|
MoraleHazard posted:Yeah, I have to read HuffPo more often.
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2012 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 18:47 |
|
|
OG KUSH BLUNTS posted:Lets not forget Mike Huckabee is directly responsible for the deaths of four cops. That's more than a little bit of a stretch, I think.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2012 02:34
|
|
|
Brigadier Sockface posted:Joe Scarborough is now pro gun-control. At the end he mentions high-capacity assault rifles. So yes, he's likely now for some form of restriction on types of weapons, but also feels that games/movies/guns are completely equal players in cause/effect.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2012 17:55
|
|
|
Twisted Perspective posted:Are you suggesting that the glorification of violence in American culture does not have an effect on the mentally unstable? No. I can't fathom how you insinuated that from my post.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
Ramadu posted:What debate was that? Also I definitely am going to be avoiding my usual right wing radio this week after the Trayvon verdict. I cannot imagine how ill I would feel to hear Hannity and jesus christ the smug coming off of Andy Dean will be palpable. He's likely referring to the fact Hannity's original show was Hannity and Colmes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2013 05:49
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Ugh where did this come from again, which candidate
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2013 07:14
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Liam Neeson in reality is the opposite of himself in Taken. (Which is a prequil to Love Actually, I wonder why the son never appeared in Taken?) He got into an argument this week with Jon Stewart this week over the treatment of horses used in New York City. Taking the side that the horses were never asked if they wanted to pull wagons. (Not that it was really that contentious a "debate" regardless and Neeson doesn't come across as a great guy generally though, just  it up in here)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:I always get a kick out of the Dijon mustard thing because Dijon is less processed and has more of a kick than yellow mustard. It is the manlier mustard by any metric other than name, and you can just call it brown mustard if the name bothers your sensitive all-American conservative ears. Edit: Nope, remembered wrong- Obama just wanted something "spicy". Here's the actual piece. Hannity isn't having a "meltdown" about it, but it's pretty clear he's serious about it being an actual mocking point against Obama's disconnect with Average Joe. Happy_Misanthrope fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Mar 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
Axe Master posted:I dunno if anybody else read the article referenced in the bottom of the piece re: criticizing jon Stewart from the left but hoo boy was that a bunch of no true Scotsman laden bullshit. To hell with the ancillary articles, I thought the original Atlantic article was poo poo actually. I mean, look at this leap: quote:"What’s more, skepticism of authority is a conservative tenet itself. It was the great conservative philosopher was Edmund Burke who said, “The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse.” In the Obama era, there are plenty of liberal institutions ripe for mockery. South Park has brilliantly lampooned many of the left’s excesses, from PETA, to race, environmentalism, Al Gore, San Francisco smugness, abortion, tolerance, anti-smoking activists and celebrities, lots of celebrities. "Hey, remember that philosopher from the 1700's which has gently caress-all to do with conservatism in the last 50-100 years and a cartoon by libertarians that occasionally delves into politics with both-sides-are-equal approach? Philosophy argument trumped."  The gently caress it is. The article is basically falling into this usual lazy trap of this approach; that there's "liberal" comedy like Daily Show/Colbert, and "conservative" comedy, and it's just a matter of conservative comedy finding the market/funding for it to be successful - it's basically a question of economics, not something inherently flawed in approaching comedy from a rigid ideological perspective that prevents it from establishing a wider audience. A glaring difference which the writer fails to mention is that the supposed liberal comedy/comedians routinely also mock what some would presuppose would be their "base". Part of being a non-lovely comedian is to have few sacred cows, but also how the joke is constructed when you attempt to slay them. The old adage of satire more often than not being most effective when it's punching upwards generally holds true. To that end, The Daily Show and Colbert routinely and often go after these same "liberal excesses" that he bizarrely lists as sole attributes of South Park and conservative comedy - clueless liberal celebrities (really, mocking "lots of celebrities" is a South Park conservative trademark now?), PETA, liberal politicians (how many "Kerry is a droning useless bore" jokes does Colbert/DS do whenever he's involved in a story?), environmentalism (Stewart ran with the "useless nanny-state" approach to mocking Bloomberg's initiative to restrict soda cup sizes for *weeks*), etc. If you view DS/CR as "liberal" sources of humour then your premise is flawed from the start. As with most effective satire, The Daily Show and Colbert primarily target existing structures of power, and a solid foundation of that power in a capitalist democracy is how information is largely disseminated to the populace - in this case, the free-market media. Their comedic approaches would only seem liberal to a true kool-aid drinking conservative who actually believes the