|
I was really confused by all the weird apologetic build-up the death penalty segment got, as well as the "Here's a reward, you deserve it" thing. Was it just meant as a joke, or were the writers genuinely worried about overwhelming viewers? Why would this segment overwhelm people more than other topics the show covers?
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:47 |
|
|
I like the pre-recorded video skits on this show. I think that's one place where the weekly format really shines. I was kind of sad that John missed out on Colbert's slot at first, but now I'm glad he took this opportunity.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:Maybe the key is not to entangle "trivial" and "just comedians" with "influential". I think comedy can be strong and impactful in many different ways and comedians can be just as influential as anyone. Black comedians can make insightful and meaningful commentary about racism while not being considered trivial even though they are only operating as comedians and not as politicians. Perhaps if you consider that Stewart and Colbert (and it seems Oliver as well) can be considered influential without needing to be journalists or politicians. When they say they're just comedians it is to properly place them in terms of their responsibilities. A comedian doesn't have any allegiance to the truth, integrity, or even consistency. Patton Oswalt has separate sets where George Bush is alternate a retarded moron and then a genius Bond villain. And nobody really cares when they take the truth or reality and bend it endlessly towards making a better joke. As an audience, we make subjective choices about whether integrity or reality matters in them being good comedians. There's a big difference in subject matter there. Joking about Bush being dumb or an evil genius is obviously meant to be absurdist humor, and both sets come from the same political perspective anyway. John's segment on prison privatization is different because it's a serious issue with serious consequences. If he had taken a stance in favor of prison privatization instead, completely without irony, just because it was easier to think of jokes from that perspective, would people have been okay with that? I wouldn't have. I don't think people want Jon Stewart or John Oliver to change anything about what they do, there's just this annoying trend where professional comedians aggressively deny the idea that their jokes influence people. We get it, your primary goal is to be funny, but if I think your jokes are actively causing harm to society then I will not let it slide just because they're "just jokes." These shows are probably more influential than Rachel Maddow or Anderson Cooper. That doesn't mean they need to follow serious journalism rules, it just means they need to not lead people to dangerously incorrect conclusions.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:Eh, I don't really give a poo poo if they send people down the wrong path. Patton has gone from being sort of aggressively misanthropic and proud of being childless to softening and talking extensively about his kid. And Dennis Miller can go on about the moronic stuff he puts forward and Denis Leary can defend his smoking and then go on the opposite side. And on the other point, John and team just scratched the surface on jokes made about prison rape. Joking in favor of awful positions is sometimes the crux of a comedian's satirical persona, just like Colbert. I don't really care about Patton Oswalt being anti-children or Denis Leary talking about smoking or whatever. Those aren't serious issues. It doesn't bother me that LWT skimmed over prison rape jokes, either. As long as they don't joke in favor of prison rape. By which I mean, unironically. Joking in favor of awful positions when done ironically for the intent of satire is the same thing as arguing against them. Colbert pretends to be conservative but he's clearly advocating for the other side. I don't think they should be held to the same standards as the media, I just think they just need to admit that they are advocating very clear political views and that it is likely influencing their viewers. Jokes are not without consequence, good or bad. Echo Chamber posted:But here's the thing: Nobody here accused John Oliver of causing harm recently. All he did was make that "I'm not a journalist" disclaimer and that triggered some frustration in goons to complain. Well, yeah. It's not really a big deal, it's just sort of annoying.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
Paper Kaiju posted:If you want to believe that something which kills over a million people every year (as well as supports an industry rife with workers' rights violations), or the state of the entire next generation of humanity, are 'serious issues', that's fine; it doesn't mean that everyone else believes that. Everyone already knows smoking is bad. It's a very simple message that no one is confused by. Prison privatization, on the other hand, is a complex and nuanced issue that 99% of the population doesn't even know exists. You can see why one of those topics is more important to scrutinize jokes over, especially when given in the context of a heavily researched report presented as a persuasive argument. It's an asinine comparison. I haven't seen Patton Oswalt's jokes about not having children but I assume it's just jokes about how he has more time to masturbate. He's not reading off statistics about how the world will be overcrowded within 20 years, with tons of homeless orphans and food shortages, and then presenting that information in a persuasive argument on TV.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
