|
VagueRant posted:I actually enjoyed the death penalty bit, I just found it a bit sad that actually vaguely discussing an issue needed so much build up and apology. The Death Penalty is up there with abortion and religion as an issue people can't ever discuss rationally.
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 13:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 03:14 |
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:the work is done by specific people whose labor costs money, and those people tend to want to work during normal business hours. You need to stop saying this as if it were true. The work gets done when it needs to get done. Arguing that HBO--a multi-billion dollar company--can't afford to pay someone to come in on a Sunday is retarded.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
Yeah, but talking about massacres in India is nothing but intellectual cock stroking. There's nothing we, as Americans, can do about how lovely India is as a country. We only like hearing about it because it makes us feel smart and compassionate. "Awwwww, those poor Indians. Someone should do something about that. *sips wine*" When you bring up a domestic issue like the Death Penalty or, even better, local issues like state corruption, the viewer has the power to do something about it but actively chooses not to. That makes them much more disturbing to hear about in general.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
No.1 Special posted:They also forgot to talk about how they're keeping reports from filming what they're going during the riots and taking cameras and footage. If only the technology to live stream video existed, we'd have definitive proof of
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2014 12:44
|
|
|
Those links all reference journalists who were arrested for ignoring curfew and police instructions during a declared State of Emergency, which sounds perfectly reasonable because owning a camera and a vest that says "Press" is not license to violate the law.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I don't care about the Miss America pageant, but I love me some exposition of fraudulent financial claims. I didn't care for John's manufactured outrage about the pageant*, but it seems like they ran out of time, couldn't find anything really bad about MA and had to go with something. As for the researchers, non-profit organizations are ridiculously transparent and you can dig up most of what Oliver and Company found with a few quick Google searches. *Miss America doesn't solicit donations, so who gives a gently caress how much they give out a year in scholarships? This isn't a case of a bad charity whose deception takes money from good charities, but a good charity exaggerating its charitable works to deflect stupid people's criticism about the bathing suit competition.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2014 12:27
|
|
|
Phoon posted:It's a non-profit lying about their charitable works by a factor of ten to avoid criticism is what you're saying Congratulations! You've discovered marketing. People, businesses and government entities manipulate facts to paint themselves in the most favorable light possible in order to gain trust, sell products and/or promote their agendas. What are you going to do with this wellspring of newfound knowledge?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2014 13:14
|
|
|
Lumberjack Bonanza posted:That's to say nothing of the selection process. Surely other women who may not look good in a bikini could use that money they claim to provide but effectively don't. Every scholarship on earth has some kind of selection criteria. For example, as a white man, I'm barred from literally thousands of scholarship opportunities targeted towards minorities. Instead of complaining that I don't have the same opportunity at a black scholarship as, say, a black man, I spend my time pursuing scholarships I am qualified for and likely to get. The idea that Miss America is doing something wrong because it only provides 4 million or even 400k in scholarships a year instead 45 million is laughable.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
IRQ posted:This is more akin to a scholarship for black people but you must have an afro measuring at least 3 feet in diameter. That wouldn't be unprecedented. Unusual Scholarships 1. Tall Clubs International Scholarship--If you're a male 6' 2" or taller, or a female 5' 10" or taller, you just may qualify for this $1,000 scholarship. To qualify, you simply need to write an essay entitled "What Being Tall Means to Me." 3. Van Valkenburg Memorial Scholarship--You can win $1,000 if you're a descendant through birth or legal adoption of Lambert and Annetje Van Valkenburg. 5. Duck Brand Duct Tape Stuck on Prom Contest--Who would ever think that creating prom outfits out of duct tape could win a lucky couple $3,000 in scholarship money? 12. The Billy Barty Foundation--This scholarship is awarded to students who are short in stature (under 4' 10") and have proof of dwarfism. 13. National Marbles Tournament Scholarship--This contest for eight to 14 year olds awards between $1,000 and $2,000 scholarship money to those skilled in the game of marbles. JT Jag posted:Jesus Christ dude, we know what you're doing and it's not appreciated here. Critical thinking?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
