right is getting dumber (more senile?).
The intellectual & moral elite should run things not the dumb & fearful of change.
I only skimmed the article after the beginning but I still don't see how Jon Stewart is to blame for anything.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Did you hear that going over your head, or were your ears muffled?
Let me explain...slowly.
Intelligence distributes on a curve called the normal distribution.
The peak is at average, mean, and median, which are all equal in value.
The two sides of the curve are symmetrical.
Following so far?
Okay, good.
So, mathematically, the number of above average is exactly equal to the number of below average.
Still with me?
So, the number of above average is ALWAYS less than the number of below average plus the number who are exactly average.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Media and politicians in general want a somewhat ignorant electorate: The ignorant electorate votes for politicians, though always for hacks like Drump, if the opportunity arises. Unnecessary to say is that media outlets, left or right, want viewers. Politicians, of whatever political colour, want votes. Trump helps outlets like Fox, CNN, NBC and the like gain their viewership and he gets votes in elections in return.
You have to give it to them, they have comfortably settled themselves into a false victim role from where it is very easy to condescend to others, for instance because of their perceived smugness. It's like having your cake and eating it too.
Now the ironic thing is that artificially creating a victim narrative for your group is a common conservative criticism leveled against social justice groups, but that probably doesn't mean anything.
Which is probably why Gori never mentioned IQ?
What a smug attitude to take while posting. I would watch out for the next Kaitzilla post.
The ironic part really is the right blaming the left for smugness. Where the smugness on the right is if anything even worse. Ryan, Cruz, McConnell, Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly, Hannity, and many more are some of the smuggest jackasses in American history. And that doesn't even get into how smug many of the right wing religious leaders are.
Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but the opening post featured an article by a leftie claiming Jon Stewart is to blame for Trump.
Not by or about us smug righties.
And here I thought the article claimed he was Jon Stewart's fault.
Where did Gori get the figures showing the US has low intelligence?
Yes, that's what the article does. Do you know what a discussion is? The article is wrong about the reasons for Trump's success. Not only are the reasons a weak explanation and obviously motivated by partisan sentiment, there are also much better explanations out there, which unfortunately go against said partisan sentiment. If you're not prepared for this argument, you shouldn't have put the article to discussion. At the very least don't act as if voicing disagreement with both premise and argumentation of the quoted article constitutes leaving the topic.
He doesn't need them, because that's not what he said.
He said half of the US population has an intelligence below the US average (= median). That's literally true by definition.
Lexicus
Deity
Well, assuming you can reduce intelligence to a number, anyway.
Only assuming that by average he meant median. If we make that assumption the statement doesn't even have anything to do with intelligence. Half of all Americans are smaller than the median American body height. Half of all Americans are poorer than the median American wealth.
IQ has the additional property that it is (intended to) create a normally distributed value over its sample set (e.g. all Americans), as Tim mentioned. In that case the median is also the mean (i.e. IQ = 100). But Gori never mentioned IQ, so I don't think the (legitimate) criticisms of IQ as a metric of intelligence apply, not to mention that they are beside the point in the first place.
IQ has the additional property that it is (intended to) create a normally distributed value over its sample set (e.g. all Americans), as Tim mentioned. In that case the median is also the mean (i.e. IQ = 100). But Gori never mentioned IQ, so I don't think the (legitimate) criticisms of IQ as a metric of intelligence apply, not to mention that they are beside the point in the first place.
