The Daily Show Targets "Player Haters"

[fitbabits]

Eurogamer (http://www.eurogamer.net) is reporting that the best show on the telly, The Daily Show, last night ripped into politicians who are trying to force through anti-gaming legislation.

You can read the full article here (http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=65666).

Ace satirical news programme The Daily Show has a new target, it seems - the US politicians who are out to take on videogames with violent content.

Last night's episode included a segment titled 'Player Haters', during which host Jon Stewart criticised Nebraska representative Lee Terry for expressing concern about the games his three young sons play.

Mimicking Terry, Stewart said: "And as I stand there, watching them play these violent games, helpless to do anything about it... I can't help but wonder where the system has failed."

Stewart also targeted representative Joe Pitts, who opened a recent Congressional hearing on videogames by suggesting that well-off suburban teenagers "can play Grand Theft Auto or similar games without turning to a life of crime - but a poor kid, who lives in a neighbourhood where people really do steal cars or deal drugs, might not be so fortunate."

That's right, said Stewart: "Wealthy kids don't do those things. Like my good friends those Columbine boys... Seriously, the House of Representatives is filled with insane jackasses."
Awesome, absolutely awesome. You can also view the segment here (http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/index.jhtml) (click on the Player Haters link).

[Abash Alarmist]

Stewart/Colbert 2008!

[fitbabits]

Stewart/Colbert 2008!
Dude, how amazing would that be? :D

[Heretic Machine]

Ya, I watched it. Stewart was dead-on, as per the usual.

[GrinR]

I gave up on Jon Stewart after the '04 elections. He's like a bitter broken record now, roughly the same as Real Time with Bill Maher.

Now Colbert? PURE. FUCKING. GENIUS.

[jeffbax]

Dude, how amazing would that be? :D
Yeah, we might actually stop pissing our country away.

Shame that it takes two comedians to show how misdirected our nation is currently going.

[GrinR]

Yeah, we might actually stop pissing our country away.

Shame that it takes two comedians to show how misdirected our nation is currently going.

LOL @ people who think fake news is real

[Darkbase]

A congressman can't understand Civ 4? Isn't that like, a sign?

[Khash]

LOL @ people who think fake news is real
Sometimes it seems more real then the actual media.

[The Continental]

I gave up on Jon Stewart after the '04 elections. He's like a bitter broken record now, roughly the same as Real Time with Bill Maher.

Now Colbert? PURE. FUCKING. GENIUS.

While I'm an avid fan of both TDS and The Report, I do have to agree that Colbert curently holds the crown. The total skewering of politicians and hot button issues under the guise of a Bush apologist just works too damn well.

That and Colbert's interviews > all (http://gorillamask.net/colbert10c.shtml).

[GrinR]

Sometimes it seems more real then the actual media.

Funny the Daily Show is, but real at all it is not.

What's weird about Colbert (for me, at least) is that although he's obviously making fun of the right-wing viewpoint, I basically agree with 90% of what he's saying - no joke. That he can make me laugh at MYSELF... now that is genius.

[GrinR]

While I'm an avid fan of both TDS and The Report, I do have to agree that Colbert curently holds the crown. The total skewering of politicians and hot button issues under the guise of a Bush apologist just works too damn well.

That and Colbert's interviews > all (http://gorillamask.net/colbert10c.shtml).

"Bush apologist"

That just made me think a lot about framing topics. I would have said "right wing conservative"...

What's to apologize for?

[Roc Ingersol]

Mimicking Terry, Stewart said: "And as I stand there, watching them play these violent games, helpless to do anything about it... I can't help but wonder where the system has failed."
That perfectly sums it up.

[Heretic Machine]

A congressman can't understand Civ 4? Isn't that like, a sign?

Fucking pwned... :cool:

EDIT: And GrinR seems to of missed the point of both The Daily Show and Colbert...

[Khash]

"Bush apologist"

That just made me think a lot about framing topics. I would have said "right wing conservative"...

What's to apologize for?
Do you have any idea what you've just done? :eek:

[GrinR]

Do you have any idea what you've just done? :eek:

Yes. Basically, I just dynamited the tracks on this thread. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[Bone]

"Bush apologist"

That just made me think a lot about framing topics. I would have said "right wing conservative"...

What's to apologize for?
Without inflaming the topic.. I would say the difference is a true Bush apologist is one who ignores all facts and willfully bends reality to make it seem like Bush is in the right on every single issue.

Or maybe you're saying that's the definition of a "right wing conservative"?

[fitbabits]

Yes. Basically, I just dynamited the tracks on this thread. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Please, noooooooooooooooooooooo! Don't destroy the thread.

[Khash]

Politics on the internet! Run for your lives!

[fitbabits]

Politics on the internet! Run for your lives!
That's SO not the point, numpty.

[GrinR]

http://img418.imageshack.us/img418/9974/ohnoyoudidnt8zg.gif

[Busted_Astromech]

I'd agree that Jon Stewart becomes predictable. After watching him for a few years it's not hard for me to anticipate his reactions to "insane jackass[ery]." It's still worth watching, but right now Stephen is more entertaining--especially when he screws up. Or when he goes into a geeky/cheesy moment--overexaggerated screams or bringing out his Tek Jansen book. Or, and most especially, when he interviews a congressman. And after his White House Correspondants Dinner, he proved he has, in the words of one commentor, "balls the size of Alpha Centauri."