IRQ posted:The point is that it's really sad and gross that the biggest scholarship for women falls under what you are now admitting is "unusual" in its requirements. I didn't admit that, nor do I agree that its sad and gross. Like the Miss America Pageant points out in its response, women still have access to gender non-specific scholarships. There are, after all, plenty of scholarships out there that recognize economic need or academic achievement. Miss America is targeting a very specific niche; namely, women who compete in their pageants. It would be violating its charter if it gave money to any girl who wandered in off the street. You could argue that its sad that the largest women's scholarship organization in America is based around a silly, superficial and traditionally girly activity (which would make you a misogynist), but you could just as easily turn that on its head and say that it demonstrates how far women have come in this country when they no longer have to rely on women-only organizations to promote their achievement. Irish Joe fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Sep 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Good ol' D&D effort-posting in action.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
Phoon posted:But they claim to provide 45 million! If they said they provided 4 million and it turned out they did that wouldn't be a story. It would just be "isn't it weird that the largest woman only scholarship fund is only available to attractive women" and then move on. That they would lie about their activities to the tune of forty million dollars is extremely suspicious, especially when they make a very big deal of the scholarships whenever possible. The term 'lie' makes it sound like its a fabrication or done maliciously. 'Suspicious' makes it sound like they have some sinister ulterior motive. But there are no victims here; no secret agenda. The fact is that they make 40 million in scholarships available, but the contestants only use 4 million. That's still a great benefit to the girls who use it, and a net positive to society as a whole. JT Jag posted:My posts served as signposts for other readers of this thread not to engage him as much as anything else. Because sure, I could just not post, but then others would. Best to shut it down as quickly as possible. You are the Sacajawea of shitposters.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Billy the Mountain posted:John Oliver just made the cover of Rolling Stone. Holy poo poo. He's a regular Ariana Grande!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
Wow, the Ayn Rand segment was the laziest thing this show has every done. "We don't agree with Ayn Rand's philosophy and, uh, she didn't like Reagan or Indians. That's all we got  "
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
Shadow posted:Libertarian spotted. I just think its funny, is all. Its like they just decided they didn't need to conduct research or write a compelling narrative for their pointless smear piece. It was basically, "How about that Ayn Rand, amirite?"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:The bulk of the Ayn Rand piece was contrasting things Ayn Rand literally said, often on tape, with things her modern day followers believe, and then wondering how she's still a thing when her form of objectivism has no place in modern politics. How was it a smear piece? It was a smear piece because it attempted to discredit an ideology by making snide comments about its founder's personal beliefs. What Rand thought about Reagan or Indians has nothing to do with the substance of The Fountainhead's political ideology. It would be like saying Civil Rights is wrong because MLK Jr. cheated on his wife or that philosophy is bullshit because Aristotle was an elitist piece of poo poo. One thing has nothing to do with the other and its disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:so the question is why they still hold her up as some peerless political philosopher. You can't expect any two people to be in 100% agreement, 100% of the time. Reasonable people can disagree on some issues while still reaching consensus on others.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:So are you saying that as long as someone agrees with one thing someone else said, then it's ok if they mischaracterize or marginalize everything else that other person said as long as it furthers the goal of spreading the one thing they agree with? I don't think its as big a misappropriation as you make it seem. Republicans generally limit themselves to Rand's literary canon, and, more specifically, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Those two books paint a far more moderate and palatable picture of objectivism than her later philosophical works and public speeches. You suggest that Republicans are doing something wrong by not going full Rand, but ideological purity is stupid regardless of whose ideology its based on. We live in the real world and so I'm not going to fault Republicans for only adopting the aspects of Rand's ideology that are palatable in the real world.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Popelmon posted:That legislature bit was depressing as hell Its the only segment this show has ever done where the problem wasn't blown out of proportion. In fact, I'd say it was downright understated. I'd take a million 'ridiculous yelling' guys over one 'pleasant but corrupt as hell' guy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 13:27
|
|
.
