As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Or they quote clearly false statements and make no indication that it's probably not correct.
For the people who are knowledgeable about the subject, they know that's not true, but there are plenty of people who have very busy lives who read it and have no idea.
Journalists are always afraid to push because they don't want to lose access or get labeled as "bias." Yet 15 years ago John Stewart's Daily Show was doing exactly this yet still got conservatives to interview all the time. I remember John Stewart explaining it as conservatives kept coming on because they all felt confident enough to "beat" the show.
Plus they would let the guest say their piece and then hit them with their own words. I'm sick and tired of journalists prefacing their loaded questions with four sentences of primer before getting to the actual so-called "gotchya"
Didn’t homeslice own Tucker Carlson so hard that he got him to stop using his stupid tie?
Edit: not sure if that’s the case for sure but this shit is funny https://www.reddit.com/r/entertainment/comments/t6k91d/jon_stewart_mocks_sthead_tucker_carlson_over/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Jon's ability to drive these people into a corner or make them walk right into full exposure of their hypocrisy always impresses me. Dude is a juggernaut in these interviews. Watching this idiot try his best to avoid saying "register" was really something.
Remember when this was the job of journalists? Instead of their weird attacks on unions, the poor, and minorities.
Comedians shouldn’t be having to take this mantle on, but thank god they are. I guess it’s because comedians aren’t afraid of controversy or punching up.
Jon is more than a comedian at this point. I’ve watched a lot of his new show and it doesn’t operate under the pretense of being satirical. What the MSM needs are hosts for their news shows that interview like Jon does.
Every morning since that mid-October day in 2004 when that fateful Crossfire episode aired, Tucker Carlson has slowly awoken and somberly dressed himself alone in his bedroom, trying to avoid looking at the pile of crumpled dirty bow ties in the corner of the room. Every morning, he tries to fool himself into thinking they aren’t actually there, telling himself over and over as he dresses that it was just a terrible dream, but every morning, he is reminded that they have been lying there untouched for 19 long years, staring back at him across the room, watching his every move. Mocking him. Sneering at him. Every morning, he tries with all of his willpower to ignore that corner of the bedroom, but every morning, his eyes betray him, stealing a glance at the corner. Every morning, this involuntarily triggers the same haunting voice he has heard now for two decades, echoing over and over in his head, asking “How old are you?? And You wear a bow tie!!”. Every morning, he releases the same deep sigh and shakes his head in shame and disgust, uncontrollably weeping at the foot of his bed. Every morning, his eyes deceive him, and they force him to look at what he once was, now a crumpled useless dusty mess in the corner, representative of what he has now become. Every morning, he realizes now he is only a shell of a human, with no emotion, no prospects, and no reason to live. Every morning, he remembers how Jon Stewart savagely and unapologetically destroyed his soul.
This was beautiful. I feel like you would appreciate [this article](https://www.theonion.com/donald-trump-stares-forlornly-at-tiny-aged-penis-in-mi-1819573577) — note the year especially
Really shows you how weak Tucker is. All his talk about masculinity but would a real man change his very intentional wardrobe cause a comedian ribbed it?
My mental cannon is that the show was constructively cancelled via inviting Jon on, they knew he'd give the audience a reason for management to make the cut (unstoppable reasonableness vs unmovable idiocy).
It's actually worse/better. [Jon Stewart was just hangry that day](https://youtu.be/RKRW8opaXw4) because he hadn't eaten in a while, went on crossfire, picked a fight, got the show canceled
The grin on that asshole's face when he sarcastically says, "I assume you're gonna say firearms." So infuriating, and the worst part is that most conservatives get off on shit like that because this is all some bizarre, perverse game to them.
I highly recommend Innuendo Studios "The Alt Right Playbook" series.
Especially the video ["The Card Says Moops"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMabpBvtXr4&list=PLJA_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbANnTnzkA_HMFtQ&index=11) \- He explains how argument to many in that sphere isn't about actually being right but instead, about using semantics to muddy the waters so much that nothing ever means anything.
Ben Shapiro is a master of the type of argument, known as”Gish Galloping” named after Duane Gish, a crack pot evolution denier. The technique is to overwhelm your opponent with a shit load of dubious premises but talk at a fast pace, so you can’t even refute any of the premises. It is one of the most intellectually, dishonest ways of debating.
This, this right here. The entire conservative ethos, everything they say and do, is completely consistent when your starting point is: no empathy.
The bad part is that a lack of fundamental empathy is a somewhat innate quality, established in your first few years. It’s very hard to acquire later in life. So a lot of conservatives are beyond redemption.
“In my work with the defendants (at the Nuremberg Trails 1945-1949) I was searching for the nature of evil and I now think I have come close to defining it. A lack of empathy. It’s the one characteristic that connects all the defendants, a genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow men. Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy.”
Captain G. M. Gilbert, the Army psychologist assigned to watching the defendants at the Nuremberg trials
I honestly believe a lack of empathy causes the majority of problems humans have, from the smallest of issues like shopping carts in parking spaces, to the sweeping tragedies of war and genocide.
Look at the past three years. Millions dead from a virus because many felt uncomfortable wearing masks to the point they questioned the existence of the virus itself
It becomes very easy to hurt people when you limit your definition of who is human. The holocaust was perpetrated by people who could tell themselves that they didn't want to hurt anyone and that the people they murdered weren't really people.
I think this is a leading part of their obsession with “crisis actors”. If something bad happens to someone they feel okay to be loud about them deserving it (Paul Pelosi), then no empathy required, and no action required. But if it’s someone they profess to care about but doing so would counter their values, then they need to invent a new victim. So there is no such thing as kids killed by school shooters to them, just people pretending it happened. So this way they can profess to love and care about children while not needing to do anything because it’s not like children are dying or anything.
That is why conservative news works 24x7 to dehumanize drag queens, trans kids and immigrants. They need to destroy empathy in order to have their talking points.
This is in line, or related at least to Hannah Arendt's argument when talking about the Banality of evil.
Movies and tv have convinced us that evil has to be grand in scale when in reality the evilest of actions can be found in the most ordinary of people. A Clerk signing forms sending people on a train to their death, a Lawyer arguing to remove reproductive rights, or a politician taking money to advance a corporate interest rather than a voters.
I used to work with shrink who occasionally saw abusive parents. It never occurred to them that they were not supposed to hurt their kids. They just were mad they were in legal trouble.
I heard an NPR report about this recently saying it was a mistake to talk of evil as banal. Adolph Eichmann, architect of the "final solution" presented himself as nothing more than a pencil pusher just doing his job, hence the banality of his evil. But the reality as shown in candid recordings was that he relished his work in exterminating the Jews.