And who couldn't love him as a voice actor (Phil Ken Sebben on Harvey Birdman especially)?

[devicelimit]

Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9A2p0dzmSn8) for the full show.

[Ravenlock]

Jon Stewart has been my television hero ever since he singlehandedly got Crossfire tossed off the air. That was the single most impressive example of a TV personality using their power for good that I'd seen in years.

Even if his jokes have become something of a one-trick pony, I'll still watch him out of respect. His interviews, when they're good, are better than any other show I can think of. When he had Rick Santorum on, I was expecting a monkeyshit fight, but honestly it was a good discussion.

GrinR... you do know you're not SUPPOSED to agree with the stuff Colbert says, right? I mean, you sound like you know. But you said you do it anyway. :confused: ;)

EDIT: Colbert at the White House dinner was GENIUS, though. I absolutely loved how the pro-Bush people in the media tried to nonchalantly pass it off as "not funny" and "off-target". Right, guys. Sure. Just gave us more to laugh at, is all.

Definitely giant, iron balls. :D

[niakori]

Loverly funny watch, I have Comedy Central but it's placed a bit too close to Mtv2 and vh1 for my likes. I mean, what if I mistakenly turn to one of those channels? Hell, that's what. :p

[Citizen Philip]

I like both Jon and Steve. I don't believe the Report would have been possible, save the Daily Show: Jon raised the flag about issues, since the media has not and Steve moved the flag to the top of the mountain.

Good for both of them.

[GrinR]

GrinR... you do know you're not SUPPOSED to agree with the stuff Colbert says, right? I mean, you sound like you know. But you said you do it anyway. :confused: ;)

No, I know! That's part of why it's so brilliant. He basically says exactly what I would say - especially in the interviews - only he's kidding and I'm not. I laugh because he actually knows how this side of things think, as opposed to Stewart's laborious "confusion" about how we think. Colbert is a genius because he can make fun of me and I can laugh about it at the same time I'm agreeing with it.

Take gas-guzzling vehicles, for instance. He'll say we have a god-given right to drive freakin' TANKS down the street as cheap as possible and at the same time I'm laughing at how ridiculous that extreme is, I certainly agree with the core of it - give me bigger, more, greater, etc. as much as possible.

This picture sums it up (god bless America!!!):

http://www.supload.com/012005/cheeseburger.jpg

[Captain Awesome]

LOL @ people who think fake news is real

Except that they take real news and mock it. How does that make it "fake"? Because they throw in jabs at how stupid politicians are? Majority of the time TDS show segments that even our mainstream media doesnt show.

Because Stewart makes a good crack, doesnt mean what they're showing or talking about invalid or "fake". I love their "Slow News Day" segment.

[Ravenlock]

No, I know! That's part of why it's so brilliant. He basically says exactly what I would say - especially in the interviews - only he's kidding and I'm not. I laugh because he actually knows how this side of things think, as opposed to Stewart's laborious "confusion" about how we think. Colbert is a genius because he can make fun of me and I can laugh about it at the same time I'm agreeing with it.

Take gas-guzzling vehicles, for instance. He'll say we have a god-given right to drive freakin' TANKS down the street as cheap as possible and at the same time I'm laughing at how ridiculous that extreme is, I certainly agree with the core of it - give me bigger, more, greater, etc. as much as possible.

But.... but that's wrong. :p

I think I must be a Jon Stewart - I'm stuck in "confused". I'm glad we can both laugh at Colbert together, though. ;)

[CannibalKid]

Too bad the Daily Show's demographic has the worst voter turnout.

[Captain Awesome]

Colbert at the White House dinner was GENIUS, though. I absolutely loved how the pro-Bush people in the media tried to nonchalantly pass it off as "not funny" and "off-target".

Genius was an understatement. I loved how they tried to say that a comedian was wrongly smearing our 'great' President. I wish they took issues like this seriously when someone of their own camp fucks up.

If its not gays, its comedians!

[Ravenlock]

Too bad the Daily Show's demographic has the worst voter turnout.

I think Jon Stewart honestly wants to be one of the people to help change that.

I don't know if it'll WORK, but I don't doubt it's one of his goals.

[Captain Awesome]

Too bad the Daily Show's demographic has the worst voter turnout.

Why is that too bad? Maybe candidates should work harder than slinging bullshit to produce more voting?

When people don't vote, its the politicians failing, not the public.

[Zanzibar]

Too bad the Daily Show's demographic has the worst voter turnout.
I know. That was goddamned painful.

Doesn't hurt that the Republicans know when to bring out the Gay issues: around election time, to rile up the GOP faithful.

[Kefkataran]

Take gas-guzzling vehicles, for instance. He'll say we have a god-given right to drive freakin' TANKS down the street as cheap as possible and at the same time I'm laughing at how ridiculous that extreme is, I certainly agree with the core of it - give me bigger, more, greater, etc. as much as possible.