|
Apoplexy posted:Look at the news from yesterday. It's a good thing to not get any news. Don't be discouraged. In two years we can get a supermajority in the senate and a Republican president, and finally fix all the problems our lovely president has caused over the last six years.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 11:14
|
|
|
As if the Palestinians could handle their own state. Didn't those dummies lose all their land after invading Israel in the first place? What's the O/U on how long after getting their own state before they lost it again? Five years?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 12:50
|
|
|
Viginti posted:It's strange that he bought into the hype with the Pink bus bit too, because to me the better joke was how ridiculous it is that people were offended by a colour and how much it distracted from the issue. Saying, 'Choosing pink was silly. Pony! Pony!' is exactly what the conventional media did, minus a pony or two. Yeah. Oliver almost always takes the easy stance, even if its not the most well-thought out one. Women like pink. They wear pink. The willingly associate themselves with pink, and pink often operates as a short-hand for "Women Only." Using a pink bus to get women's attention makes sense, and is no more offensive than using pink ribbons to raise breast cancer awareness. Oliver's just flat out wrong on this one.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
agatona posted:Also, the fact that judges have to campaign in the USA is really really scary. How can there be a fair trial if a lawyer in case a judge is handling has made donations to his election? Is the US government doing something to fix this? One of the biggest problems with this show is that it gives viewers just enough information to be ignorant about an issue. The US government does not have a hand in how states pick their judges, and while most states hold elections for judges, each state has different laws governing those elections. Very often, judges aren't allowed to take stances on issues, which is why most judges run on a generic "tough on crime" campaign. Similarly, judges in election states aren't always elected, but frequently appointed when the previous judge retires. They will then run in a retention election, which they almost always win (at least in my neck of the woods). Its really not as bad as John makes it seem. Irish Joe fucked around with this message at 11:51 on Feb 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 11:47
|
|
|
Or maybe the more one watches LWT, the easier it becomes to see through the thin veneer of humor hiding what is, in fact, a poorly researched show designed to do nothing more than stir up seven days worth of moral outrage every week. Honestly, how many times can people be told "this is the worst thing ever" before they stop believing it?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2015 11:51
|
|
|
JohnSherman posted:If you choose not to vote, you give the the right to have your opinion matter. It's like saying that Obama shouldn't be President because only 30% of eligible Americans voted for him. Except you're oversimplifying the issue. Presidential elections are still based on a majority vote. It just happens to be a representative electoral majority rather than a popular majority. Presidents who fail to win a majority are chosen by congress. SlothfulCobra posted:This episode was mostly a miss for me. Sounds like the show's facade is beginning to crack.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
IRQ posted:But it's all moot, no more states will ever been admitted to the union because PR is full of browns and DC is extremely liberal when it comes to most relevant issues. The republicans would never allow the balance of power in the senate to shift like that. DC statehood is basically a lock on two left caucusing seats. Well, that's an ignorant and overly simplistic way to view the issue. Puerto Ricans have to desire statehood before it can be turned down, and making uneducated guesses as to how Washington would react to such a request is merely an exercise in knocking down strawmen.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
Shadow posted:Support our troops!!!!!!!! Unless they get hurt. Or get hosed in the head from ptsd. Or are homeless. Vets get tons of benefits in addition to the benefit we all share of living in a safe, free and (mostly) civilized country. I feel for our vets, and support caring for injuries and conditions resulting from their service, but spending four years playing Foosball on the USS Dick Wave doesn't entitle you to cradle-to-grave care. At some point, every man has to take responsibility for his own goddamn life.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:Putting yourself in harm's way for the military is not nearly as lucrative as idiots like you seem to think, as well. No one said it was lucrative, but the benefits are very generous considering both historic precedent and equivalent private sector jobs.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:I don't even support the military and I know our veterans get a raw deal. I think before you call something "a raw deal" you should at least define what an adequate deal would be, because right now its just "they don't have this" or "this isn't as efficient as it could be" which isn't the same. As for what I said, at no point in history were soldiers (et, al) given a better deal than they are today, mainly because it is an all volunteer army and benefits need to be high in order to attract and retain talent. Veteran benefit and aid organizations are a multi-billion dollar industry in this country. Veteran status is recognized and afforded special treatment by government and employers in every state. Is it perfect? Of course not. But there's no other job in the world where you can put in five to ten years and reap the benefit of that experience for the rest of your life.