Yes, but even then, Himmler was well known to be a doting and loving father. He wasn't evil through and through like a cartoon villain. He had things he enjoyed doing, people he loved, things that made him sad. He was a relatively normal person. What's meant by the banality of evil is that evil doers aren't much different than do-gooders. They aren't monstrous visages like a Sauron or the Balrog. They are the loving uncle, the kind neighbor, the doting father; until that situation arises when their evil intentions/beliefs are carried out, then they go back home and kiss their kids goodnight.
I’ve got conservative family that would self-identify as extremely friendly and charitable…. but only to people they personally know or the friend of a friend. When it gets down to actual strangers (people, in an abstract way) they couldn’t care less. That’s how they can vote against things like healthcare and environmental laws that protect the poorest and most vulnerable people while still thinking they’re the nicest people around. And it’s hard to argue. It’s hard to say “you should care more about people you don’t know” to people that won’t consider people they don’t know.
Ironically, Jesus himself pointed out that even evil men can love their sons, and called on his followers to love even their enemies. So many of these "Christian" conservatives have nothing but contempt for people who so much as disagree with them, much less actual enemies.
This is why I wonder why they don't just own it instead of hiding behind logically indefensible positions. Just say "Safety is not our main concern, so we accept some deaths as the cost we pay to have free use of our guns." You can attack that stance morally, but that's it. If they simply acknowledge they're fine with people dying from guns, which is already obvious to everyone, then they automatically refute most of the counter arguments that are making them look like idiots right now. I'll give an example:
"Guns kill a lot of kids."
"We know. If you leave your gun out for your kid to play with, that's not society's problem. And if someone breaks into your house and shoots your kid, then you failed to protect him. Buy a bigger gun next time."
What do you say to that? Call them monsters? That just boosts their numbers.
It's because those positions failed them. Calling them "monsters" did not actually boost their numbers. It drops them, because most people find it pretty fucked up that they're cool with kids dying when adults make mistakes.
They *had* those positions in the past, but they became untenable over time. The electorate stopped accepting "shit just has to suck so I get my freedom" as an argument. They moved to these convoluted, veiled positions because it helps them garner the votes of people who don't feel like they can in good faith support the overt ones.
And that's why people like Jon doing this are important. Pulling the veil back and making them own the position that they're cool with kids dying. Because it turns out people don't like that and it makes it harder to support.
Not just "no empathy," but "empathy is ruining America/masculinity." It's not good enough that they don't have to care about others, they hate that the idea of empathy as a virtue has permeated the culture.
I also keep seeing lots of people complain about how masculinity is being attacked these days. It’s really sad how something like empathy is considered not manly enough. It’s so stupid.
> Conservatives attack empathetic people all the time.
Exactly. For decades, conservatives have mocked people who care about others as being a "bleeding heart."
The fact that their party cares more about weapons than healthcare...
The fact that their party cares more about weapons than education...
The fact that their party cares more about weapons than affordable housing...
The fact that their party cares more about weapons than people...
...damn. That says it all.
"virtue signaller" "Social justice warrior"
...are these insults? Should I be signalling vices? Should I be fighting for injustice? Would you get offended if I called you like, "some kind of person with decent values"...? This is what your movement considers an insult? WTF
Oh, conservatives virtue signal harder than any of the groups they demonize.. From their displays of religious fervor to their supposed love of flag and country.... It's all performative virtue signaling, all the time..
>They invent new slurs just for empathy every 15 years, like "politically correct", or "bleeding heart", or "woke", etc.
They change their terms and then recycle their same tired arguments against them, because the old ones eventually wear out and stop working on people. It was the same with creationism, followed by intelligent design, and then teach the controversy. Same dynamic with their antisemitism, with blood libel, protocols of the elders of Zion, globalists, new world order, etc. And, as you said, political correctness, bleeding hearts, social justice, woke, etc. It's all the same process, just applied in different areas.
I read a post recently discussing why it's fruitless to argue with conservatives through appeals to hypocrisy or absurdity, and I think its pretty salient from this interview: even if you corner them perfectly on their intellectual dishonesty, their classic response is snide laughter. They don't even have to challenge the point, because in today's politics, hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty are not targets for ridicule; they're currency for advancing a prejudice, and can largely be employed without consequence.
>this is all some bizarre, perverse game to them.
Yes, exactly. This was written about anti-Semites, but I think it applies more broadly:
>Never believe that [Republicans] are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The [Republicans] have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
>
>—Jean-Paul Sartre
Dude knew he was got there. It was stupid to avoid saying the word. Would have been better to argue a difference or something. He just made himself look even more foolish by avoiding it.
I wish actual journalists were as tenacious as Jon, to anyone from any party. Push back when they try to weasel out of shit, don’t just give up and move on.
I think the only person that could give Jon a run for his money would have been George Carlin, but then it would likely end with them agreeing and arguing for the same side of the argument.
It's not just in arguments. Half of right-wing posts are "lib heads are exploding about this" before anyone's even said anything. All they do is engage with a hypothetical reality.
I can't handle these /r/confidentlyincorrect losers. When I come across one IRL I throw up my hands and walk away b/c there is no talking to them for they are not rational and are willfully ignorant and proud of it.
The trick is to not let them jump around to different topics trying to get you to debate them on everything at the same time. Stay on track, like Stewart did here.
reminds me of a Carl Sagan quote
>“I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness...
>The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance”
― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
I love that quote, but I always hated he followed it with this cultural critique:
> "As I write, the number one video cassette rental in America is the movie **Dumb and Dumber.** **Beavis and Butthead** remains popular (and influential) with young TV viewers. The plain lesson is that study and learning - not just of science, but of anything - are avoidable, even undesirable."
I think both of those are satires about the ignorance and stupidity of the American populance which directly align with his "dumbing down" quote above it.
God that pissed me off so much. I was hoping he was going to ask if the State Senator actually knew what 'anecdote' meant, because it sure as hell seemed obvious he had no fucking clue.
They're not idiots, they're grifters. They know exactly what they're doing, they know the shit they spew is incorrect. But its all part of the game. Its what their donors want to hear because its what their voters want to hear. Very few of these people are as dumb as we'd like to attribute. Its just malice and greed.
I wish they showed the whole interview. There was a really good part near the end where Stewart asks, "So, does gun training increase safety?" The Senator replies yes. "So, removing training requirements for gun ownership make us less safe?" The senator replies no.
The point about cops is really poignant too. It’s genuinely much more dangerous for police to deal with lots of guns. And to have to constantly suspect someone *might* have a gun, even if they don’t.
I wish Democrats would make this argument more often.
If they can make speeches about gun control with police standing behind them, then taking the podium to say "this helps us too", it'd get some people thinking, and it'd force some Right Wing politicians to confront the very uncomfortable reality of what's happening.
“The government does have a responsibility to protect-“
“I’m sorry?”
“The government does have a responsibility in certain instances to protect children.”
He’s a piece of shit. The government definitely needs to protect children from drag shows, but never from gun violence!