majority of media has a "liberal bias", despite the inherent near-impossibility of a media that relies on private funds to exist to consistently present a leftist perspective. The media does indeed have biases as does almost every source of information, but for the most part those biases are increasingly shaped primarily via conservative economic concerns, and more often than not those concerns will lead to media that reflects the status quo because it's the cheapest option (and gently caress, I'm being extremely generous in that that's just for media that isn't obviously ideologically based, such as Fox). Finding actual truth with investigative journalism is time-consuming and expensive. This inherent laziness is the primary target of DS/CR, which will naturally lead to more conservative-oriented positions being mocked. I think the inherent problem with the question of "Why isn't their a market for conservative comedy?" is that it's being asked in the first place. You approach comedy from a marketing perspective, chances are your brand of comedy is going to suck. Happy_Misanthrope fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Mar 15, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2014 17:19
|
|
Stewart is being paid by Viacom and that's why he doesn't call condoleeza rice a lying neocon oval office
|
radical meme posted:What annoys me about so much of the acts of humorists or comedians that are conservative is that it is never self deprecating humor. Their humor never looks inward, it always depends on the flaws of others or the ignorance or miscalculations of others to act as the punchline. It seems to go along with their philosophy that conservatism is never wrong. This guy Michael Loftus, Steven Crowder, you're never going to hear any serious introspective comedy from them. Very true, self deprecation is basically required to an extent, especially if you're going to be critiquing other people/groups for the majority of your act. To do so then not have any ability to look inward, you'll eventually just come off as obnoxious and insular and people will tire of it quickly. The Blue Collar guys are successful because they're comedians who happen to be conservative and play in front of largely conservative audiences, not because they set out to be "conservative comedians".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Fox News does this poo poo constantly. The words you need to look for are "some people are saying..." They do this all the time. You can say whatever you drat well please after that statement. "Some people" could be Bob and Sally standing at the water cooler talking about how they think Obama is actually a robot built by aliens in low orbit over Saturn. Now you can say "well some people are saying Obama isn't even actually human let alone American." Kurtz, showing a complete lack of cognitive dissonance and being the dumb gently caress that he is, actually responded on his show the following Sunday: Howard Dumbfuck Kurtz posted:"Listen, Colbert, I asked whether it was fair for commentators to harp on her age. I guess that was too nuanced for your 'black and white' view of the world." Now, this is right from Colbert's mouth in the very piece that he's responding to: Colbert posted:"I know it's rude to talk about a woman's age, but that's not what I am doing. I am talking about other people talking about people talking about other people talking about a women's age. That's called journalism"  Oh, and love this from Kurtz on his blog: Howard How-Do-I-Dress-Myself-Kurtz posted:"This guy -- a fake anchor if ever there was one -- has been maligning hard-working journalists for too long," 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Does he seriously not know that Colbert is, in fact, literally a fake news anchor? It's the kind of response you would expect someone to drunkenly slur immediately after the moment in a alcohol-fueled childish rage-response: "I...I...I'MMMM A FAKE NEWS ANCHOR?!! WELL, YO...YOU...YOU'RE THE FAKIEST FAKE FAKER NEWS ANCHOR THAT HAS EVER FAKED YOU loving FAKE" ...not something you actually took the time to write, proofread, and post on your blog for the world to see days after the fact.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Colbert's genuine intelligence and comedic talent is going to waste at times on the Report me thinks. You literally can just repeatedly interchange segments from the show with actual quotes from wingnuts and not be able to differentiate the parody from the reality in the slightest.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Holy poo poo move the gently caress out if you can. What a toxic person.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:No, it isn't. Overall global temperatures are rising. They transitioned to "climate change" because idiots were unable to comprehend that overall global warming can also lead to extreme cold as well. Of course then idiots just accuse them of shifting goalposts now and failing to grasp that climate change and global warming refer to the exact same phenomena and nothing has changed. You can also (try to) explain that climate change is also used more in the media these days because...well, we're seeing it now.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Axe Master posted:Man, that show about improving restaurants (i think that might be food network but same poo poo) is a guilty pleasure of mine, I'm half expecting a story to come out that reveals Robert Irvine beating the poo poo out of gay people or donating thousands to the kill all abortion doctor funds or whatever. Nah, he just basically completely lies about his past experience. You really can't go that wrong by just assuming anyone connected to a reality show is loving awful.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
Hey look, a climate skeptic who doesn't know what "skeptic" means, this might be a trend of some sort