Paper Kaiju posted:The Daily Show recently did a piece on the exploitation of child labor in the tobacco industry, a practice that is supported by every person who smokes, whether they realize it or not (and I doubt that very many of them did). And the fact that tobacco companies still manage to rake in billions of dollars annually despite the fact that 'everyone already knows smoking is bad', while more and more laws are being passed pertaining to where people are even allowed to smoke, indicates that this is still an issue that the United States continues to deal with. So please don't assume that the smoking debate is done just because you've formed your stance and you don't hear anyone else talking about it. If comedians engage complex issues like child labor via heavily researched editorial segments, as The Daily Show and Last Week Tonight often do, then those heavily researched editorial segments are going to be more seriously scrutinized than Dennis Leary complaining about sneering soccer moms in a stand up set. That just seems logical. I'm not really sure what your point is.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:I've got a feeling that he's going to regret declaring a Twitter war against President Rafael Correa. @LastWeekTonight has about 270,000 Twitter followers and @iamjohnoliver has about 757,000 but @MashiRafael has two million. I doubt John would regret any kind of pushback from President Rafael Correa because it would only help to promote his show, but the intern they hired to run @LastWeekTonight might.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
tsob posted:How? What definition would make someone literally incapable of racism? I'm honestly curious to see you make that debate and detail what definition you're suggesting. There's a lot of extremely sketchy garbage being posted on this page but I will bite on this one. Racism is not the same thing as prejudice. Racism deals with systemic power structures. When you say that "anyone can be racist" you are denying that these systemic power structures exist. That's why it is literally impossible to be "racist" against white people in America. You can be prejudiced, however. That's a totally different concept.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Luvcow posted:rac·ism Why do you prefer that definition over mine, which btw I did not come up with myself? Do you not believe in the systematic power structures? You seem pretty passionate about defining racism to allow white people to be victims, and I'm not sure where it's coming from. I guess you could just have a weird pedantic streak and massive emotional investment in the legitimacy of dictionary dot com but it feels like something else is going on here.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Luvcow posted:I posted the easily found definition from a quick google search, which is also the way it was defined when i studied and debated it in college and wrote papers on. You? You didn't answer my question about systemic power structures.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Luvcow posted:Please explain Well the most visible example right now would be police violence. But there is also voter suppression, re-segregation (hey, that just aired), harsher criminal penalties for the same crimes, targeted criminal investigation, higher rates of employment for the same exact resume with different names, and the list goes on. Maybe you're more familiar with the concept of white privilege? Take white privilege and consider what happens to the people who don't have it. Racism as a concept is about how our society is specifically structured around white privilege. That's why this definition is better than yours. It acknowledges something that is often left out of the conversation. It's really weird someone posting in this thread could be unfamiliar with this.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Luvcow posted:Ok you disappeared. I'm not trying to be a dick to you but it seems you don't really know what you are talking about. Racism is by no means dependent on systemic power structures and the term "reverse racism" is garbage and speaks to a complete misunderstanding of the concept of racism. You are the one who is saying reverse racism exists.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Strobe posted:Sweeping generalities about power structures are really useful for quietly ignoring that the same thing can absolutely happen with the (admittedly less frequent) black person in a position of power who has prejudice to spare. Holy poo poo Did I walk into the Fox & Friends thread by accident?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Why do you want prejudice and racism to mean the same thing? Why is it bad to have a word that acknowledges systemic power structures? I fee like I'm in some kind of alternate universe where John Oliver is a republican
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
I'm sorry but there is no racism against white people in any English language speaking countries. Also, power structures are ALWAYS inherently linked to it. There is no context where you can't say that!!!!! Ahhhhhhh!!!!! I especially love your bizarre patronizing condescension
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:47 |
|
|
I'm just kind of in awe, is all. Also, I guarantee you, if John Oliver ever addresses this subject he will not take your stance.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 22:06
|
|