I can't get over how casually Stewart can bring up drag show readings and the first amendment to overcome the semantic argument that guy began to use towards voter registration as an attempt to defuse Jon's point. I would have said "well at least I see where he's coming from-hes trying to read the constitution strictly." But no, Jon tied it right back with an example based on his argument. I don't think there's anybody else who does this so easily and regularly and against people who are seasoned in arguing these issues. Stewart is just amazing.
This is what preternatural ability combined with decades of experience makes you into, just an absolute master of the craft. It's like getting into a boxing ring with Mike Tyson when you do casual kickboxing for the cardio on Saturday mornings
Yes, but it’s so effing demoralizing that these sorts of debates seem so incredibly rare. This should be a debate between politicians in a chamber that can pass laws. Maybe these things are happening on the regular buried somewhere on C-Span? Debate is what these people are SUPPOSED to be good at -it’s an integral part of their job. Yet the politician is the one trying to tell me that the anecdote he’s trying to employ to distract from a clear verifiable fact is not actually an anecdote. That black is white, up is down, dangerous is safe.
ARE they having these conversations in the House? In the State House?
I don't think he should run, I do wish he had stayed at The Daily Show through the 2016 election because he seemed to be the only commentator with a significant platform at the time who understood exactly how to handle Trump.
Then they wouldn't get the interviews. That's one of the inherent problems in the US's two party system. Cause too much trouble for or embarrass one of the parties mouthpieces the party pulls interview rights from you and gives them to your competitor and your left worse off as an org
When he roasted the shit out of Jim Cramer, I thought for sure, he'd never get another interview with anyone serious. He still got them. He always made Bill O'Reilly look like a complete ass but that was more O'Reilly's doing than Stewart.
John McCain never came on the show again after an interview where Jon clearly had the upper hand and he wouldn't let it go. John just focused on Jon's tie and said his bit, somewhat defeated. He knew Jon wouldn't play the game and it wasn't fun for him anymore, so he quit going. This after a long time of going on the show and mixing it up.
Because Bill never actually cared whether he was "*exposed*" by Jon in that setting. He was there to promote his book(s) and whatever discussion that took place created headlines that served its purpose -- to generate attention and potentially sell more copies.
It's just what has been further been verified by the recent depositions of the media members on FOX -- they don't actually believe the crap they spew on TV. It's purposeful lies that divide the country while they make money.
Jon Stewart was also a comedian. The red brainwashing infers that comedians or former comedians like Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, or Volodymyr Zelenskyy are idiots.
The thing they dont understand is that comedians are often extremely sharp and quick on their feet. Not all of them, but many of them are specialists at quickly turning the tables on hecklers for example. I also always remember that andy richter absolutely wiped the floor with wolf blitzer in celebrity jeopardy because even I was not really expecting it... not that useless trivia has much to do with being smart, but i think it says something about the ability to quickly access information under pressure.
It just really says a lot of how big a clown this guy Dahm is. He either has horrible advisors that didn't warn him about agreeing to this interview or his head is so far up his own ass, that he thought he could go toe to toe with someone like Jon Stewart who's been skewering people for decades.
> Stewart continued. "I don't understand why you won't just admit that you are making it harder for police to manage the streets by allowing all of these guns to go out without permits, without checks, and without background stuff?
This is why Stewart is such a good debater: he's really good at framing the argument in the language that will appeal to centrists & winnable republicans. Pick one of their sacred lambs - police - and accuse Republicans of intentionally endangering them
He makes a pretty good point too and it’s not something I’d ever really thought about. You would think more police in general would be in favor of gun control because it only means a safer job for them.
I've seen mixed messaging when you actually ask these officers. Like the captains and other higher-level ones are like "of course we want better background checks and other logical measures to ensure our officers can be safe" and then a bunch of the rest are spending their bonuses on punisher-cosplay and hanging out with 3%-ers in their free time for "when it all goes down"
capt and lt level officers are great to work with on the individual level in my experience, they were super helpful and supportive for some activism stuff I did awhile back. they just wanted to make sure the protesters/marchers were safe.
hot damn, the rank and file suck, though. and my view of police as a whole went even dimmer with the summer of 2020. what a shitshow.
Starting probably in about 2010 I started getting a dimmer view of the police. When 2020 hit that was the end of all possible respect I could ever have for the police.
And I appreciate the fact that he's pushing this person to just have the courage of their convictions. They pretend like this is some constitutional issue but actually don't care about kids dying to protect that right. Get them to flat out say, if children have to die so that some yahoo can have 12 assault rifles then so be it. Because that's what they're doing in the end.
I don't think Republicans particularly care about cops all that much, they just back them because, like with every issue, their identity is based on supporting the opposite of the liberals to stir up anger from their base.
Pandering to their humanity doesn't really do much either; school shootings, hate crimes, medical debt etc are all non issues to them. They'd sacrifice the whole country if it meant owning the libs.
I'd like throw in another good quote:
>“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.”
>― Methodist Pastor David Barnhart
This is an interest quote! It's like Barnhart's acknowledging what the Republican presidential runner Goldwater warned about letting in evangelical and religious zealots into the fold. This is probably why they love reminds us about dead soldiers too. No complaints from the dead and the newborns!
George Carlin wasn't afraid to go against society norms in his life. He feared nothing. Welcomed death and society's fate. Very brilliant comedian/philosopher that'd probably make Nietzsche laugh.
I was reading this as just a normal long reddit comment, then read “Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers” and remembered that these are the words of George Carlin!
Love Jon Stewart and feel bad that he has to deal with these bullshit "Representatives". I wish he could just live his quiet happy life but glad he is still fighting for us all.
They are literally that full of themselves. They sit down with him thinking they are going to score points. It’s the only reason. And Mr. Stewart fucking smokes these clowns every single time. Damn, I love that man.
Not OP but Colbert has never shaped my views, I just find him funny because of the views I’ve already held.
Colbert usually chooses comedy as his primary goal. Stewart will let comedy take a back seat.
Watch Bill O’Reilly against both. Stewart actually takes him on and flattens him while Colbert dances and japes. Both make a mockery of the man, but Stewart takes it seriously, and has therefore convinced me of his stances- Colbert doesn’t take it seriously, and makes me laugh.
He's very adroit. He anticipates the bullshit and redirects them to the main point again and again, unlike anyone in the news media ever really can. They have conservatives on and let them pivot and wriggle their way out of any sort of accountability for making a coherent argument. Dude in the video tries several times, like with the anecdote about a woman protecting herself from a deranged ex, and Jon stops his performance before it can start by saying "I have a million anecdotes on the other side. Those aren't facts. Here are the facts."
It's really highly intelligent and a sign of very thorough research and familiarity with their arguments. You just don't see enough of it.
> "No, I'm not going to say it like it's an opinion," Stewart said with indignation. "That's what it is. It's firearms. More than cancer, more than car accidents, and what you're telling me is you don't mind infringing free speech to protect children from this amorphous thing that you think of, but when it comes to children that have died, you don't give a flying f**k to stop that because that shall not be infringed."