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:A lot of anti-vaccine bullshit stems from anti-intellectualism, distrust of science and fear of the government. There are the hippie weirdos, but there are probably just as many Alex Jones style conservatives. At least. Survey: Anti-vaccine views have little correlation with politics quote:The latest data comes from a survey of 2,316 U.S. adults by a researcher who works at the universities of Yale and Harvard. While questions about human-caused climate change divided along political lines--with liberals believing it is happening and conservatives denying it--there was no such correlation with anti-vaccine views. The vast majority of people believe the benefits of childhood vaccinations outweigh the risks, regardless of their politics. And the survey found anti-vaccine views are more common among Republicans.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 12:06
|
|
|
Phone posted:I agree that getting worked up is ultimately useless, but the dude is venomous and is poisoning public discourse. That's the thing. Whenever someone posts about insufferable political personalities, you'll invariably see the post "Well they're really just trolling so lol", which is really beside the point. The scary fact is, these idiots matter - significantly. They have enough followers on their relative extremes of the spectrum already, but due to the current business model of the major media outlets their bullshit gets into the political groundwater repeatedly whereby it migrates from the fringe to the mainstream easily. Major political figures will not rebuke their idelogy in even the slightest way for fear of a backlash from their insane fanbase. Rush's personal motivations are ultimately irrelevant to the problem. While it's perfectly reasonable to theorize what goulash of personality disorders ultimately form his damaged psyche, to theorize how ultimately 'honest' in their heart-of-hearts the shockjock wingnuts may be in their persona is really not why these threads exist - it's because a good portion of the public accepts these views as legitimate. You don't have to directly subject yourself to their speech on a daily basis not to be affected by it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:While the left is not immune to charismatic leadership, in general we seem to favor more of a community-reinforcement model. When we get together as a group, it is a lot of people all saying the same thing and how much we agree with them (while occasionally censuring people for veering from whatever minor orthodoxy so we can feel like there is actually a "debate" or a "discussion"). When right-wingers want reinforcement of their view, they sit down and listen to one singular figure say what they are thinking (while occasionally disagreeing with them for veering from whatever minor orthodoxy so they can feel like there is actually a platform that they agree with only "in part"). Yes, there will always be identical trends in all political thought regardless of ideology, but it's a matter of degree. In terms of how conservatives and liberals actually think however, this has actually been studied - repeatedly - and many of the studies have remarkably similar conclusions. You can certainly argue that this isn't a moral argument as the studies have argued much of these differences are based in personality and therefore somewhat unconscious (and of course it's almost impossible to identify personality traits alone as "good" or "bad" outside of the context in which they affect certain moral/ethical situations), but regardless of the point of origin, so far the available data does indicate there are some fundamental distinctions in which how conservatives vs liberals approach certain arguments. It's probably safe to say that these wingnut shows survive largely on outrage, and hence on one of its primary emotional predecessors - fear. And that personality trait in particular seems to have repeatedly been shown as a primary difference between the liberal and conservative mindset. quote:"Psychologists have found that conservatives are fundamentally more anxious than liberals, which may be why they typically desire stability, structure and clear answers even to complicated questions. “Conservatism, apparently, helps to protect people against some of the natural difficulties of living,” says social psychologist Paul Nail of the University of Central Arkansas. “The fact is we don't live in a completely safe world. Things can and do go wrong. But if I can impose this order on it by my worldview, I can keep my anxiety to a manageable level.” It's fundamentally far more difficult to market these types of shows to a base that is going to be less amenable to simplistic and outrage-based arguments, as well as the basic "cost" of this approach is more economical - it's far easier and well, basically cheaper to just spew bullshit vs. nuance and performing some level of research. Again, it's not a binary choice, I wouldn't be surprised for example that there would be more liberal-oriented supporters (albeit assumptions can be wrong) of the awful Food Babe than conservative, and her market is largely fear and ignorance-oriented as well. I don't believe though, that the adherence to orthodoxy is equivalent across the political spectrum and it's simply a matter of groupthink vs individual ideologues as you seem to imply. It's not just a question of venue from what I've seen, there appears to be some distinct differences that have an impact on being open to argument. Happy_Misanthrope fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Aug 30, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That's because "liberals" include anyone that's not a partisan. If you compared to honest dyed in the wool communists then you'd probably get similar responses and thought patterns.