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:I can think of numerous times of peace. You see, it's possible for our leaders to avoid starting poo poo across the globe and keep what's called a military reserve. I would really like to see this in my lifetime, but as long as our leaders are loving idiots, I support programs to slightly unfuck the lives the military-industrial complex destroys. So basically what you're saying is that you would 1) end war, or 2) throw money at broken programs and hope they miraculous fix themselves.  No wonder no one takes you seriously.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:Pretty much the whole show is "This isn't a controversial opinion" why aren't we doing anything about it. Two reasons: 1) the opinions actually are controversial despite Oliver's framing of the issue 2) even when there is majority support for a solution, there is still debate over which solution is the best one. For example, everybody agrees social security is a unsustainable mess. Few people, however, agree on what should be done to fix it (privatize it, raise the age limit, tax durrrr rich, etc, etc). Another example, and one closer to your goony hearts, everybody likes pizza, but few can agree on what the best kind of pizza is.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Its funny how an innocuous statement like "reasonable people can have a difference of opinion" triggers such an unreasonable, knee-jerk reaction in people.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
We're proud of our kids. Sorry your country sucks.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 10:47
|
|
|
I'd kill for high school football. My local NBC affiliate airs high school Quiz Bowl.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
IRQ posted:Everyone knows they're getting degrees, if they get them, that are worth less than nothing. So what does that say about the people who are actually paying for them?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
override367 posted:If you get a communications degree, the value in it lies with the people you meet and the effort you put into internships and the like. A college athlete is going to be so disengaged from the process they'll only generally get the barest minimum of benefit from having a degree. This means department manager at wal-mart or something. I think you're vastly underestimating the number of doors having something like "Penn State: Nittany Lions 2011-13" will get you through in the right communities, especially when you're talking about entry level positions where there's no difference in experience between the nerds who hung around on campus 24/7 and the football players they're jealous of.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 13:18
|
|
|
Or maybe people who work for a living have a sense of personal responsibility and, as a consequence, don't feel bad for people who break the law. As the saying goes: Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
hemophilia posted:The schemes the courts and predatory loans have to keep you in a hosed up cycle are so loving expensive that the money you save not getting hbo or something frivolous like that is nowhere near enough to escape. HBO is around $15 a month, cable is probably around another $60, for a total of $75 a month, or $900 a year. If, instead of frivolously wasting that money on luxuries you can't afford, you placed it in an investment account earning 7% interest, you would have around $90,000 in 30 years. Escaping isn't about coming into a sudden windfall or getting that dream job, its about working hard and saving what you earn so that you have money when you need it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 13:05
|
|
|
hemophilia posted:the cable I get is a neat perk that comes with the cost of my phone and internet, and those aren't optional in the untied states in 2015. Looking at the people in that segment, it looks like even cutting my costs to subsistence/homelessness wouldn't help much either. Internet is entirely optional. If you desperately need to get online, you can go to a library/school. As for your phone, buy minutes and only use it for business/important matters. The point is, if you're spending all your money on luxuries to the point where you can't afford to pay a speeding ticket, you're not poor, you're just bad with money.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 03:14 |
|
|
JT Jag posted:This is a pretty weak troll even compared to your usual offerings Joe Yeah, I know. Realtalk: Hemophilia, you are not a pathetic loser. Rather, you are a victim of circumstances. You're poor not because you waste money on frivolous entertainments, but because "the man" is keeping you down. The police are out to get you. Politicians are out to get you. Corporations are out to get you. Don't hold any hope that your life will get better. Working hard, saving your money and taking responsibility for your life and actions as ways to get ahead are ideas the rich use to keep the poor placated. Its not worth trying to escape poverty. Just take whatever resentment you have towards the system that wronged you and drown it out with petty consumerism. You will never be more than a worthless thrall of the system, but at least you can watch HBO.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 19:02
|
|