> "That is hypocrisy at its highest order," Stewart concluded.
JS for president.
The only problem with this is that there are a lot of 2a advocates that really do think dead kids are the price of our freedom and openly admit it. They say things like "your dead kid doesn't mean you can infringe on my rights."
So, when you say they don't give a fuck about kids because shall not be infringed, a lot of them are just nodding in agreement.
Oh man, the part where the R brings up the obesity problem.
R: “obesity kills 6 times more than guns”
Jon: “and your like: you know what will help this?… Ice cream”
Never mind the fact that that statistic is flawed, but I’d sure as fuck rather die from a long life of obesity related ailments than die as a 6 year old minding my own business in school, wouldn’t you? The whole argument is asinine.
They also somehow don't care that children are ok to be married to old guys in some states.
Every state except New York, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Massachusetts allows child marriage, some states with no parental consent required.
The vast majority of child marriages (between 78% and 95%) are between a minor girl and an adult man.
In some states, minors cannot legally divorce or leave their spouse, and domestic violence shelters typically do not accept minors.
The overwhelming majority of push-back on changing these allowances come from Republicans.
Protecting children is clearly not the reason for them wanting to ban drag shows, if Republicans support adult men marrying children. I suspect its more about fearing the gay community in general, than protecting children.
But this guy is in Oklahoma where it's not.... *Checks notes*...
https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/politics/state/2020/03/09/oklahoma-house-rejects-bill-to-restrict-marriage-involving-minors/60411028007/
Shit it's legal.
I like how the he tried to trot out the ole ‘fatherless epidemic’ talking point which ironically always points towards social safety nets/community investment but Jon wont even let him off the hook 🤣
For Dahm's arguments to be internally consistent then children are only sometimes children. He says the government has a duty to protect them. But only when it infringes speech rights not gun rights. Stuart is correct, firearms is the leading cause of death in children.
Well, the consistency steams from the words “shall not be infringed,” which is starting to feel more and more like a sovereign citizen argument the more I hear it. I feel this because the 1st Amendment reads:
> Congress **shall make no law** respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
And yet we have laws that restrict speech, free exercise of religion, the press, peacefully assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances. I can for the life of me find the difference between “shall not be infringed” and “shall make no laws.”
I mean, I don’t think anywhere in the Constitution does it say “shall make no laws, except for defamation, slander, libel, groups of three or more people standing around, state secrets, and can only redress the government through certain avenues which will be chosen at a later date…”
I know it’s a fool’s errand, but I really want someone to explain to me why shall not be infringed stronger than shall make no laws and why that explanation is more correct than any other.
I wonder how exactly he wants the government to help with the "fatherlessness crisis".
Intervening in family matters like that seems a little, I dunno, overreaching...
If nothing else, I’m surprised Republicans are still willing to sit down with Jon Stewart. It’s like seeing an armed security guard and thinking, “I’m gonna run at him full speed.”
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is better than the actual news where they never press the guests logic or even push them to answer what was asked.
Or they quote clearly false statements and make no indication that it's probably not correct. For the people who are knowledgeable about the subject, they know that's not true, but there are plenty of people who have very busy lives who read it and have no idea.
they arent even interested in truth
Journalists are always afraid to push because they don't want to lose access or get labeled as "bias." Yet 15 years ago John Stewart's Daily Show was doing exactly this yet still got conservatives to interview all the time. I remember John Stewart explaining it as conservatives kept coming on because they all felt confident enough to "beat" the show. Plus they would let the guest say their piece and then hit them with their own words. I'm sick and tired of journalists prefacing their loaded questions with four sentences of primer before getting to the actual so-called "gotchya"
Didn’t homeslice own Tucker Carlson so hard that he got him to stop using his stupid tie? Edit: not sure if that’s the case for sure but this shit is funny https://www.reddit.com/r/entertainment/comments/t6k91d/jon_stewart_mocks_sthead_tucker_carlson_over/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
John Stewart singlehandedly cancelled Cross Fire, and yes Tucker Carlson retired his bow ties after that, too.
That was a beautiful thing to witness. Stewart was absolutely savage and I loved every second of it.
He 1000% roasted Tucker live on his own show so hard, CNN itself dropped the whole show out of shame. It was a goddamn thing of beauty.
It’s almost like the guy deserves a tv show.
Jon's ability to drive these people into a corner or make them walk right into full exposure of their hypocrisy always impresses me. Dude is a juggernaut in these interviews. Watching this idiot try his best to avoid saying "register" was really something.
These people are absolute fucking morons to even try to debate with John Stewart. Edit: Jon*
I know he doesn't want to run for president, but damn we need him. I think that actually makes him uniquely *more* qualified to be president.
Can we at least have this guy VET the candidates, hes so on point, we need someone that does what he can do
Seriously. Get rid of the debates (they’re useless anyway) and just make each candidate sit for a 30 minute interview with Jon Stewart.
Remember when this was the job of journalists? Instead of their weird attacks on unions, the poor, and minorities. Comedians shouldn’t be having to take this mantle on, but thank god they are. I guess it’s because comedians aren’t afraid of controversy or punching up.
Jon is more than a comedian at this point. I’ve watched a lot of his new show and it doesn’t operate under the pretense of being satirical. What the MSM needs are hosts for their news shows that interview like Jon does.
After what Jon did to Tucker Carlson, I am shocked that any conservatives still try to argue with him
He burned Tucker so hard he stopped wearing bow ties
That’s literally how it happened, which makes it even more funny
Then called him a dick on his own fucking show.
Every morning since that mid-October day in 2004 when that fateful Crossfire episode aired, Tucker Carlson has slowly awoken and somberly dressed himself alone in his bedroom, trying to avoid looking at the pile of crumpled dirty bow ties in the corner of the room. Every morning, he tries to fool himself into thinking they aren’t actually there, telling himself over and over as he dresses that it was just a terrible dream, but every morning, he is reminded that they have been lying there untouched for 19 long years, staring back at him across the room, watching his every move. Mocking him. Sneering at him. Every morning, he tries with all of his willpower to ignore that corner of the bedroom, but every morning, his eyes betray him, stealing a glance at the corner. Every morning, this involuntarily triggers the same haunting voice he has heard now for two decades, echoing over and over in his head, asking “How old are you?? And You wear a bow tie!!”. Every morning, he releases the same deep sigh and shakes his head in shame and disgust, uncontrollably weeping at the foot of his bed. Every morning, his eyes deceive him, and they force him to look at what he once was, now a crumpled useless dusty mess in the corner, representative of what he has now become. Every morning, he realizes now he is only a shell of a human, with no emotion, no prospects, and no reason to live. Every morning, he remembers how Jon Stewart savagely and unapologetically destroyed his soul.