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The reason it's not as popular is because Fox News derives its audience from partisans who are more likely to be unified (at least up to a point), whereas "liberals" are "literally anyone that's not explicitly anti-gay or pro-white". As well, despite you arguing that this "liberal" definition may be overly wide in terms of the range of political views that can fall under the umbrella, I'm not so sure MSNBC is the best counter-example to my argument that an overtly partisan approach is simply far more difficult to market successfully - MSNBC has but a fraction of the viewership of Fox, and of course the ratio is all but nonexistent amongst radio. You seem to be using the term "liberal" to mean something far more narrow on the political spectrum than is actually reflected by the opinions of those who would self-identify as such in the US - that people who identify as "liberal" in these studies aren't really liberals.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'm not sure how I'm doing that, if anything I'm making the definition of conservative much more narrow than what people who self-identify as it believe. Ok then, but then that would be difficult to explain why conservative media enjoys such an audience and wide domination of large media venues. The audience they're appealing to can't be that narrow, and even if you did believe that, it would seem to only lend credence to the argument that the approach they employ is indeed at least far more marketable.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
Boiling fights back by stepping in his own poo poo So Boiling's response to Colbert/Stewart pointing out how an awful human being he is, is to claim that since Stewart supports a raise for minimum wage workers, he hates the troops. This will end well. (Love the fist-bump at the end of the segment - "Yeah, nailed it" )
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
Goddamit gamers are the loving worst. So this may be old news so apologies if it's already been mocked, but when I first heard of this recently I thought it was a joke, even considering the author. But it's true. O'Reilly's next book? Killing Patton. Really. quote:STEPHANOPOULOS: The official record says Patton died after a car accident on a hunting trip, but O'Reilly's new book "Killing Patton" suggests a darker conspiracy. Of course when you try and follow O'Reilly's derailed train of logic, the 'inner circle' of the co-conspirators becomes laughably huge where it ends up involving sleeper commie hospital nurses, doctors, spies tracking his every move - and of course, Stalin's famed traceless poison factory. Oh, and gently caress ABC News for actually devoting airtime to this poo poo, albeit you can say that every Sunday.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Here's a fact. You post poo poo. Well you both appear to be posting in the same font, so therefore your opinions are pretty much equal As for me, i rarely even use forums
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2014 13:49
|
|
|
Karpaw posted:Actually, it's about computer culture demographics
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
Karpaw posted:SJWs (get used to that term, you'll see more of it in years to come)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
You just knew SJW would ultimately follow 'political correctness' in that about 10 seconds after it had its first relevant usage it loses all meaning and only idiots actually use it non-ironically "Oh calling me a racist because I said racist stuff? Sorry for your political correctness"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:The paranoid comments are pretty telling. Lots of 'So I guess if you don't trust the gov't it means you're crazy now?!' while ignoring that he opened fire on his neighbor Their logic is actually that the Blaze - yes, the loving Blaze - is coloring the story unfairly by actually mentioning the shooters political leanings, as since he's 'obviously' crazy, merely elaborating on his views is an attempt to draw a connection between them and his actions. Yeah, they really shouldn't be digging up his background: 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUtirCf-RfU That's the reason. That video is purestrain gold for right wing email campaigns.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
Count Canuckula posted:It must be a sad existence trying to validate yourself to the known world by purposefully having loud and terrible opinions that demeans others.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Ummm I would not say something like that Steven gently caress, it doesn't even make sense as a base insult
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
Debate & Discussion: We tortured some folks › Right Wing Media: Newt's getting a blow job. He likes blow jobs. edit: quote:Newt kind of turned and gave me this little-boy smile 
Happy_Misanthrope fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Apr 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:"Society should help that guy, who is a dumb piece of poo poo rear end in a top hat" is a perfectly valid opinion. That being said, from the gofundme page:  ...got a laugh from me.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
beatlegs posted:Let me guess the promotion angle. Obamacare victim, right? ...see last 3 pages
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:drat, wouldnt surprise me. whats he say in the clip?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:Oh no! It's literally the homosexual steamroller! FALWELL WAS RIGHT
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 18:47 |
|
|
Spark That Bled posted:David Zucker. Remember An American Carol? No one does.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2015 15:18
|
|