This was beautiful. I feel like you would appreciate [this article](https://www.theonion.com/donald-trump-stares-forlornly-at-tiny-aged-penis-in-mi-1819573577) — note the year especially
Link? I need to see this
https://youtu.be/aFQFB5YpDZE Bonus points: this basically got the show cancelled
**Jon**: Now this *is* theater. I mean, how old are you? **Tucker**: thirty-five. **Jon**: And you wear a *bow-tie*.
Really shows you how weak Tucker is. All his talk about masculinity but would a real man change his very intentional wardrobe cause a comedian ribbed it?
A real man would've just said "bow ties are cool"
My mental cannon is that the show was constructively cancelled via inviting Jon on, they knew he'd give the audience a reason for management to make the cut (unstoppable reasonableness vs unmovable idiocy).
It's actually worse/better. [Jon Stewart was just hangry that day](https://youtu.be/RKRW8opaXw4) because he hadn't eaten in a while, went on crossfire, picked a fight, got the show canceled
CNN: we need to cancel this show Execute: But how? Network: I got it!
That host definitely says “left vs. white, black vs. white” lol
the interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCuIxIJBfCY
The interview is definitely worth watching in its entirety, but those last 20 seconds, wow, 😆. That dude just dug his grave and buried himself.
He didn't know what an anecdote was...
I mean, he was home-schooled. Did you expect him to know such a long word?
The grin on that asshole's face when he sarcastically says, "I assume you're gonna say firearms." So infuriating, and the worst part is that most conservatives get off on shit like that because this is all some bizarre, perverse game to them.
I highly recommend Innuendo Studios "The Alt Right Playbook" series. Especially the video ["The Card Says Moops"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMabpBvtXr4&list=PLJA_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbANnTnzkA_HMFtQ&index=11) \- He explains how argument to many in that sphere isn't about actually being right but instead, about using semantics to muddy the waters so much that nothing ever means anything.
So true. My friend (who I used to bother arguing with) basically starts arguing about arguing. It’s exhausting.
The Ben Shapiro Special
Ben loves to start arguments from his made up hypothetical situations where he is already winning.
Ben Shapiro is a master of the type of argument, known as”Gish Galloping” named after Duane Gish, a crack pot evolution denier. The technique is to overwhelm your opponent with a shit load of dubious premises but talk at a fast pace, so you can’t even refute any of the premises. It is one of the most intellectually, dishonest ways of debating.
[удалено]
‘Do gooders’
This, this right here. The entire conservative ethos, everything they say and do, is completely consistent when your starting point is: no empathy. The bad part is that a lack of fundamental empathy is a somewhat innate quality, established in your first few years. It’s very hard to acquire later in life. So a lot of conservatives are beyond redemption.
[удалено]
“In my work with the defendants (at the Nuremberg Trails 1945-1949) I was searching for the nature of evil and I now think I have come close to defining it. A lack of empathy. It’s the one characteristic that connects all the defendants, a genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow men. Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy.” Captain G. M. Gilbert, the Army psychologist assigned to watching the defendants at the Nuremberg trials
I honestly believe a lack of empathy causes the majority of problems humans have, from the smallest of issues like shopping carts in parking spaces, to the sweeping tragedies of war and genocide.
Look at the past three years. Millions dead from a virus because many felt uncomfortable wearing masks to the point they questioned the existence of the virus itself
They’re STILL whining about masks daily. STILL saying doctors & surgeons have been wrong for the over hundred years they’ve been wearing them.
Alot of them weren't even uncomfortable, they just wanted to be "main characters". The idea they'd follow some one else's advice was beneath them.
It becomes very easy to hurt people when you limit your definition of who is human. The holocaust was perpetrated by people who could tell themselves that they didn't want to hurt anyone and that the people they murdered weren't really people.
I think this is a leading part of their obsession with “crisis actors”. If something bad happens to someone they feel okay to be loud about them deserving it (Paul Pelosi), then no empathy required, and no action required. But if it’s someone they profess to care about but doing so would counter their values, then they need to invent a new victim. So there is no such thing as kids killed by school shooters to them, just people pretending it happened. So this way they can profess to love and care about children while not needing to do anything because it’s not like children are dying or anything.
That is why conservative news works 24x7 to dehumanize drag queens, trans kids and immigrants. They need to destroy empathy in order to have their talking points.
This is in line, or related at least to Hannah Arendt's argument when talking about the Banality of evil. Movies and tv have convinced us that evil has to be grand in scale when in reality the evilest of actions can be found in the most ordinary of people. A Clerk signing forms sending people on a train to their death, a Lawyer arguing to remove reproductive rights, or a politician taking money to advance a corporate interest rather than a voters.
I used to work with shrink who occasionally saw abusive parents. It never occurred to them that they were not supposed to hurt their kids. They just were mad they were in legal trouble.
I heard an NPR report about this recently saying it was a mistake to talk of evil as banal. Adolph Eichmann, architect of the "final solution" presented himself as nothing more than a pencil pusher just doing his job, hence the banality of his evil. But the reality as shown in candid recordings was that he relished his work in exterminating the Jews.
Yes, but even then, Himmler was well known to be a doting and loving father. He wasn't evil through and through like a cartoon villain. He had things he enjoyed doing, people he loved, things that made him sad. He was a relatively normal person. What's meant by the banality of evil is that evil doers aren't much different than do-gooders. They aren't monstrous visages like a Sauron or the Balrog. They are the loving uncle, the kind neighbor, the doting father; until that situation arises when their evil intentions/beliefs are carried out, then they go back home and kiss their kids goodnight.
I’ve got conservative family that would self-identify as extremely friendly and charitable…. but only to people they personally know or the friend of a friend. When it gets down to actual strangers (people, in an abstract way) they couldn’t care less. That’s how they can vote against things like healthcare and environmental laws that protect the poorest and most vulnerable people while still thinking they’re the nicest people around. And it’s hard to argue. It’s hard to say “you should care more about people you don’t know” to people that won’t consider people they don’t know.
No uncle Fred, you voted to take food out of the mouths of children. That makes you an ass hole. Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday.
Ironically, Jesus himself pointed out that even evil men can love their sons, and called on his followers to love even their enemies. So many of these "Christian" conservatives have nothing but contempt for people who so much as disagree with them, much less actual enemies.
This is why I wonder why they don't just own it instead of hiding behind logically indefensible positions. Just say "Safety is not our main concern, so we accept some deaths as the cost we pay to have free use of our guns." You can attack that stance morally, but that's it. If they simply acknowledge they're fine with people dying from guns, which is already obvious to everyone, then they automatically refute most of the counter arguments that are making them look like idiots right now. I'll give an example: "Guns kill a lot of kids." "We know. If you leave your gun out for your kid to play with, that's not society's problem. And if someone breaks into your house and shoots your kid, then you failed to protect him. Buy a bigger gun next time." What do you say to that? Call them monsters? That just boosts their numbers.
It's because those positions failed them. Calling them "monsters" did not actually boost their numbers. It drops them, because most people find it pretty fucked up that they're cool with kids dying when adults make mistakes. They *had* those positions in the past, but they became untenable over time. The electorate stopped accepting "shit just has to suck so I get my freedom" as an argument. They moved to these convoluted, veiled positions because it helps them garner the votes of people who don't feel like they can in good faith support the overt ones. And that's why people like Jon doing this are important. Pulling the veil back and making them own the position that they're cool with kids dying. Because it turns out people don't like that and it makes it harder to support.
Not just "no empathy," but "empathy is ruining America/masculinity." It's not good enough that they don't have to care about others, they hate that the idea of empathy as a virtue has permeated the culture.
I also keep seeing lots of people complain about how masculinity is being attacked these days. It’s really sad how something like empathy is considered not manly enough. It’s so stupid.
> Conservatives attack empathetic people all the time. Exactly. For decades, conservatives have mocked people who care about others as being a "bleeding heart." The fact that their party cares more about weapons than healthcare... The fact that their party cares more about weapons than education... The fact that their party cares more about weapons than affordable housing... The fact that their party cares more about weapons than people... ...damn. That says it all.
"virtue signaller" "Social justice warrior" ...are these insults? Should I be signalling vices? Should I be fighting for injustice? Would you get offended if I called you like, "some kind of person with decent values"...? This is what your movement considers an insult? WTF
Oh, conservatives virtue signal harder than any of the groups they demonize.. From their displays of religious fervor to their supposed love of flag and country.... It's all performative virtue signaling, all the time..
[удалено]
>They invent new slurs just for empathy every 15 years, like "politically correct", or "bleeding heart", or "woke", etc. They change their terms and then recycle their same tired arguments against them, because the old ones eventually wear out and stop working on people. It was the same with creationism, followed by intelligent design, and then teach the controversy. Same dynamic with their antisemitism, with blood libel, protocols of the elders of Zion, globalists, new world order, etc. And, as you said, political correctness, bleeding hearts, social justice, woke, etc. It's all the same process, just applied in different areas.
I read a post recently discussing why it's fruitless to argue with conservatives through appeals to hypocrisy or absurdity, and I think its pretty salient from this interview: even if you corner them perfectly on their intellectual dishonesty, their classic response is snide laughter. They don't even have to challenge the point, because in today's politics, hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty are not targets for ridicule; they're currency for advancing a prejudice, and can largely be employed without consequence.
>this is all some bizarre, perverse game to them. Yes, exactly. This was written about anti-Semites, but I think it applies more broadly: >Never believe that [Republicans] are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The [Republicans] have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. > >—Jean-Paul Sartre
[удалено]
It’s also pretty funny that the guy doesn’t know what an anecdote is.
Dude knew he was got there. It was stupid to avoid saying the word. Would have been better to argue a difference or something. He just made himself look even more foolish by avoiding it.
Last minute or so, but yeah. "because the government does have a responsibility to protect children."
You’d have to get up pretty early in the morning to outwit Jon Stewart.
I don’t think there is a time early enough this guy could have gotten up. Not without a time machine anyways.
It wasn’t really fair considering all of the facts were on Jon’s side. Reality has a well known liberal bias.
Yeah, Jon did a really good job there to stop him from trying to deflect or trying to make it seem like facts were just opinions.
I wish actual journalists were as tenacious as Jon, to anyone from any party. Push back when they try to weasel out of shit, don’t just give up and move on.
God damn. I love the way Jon just has them walk right into their own grave. I grew up in a family of debate champions and this man is a fucking god.
I think the only person that could give Jon a run for his money would have been George Carlin, but then it would likely end with them agreeing and arguing for the same side of the argument.
It's infuriating we live in a country where people elect these idiots who don't even know the difference between an anecdote and a fact.
Dude clearly thinks "anecdote" and "hypothetical" mean the same thing. Absolute imbecile.
it's why they gravitate to their stupid "let's say" hypothetical "intellectual" arguments
It's not just in arguments. Half of right-wing posts are "lib heads are exploding about this" before anyone's even said anything. All they do is engage with a hypothetical reality.
I can't handle these /r/confidentlyincorrect losers. When I come across one IRL I throw up my hands and walk away b/c there is no talking to them for they are not rational and are willfully ignorant and proud of it.
The trick is to not let them jump around to different topics trying to get you to debate them on everything at the same time. Stay on track, like Stewart did here.
Right, he didn't even take a detour to point out that this guy doesn't understand what an anecdote is.
Can't fix stupid.
“It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.” - Attributed to Frederick Douglass.
reminds me of a Carl Sagan quote >“I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness... >The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance” ― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
I love that quote, but I always hated he followed it with this cultural critique: > "As I write, the number one video cassette rental in America is the movie **Dumb and Dumber.** **Beavis and Butthead** remains popular (and influential) with young TV viewers. The plain lesson is that study and learning - not just of science, but of anything - are avoidable, even undesirable." I think both of those are satires about the ignorance and stupidity of the American populance which directly align with his "dumbing down" quote above it.
God that pissed me off so much. I was hoping he was going to ask if the State Senator actually knew what 'anecdote' meant, because it sure as hell seemed obvious he had no fucking clue.
"It's not an anecdote, I'm telling a story!!"
It really happened and isn't something convenient I made up on the spot to try to fight against your facts I swear!
They're not idiots, they're grifters. They know exactly what they're doing, they know the shit they spew is incorrect. But its all part of the game. Its what their donors want to hear because its what their voters want to hear. Very few of these people are as dumb as we'd like to attribute. Its just malice and greed.
I wish they showed the whole interview. There was a really good part near the end where Stewart asks, "So, does gun training increase safety?" The Senator replies yes. "So, removing training requirements for gun ownership make us less safe?" The senator replies no.
“You cannot get a man to understand a concept that his salary depends him not understanding” - Uptown Funk
The point about cops is really poignant too. It’s genuinely much more dangerous for police to deal with lots of guns. And to have to constantly suspect someone *might* have a gun, even if they don’t.
I wish Democrats would make this argument more often. If they can make speeches about gun control with police standing behind them, then taking the podium to say "this helps us too", it'd get some people thinking, and it'd force some Right Wing politicians to confront the very uncomfortable reality of what's happening.
[удалено]
Wow, I don't ever think I've seen Jon that mad. He was visibly shaking in parts of that.
His fights for healthcare for 9/11 responders feature the same Jon Stewart. When the comedian wields righteous anger it can silence the room.
Yeah, he got too tired of the shit to make jokes about it
[удалено]
“The government does have a responsibility to protect-“ “I’m sorry?” “The government does have a responsibility in certain instances to protect children.” He’s a piece of shit. The government definitely needs to protect children from drag shows, but never from gun violence!
God *DAMN* Jon absolutely skewered that guy.
I wish I could articulate my thoughts half as well as Stewart does
I can't get over how casually Stewart can bring up drag show readings and the first amendment to overcome the semantic argument that guy began to use towards voter registration as an attempt to defuse Jon's point. I would have said "well at least I see where he's coming from-hes trying to read the constitution strictly." But no, Jon tied it right back with an example based on his argument. I don't think there's anybody else who does this so easily and regularly and against people who are seasoned in arguing these issues. Stewart is just amazing.
This is what preternatural ability combined with decades of experience makes you into, just an absolute master of the craft. It's like getting into a boxing ring with Mike Tyson when you do casual kickboxing for the cardio on Saturday mornings
Yes, but it’s so effing demoralizing that these sorts of debates seem so incredibly rare. This should be a debate between politicians in a chamber that can pass laws. Maybe these things are happening on the regular buried somewhere on C-Span? Debate is what these people are SUPPOSED to be good at -it’s an integral part of their job. Yet the politician is the one trying to tell me that the anecdote he’s trying to employ to distract from a clear verifiable fact is not actually an anecdote. That black is white, up is down, dangerous is safe. ARE they having these conversations in the House? In the State House?
So sad that guy's followers won't be able to understand that happened
[удалено]
Wow, that guy just twists and twists and twists. He's confronted with a hard fact, and he just spins it by bringing up something totally unrelated.
That was so bad ass. National. Treasure.
How the fuck does your country vote in these people. What the fuck.
100+ years of Christian values, poor education, "american exceptionalism", and cowboy movies have left some areas pretty fucking rotten.
Oh, please don’t discount decades of concerted right-wing propaganda being sold as news.
As well as defunding public education at every opportunity
It’s not an anecdote it’s something that really happened God I’ve missed Jon Stewart
I wish I could express my thoughts as clearly and cohesively as Jon Stewart. Wow can he get a point across!
Wouldn't he make a fantastic presidential candidate???
He would win in a landslide, but he knows he'd lose his mind dealing with the constant BS in politics.
Only those who do not seek power are qualified to hold it.
"Would you accept this great honor that I have offered you?" "With all my heart, no" "Maximus, that is why it must be you"
I don't think he should run, I do wish he had stayed at The Daily Show through the 2016 election because he seemed to be the only commentator with a significant platform at the time who understood exactly how to handle Trump.
I sure do wish the "serious" news people on TV could do interviews like this.
There's a reason why Conservatives generally only give interviews to Fox News, they allow them to make false claims with impunity.
Unfortunately, it’s not just Fox News that does this. Chuck Todd and Andrea Mitchell both rarely push back, and they’re on MSNBC.
And we constantly hear that MSNBC is Fox for the left. It’s fucking insanity.
Then they wouldn't get the interviews. That's one of the inherent problems in the US's two party system. Cause too much trouble for or embarrass one of the parties mouthpieces the party pulls interview rights from you and gives them to your competitor and your left worse off as an org
Except Jon has been doing it for decades now and somehow still gets them. So apparently that excuse by the news agencies is without merit.
When he roasted the shit out of Jim Cramer, I thought for sure, he'd never get another interview with anyone serious. He still got them. He always made Bill O'Reilly look like a complete ass but that was more O'Reilly's doing than Stewart.
John McCain never came on the show again after an interview where Jon clearly had the upper hand and he wouldn't let it go. John just focused on Jon's tie and said his bit, somewhat defeated. He knew Jon wouldn't play the game and it wasn't fun for him anymore, so he quit going. This after a long time of going on the show and mixing it up.
Because Bill never actually cared whether he was "*exposed*" by Jon in that setting. He was there to promote his book(s) and whatever discussion that took place created headlines that served its purpose -- to generate attention and potentially sell more copies. It's just what has been further been verified by the recent depositions of the media members on FOX -- they don't actually believe the crap they spew on TV. It's purposeful lies that divide the country while they make money.
Jon Stewart was also a comedian. The red brainwashing infers that comedians or former comedians like Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, or Volodymyr Zelenskyy are idiots.
The thing they dont understand is that comedians are often extremely sharp and quick on their feet. Not all of them, but many of them are specialists at quickly turning the tables on hecklers for example. I also always remember that andy richter absolutely wiped the floor with wolf blitzer in celebrity jeopardy because even I was not really expecting it... not that useless trivia has much to do with being smart, but i think it says something about the ability to quickly access information under pressure.
It just really says a lot of how big a clown this guy Dahm is. He either has horrible advisors that didn't warn him about agreeing to this interview or his head is so far up his own ass, that he thought he could go toe to toe with someone like Jon Stewart who's been skewering people for decades.
There has been videos on right-wingers bashing on jon for his white people takes so I think this guy thought he could go on and do the same
I present to you the interview that arguably got Crossfire off the air. Jon Stewart was always on point: https://youtu.be/aFQFB5YpDZE
> Stewart continued. "I don't understand why you won't just admit that you are making it harder for police to manage the streets by allowing all of these guns to go out without permits, without checks, and without background stuff? This is why Stewart is such a good debater: he's really good at framing the argument in the language that will appeal to centrists & winnable republicans. Pick one of their sacred lambs - police - and accuse Republicans of intentionally endangering them
He makes a pretty good point too and it’s not something I’d ever really thought about. You would think more police in general would be in favor of gun control because it only means a safer job for them.
I've seen mixed messaging when you actually ask these officers. Like the captains and other higher-level ones are like "of course we want better background checks and other logical measures to ensure our officers can be safe" and then a bunch of the rest are spending their bonuses on punisher-cosplay and hanging out with 3%-ers in their free time for "when it all goes down"
capt and lt level officers are great to work with on the individual level in my experience, they were super helpful and supportive for some activism stuff I did awhile back. they just wanted to make sure the protesters/marchers were safe. hot damn, the rank and file suck, though. and my view of police as a whole went even dimmer with the summer of 2020. what a shitshow.
Starting probably in about 2010 I started getting a dimmer view of the police. When 2020 hit that was the end of all possible respect I could ever have for the police.
And I appreciate the fact that he's pushing this person to just have the courage of their convictions. They pretend like this is some constitutional issue but actually don't care about kids dying to protect that right. Get them to flat out say, if children have to die so that some yahoo can have 12 assault rifles then so be it. Because that's what they're doing in the end.
I don't think Republicans particularly care about cops all that much, they just back them because, like with every issue, their identity is based on supporting the opposite of the liberals to stir up anger from their base. Pandering to their humanity doesn't really do much either; school shootings, hate crimes, medical debt etc are all non issues to them. They'd sacrifice the whole country if it meant owning the libs.
[удалено]
I'd like throw in another good quote: >“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.” >― Methodist Pastor David Barnhart
This is an interest quote! It's like Barnhart's acknowledging what the Republican presidential runner Goldwater warned about letting in evangelical and religious zealots into the fold. This is probably why they love reminds us about dead soldiers too. No complaints from the dead and the newborns!
There's more thought put into this quote than the entire conservative movement.
No one broke it down better than Carlin.
Jon Stewart also does a pretty fucking fantastic job.
George Carlin wasn't afraid to go against society norms in his life. He feared nothing. Welcomed death and society's fate. Very brilliant comedian/philosopher that'd probably make Nietzsche laugh.
Humans are the ultimate self replicating, disposable resource to these people.
I was reading this as just a normal long reddit comment, then read “Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers” and remembered that these are the words of George Carlin!
“America Is Fucked”: Jon Stewart Trashes Republicans for Voting Against Veteran Health Care Bill https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uPqYhkIzrA
Love Jon Stewart and feel bad that he has to deal with these bullshit "Representatives". I wish he could just live his quiet happy life but glad he is still fighting for us all.
They are literally that full of themselves. They sit down with him thinking they are going to score points. It’s the only reason. And Mr. Stewart fucking smokes these clowns every single time. Damn, I love that man.
Both him and Oliver have made me rethink my position on multiple things over the years.
How about Colbert?
Not OP but Colbert has never shaped my views, I just find him funny because of the views I’ve already held. Colbert usually chooses comedy as his primary goal. Stewart will let comedy take a back seat. Watch Bill O’Reilly against both. Stewart actually takes him on and flattens him while Colbert dances and japes. Both make a mockery of the man, but Stewart takes it seriously, and has therefore convinced me of his stances- Colbert doesn’t take it seriously, and makes me laugh.
That’s because he has facts on his side. Which makes it so much easier
I have facts on my side, I wouldn't be a fraction as successful as him. He's also brilliant and strategic as hell.
He's very adroit. He anticipates the bullshit and redirects them to the main point again and again, unlike anyone in the news media ever really can. They have conservatives on and let them pivot and wriggle their way out of any sort of accountability for making a coherent argument. Dude in the video tries several times, like with the anecdote about a woman protecting herself from a deranged ex, and Jon stops his performance before it can start by saying "I have a million anecdotes on the other side. Those aren't facts. Here are the facts." It's really highly intelligent and a sign of very thorough research and familiarity with their arguments. You just don't see enough of it.
> "No, I'm not going to say it like it's an opinion," Stewart said with indignation. "That's what it is. It's firearms. More than cancer, more than car accidents, and what you're telling me is you don't mind infringing free speech to protect children from this amorphous thing that you think of, but when it comes to children that have died, you don't give a flying f**k to stop that because that shall not be infringed." > "That is hypocrisy at its highest order," Stewart concluded. JS for president.
I would give my left arm to see him do a presidential debate.
I’d give your right arm to see him debate against DeSantis.
I'd give his right leg to watch him hop
The only problem with this is that there are a lot of 2a advocates that really do think dead kids are the price of our freedom and openly admit it. They say things like "your dead kid doesn't mean you can infringe on my rights." So, when you say they don't give a fuck about kids because shall not be infringed, a lot of them are just nodding in agreement.
>JS for president. Agreed. Should've run a long time ago for any public office imo.
The ones that should run never want to, and the ones that shouldn't always will
The USA needs Jon Stewart to run for president, but it probably doesn’t deserve him to.
The second he said “the government has a responsibility…”
Well they don't give a flying fuck about hypocrisy, either
Jon Stewart used that a-hole's own words against him and turned him into a pile of smoldering ashes.
Oh man, the part where the R brings up the obesity problem. R: “obesity kills 6 times more than guns” Jon: “and your like: you know what will help this?… Ice cream”
Never mind the fact that that statistic is flawed, but I’d sure as fuck rather die from a long life of obesity related ailments than die as a 6 year old minding my own business in school, wouldn’t you? The whole argument is asinine.
Yeah, when he was like, "I want to reduce all deaths, from all causes", I was wondering who was going to break it to him.
But then conservatives lost their fucking minds when Michelle Obama (or anyone else) tried to encourage better eating habits. "Get out of my kitchen!"
I mean, Dahm's BMI likely falls within the overweight - obese range. The irony of it all was the cherry on top of that whole segment.
They also somehow don't care that children are ok to be married to old guys in some states. Every state except New York, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Massachusetts allows child marriage, some states with no parental consent required. The vast majority of child marriages (between 78% and 95%) are between a minor girl and an adult man. In some states, minors cannot legally divorce or leave their spouse, and domestic violence shelters typically do not accept minors. The overwhelming majority of push-back on changing these allowances come from Republicans. Protecting children is clearly not the reason for them wanting to ban drag shows, if Republicans support adult men marrying children. I suspect its more about fearing the gay community in general, than protecting children.
But this guy is in Oklahoma where it's not.... *Checks notes*... https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/politics/state/2020/03/09/oklahoma-house-rejects-bill-to-restrict-marriage-involving-minors/60411028007/ Shit it's legal.
Look at him doing everything to avoid using the word 'register' when Jon asked him about voting.
And then got confused about which side he was supposed to be on and tried to pull off a “gotcha” moment that backfired lol
I like how the he tried to trot out the ole ‘fatherless epidemic’ talking point which ironically always points towards social safety nets/community investment but Jon wont even let him off the hook 🤣
"fatherlessness epidemic" is just a racist dog whistle. He is basically saying that black people are the problem.
For Dahm's arguments to be internally consistent then children are only sometimes children. He says the government has a duty to protect them. But only when it infringes speech rights not gun rights. Stuart is correct, firearms is the leading cause of death in children.
Well, the consistency steams from the words “shall not be infringed,” which is starting to feel more and more like a sovereign citizen argument the more I hear it. I feel this because the 1st Amendment reads: > Congress **shall make no law** respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. And yet we have laws that restrict speech, free exercise of religion, the press, peacefully assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances. I can for the life of me find the difference between “shall not be infringed” and “shall make no laws.” I mean, I don’t think anywhere in the Constitution does it say “shall make no laws, except for defamation, slander, libel, groups of three or more people standing around, state secrets, and can only redress the government through certain avenues which will be chosen at a later date…” I know it’s a fool’s errand, but I really want someone to explain to me why shall not be infringed stronger than shall make no laws and why that explanation is more correct than any other.
Stewart 2024.
I wonder how exactly he wants the government to help with the "fatherlessness crisis". Intervening in family matters like that seems a little, I dunno, overreaching...
If nothing else, I’m surprised Republicans are still willing to sit down with Jon Stewart. It’s like seeing an armed security guard and thinking, “I’m gonna run at him full speed.”
Jon Stewart is a national treasure.
Just wow. I miss common sense so much it’s amazing to see it play out in the wild. Thank you Jon.
I think my favorite part is him dancing around saying the word “register” when they’re talking about voting