I, but, wha... uh... I guess this makes me a John Stewart. Oh well, I dig Stewart.

[Captain Awesome]

That perfectly sums it up.

I admired the Republican stereotyping "poor kids" and glazing over the "rich kids". Last time I checked most of the school shooting were by suburban kids?

Unless they we're "poor" suburban kids, which we then need to STOP! ;)

[GrinR]

Except that they take real news and mock it. How does that make it "fake"? Because they throw in jabs at how stupid politicians are? Majority of the time TDS show segments that even our mainstream media doesnt show.

Because Stewart makes a good crack, doesnt mean what they're showing or talking about invalid or "fake". I love their "Slow News Day" segment.

The whole conceit of the Daily Show is that it's FAKE NEWS. Stewart says so over and over again. The reason I stopped watching was because he now uses that as an excuse to produce what is essentially liberal propaganda. It's funny, if you're already on the same page as him. It didn't use to be like that, pre '04 election. He was really, really hurt by that election, personally, and it was never the same again.

To mistake TDS's "fake news" for real news is to accept that newsclips, edited with the goal of maximizing the (already liberal) viewpoint to get a laugh, are representative of the truth. They are no more so than the "interviews" on Bill O'Reilly's show.

[GrinR]

I think Jon Stewart honestly wants to be one of the people to help change that.

I don't know if it'll WORK, but I don't doubt it's one of his goals.

It won't. It hasn't and it won't. It's pretty evident, though, that he's given up on appealing to anyone but his core constituants (stoned blue-staters) and so has passed the torch to Colbert.

Long live Colbert.

[Ravenlock]

The whole conceit of the Daily Show is that it's FAKE NEWS. Stewart says so over and over again. The reason I stopped watching was because he now uses that as an excuse to produce what is essentially liberal propaganda. It's funny, if you're already on the same page as him. It didn't use to be like that, pre '04 election. He was really, really hurt by that election, personally, and it was never the same again.

To mistake TDS's "fake news" for real news is to accept that newsclips, edited with the goal of maximizing the (already liberal) viewpoint to get a laugh, are representative of the truth. They are no more so than the "interviews" on Bill O'Reilly's show.This I can actually agree with, even though I like the show. It is DEFINITELY highly spun, and he very very rarely lampoons the Left anymore. It's pretty much all making fun of the Right. Granted, there's a lot more to make fun of on the Right at the moment, but he used to be more evenhanded. One of his best jabs EVER was against Clinton during the 2004 election campaign... Clinton introduced Kerry saying "Don't believe what the Republicans tell you - strength and wisdom are NOT opposing values!", after which Stewart cut in with "as opposed to, say, power and personal responsibility." :D

So yeah, it's definitely a slanted show. It's just that almost everything is, and I much prefer watching Stewart's version of slant to, say, FOX's, given the choice. I can get my real news by collating different internet sites. ;)

[Captain Awesome]

The whole conceit of the Daily Show is that it's FAKE NEWS. Stewart says so over and over again. The reason I stopped watching was because he now uses that as an excuse to produce what is essentially liberal propaganda. It's funny, if you're already on the same page as him. It didn't use to be like that, pre '04 election. He was really, really hurt by that election, personally, and it was never the same again.

Yes, and thats not what I was questioning. My remark has to do with your comment making it sound like his comments or views are invalid due to him being on a fake news show. Of course its a fake news show. But what he throws out in humor holds true in basic common sense. In that politicians are idiots who waste our time and money on stupid issues then worrying about "real" ones.

While I know its fake, I actually do watch it for the commentary. I also dont see his show as liberal propaganda considering he rails "everyone" and not just one side. But I think the funnier part is how "insulted" the right gets about this show of his. So they take the usual route of attacking his audience or his style of politics/humor. The reason why the right feel his show is biased is because well at the moment the right are the majority right now and are causing the most problems? Dont you think? Wait until democrats get in the seat, he'll do the same.

Stewart said it best "You guys take it out on me when I follow a cartoon turd that can talk?" I can't believe you compared O' Reilly to what Stewart does. Thats a reeeeeeeaaaaaal stretch my friend.

[Mason]

I think Jon Stewart honestly wants to be one of the people to help change that.

I don't know if it'll WORK, but I don't doubt it's one of his goals.
Stewart and Colbert primarily seek only to be entertaining. They entertain by telling the truth as they see it, but in the end they're going for laughs, not idealism. Now, both guys have pretty strong views, and if you get them off their shows they're more than willing to give anyone an earful, but the shows are there to entertain and it isn't often that they lose sight of that fact.

And as much as I love the shows, the sad truth is that many of the fans would tend to be irony-gorged and convictionless, as is the fate of much of our generation. Laughing at the stupid people who care about things is a lot easier than admitting that our own shiftlessness and arrested adolescence is a major part of the problem.

[GrinR]

Yes, and thats not what I was questioning. My remark has to do with your comment making it sound like his comments or views are invalid due to him being on a fake news show. Of course its a fake news show. But what he throws out in humor holds true in basic common sense. In that politicians are idiots who waste our time and money on stupid issues then worrying about "real" ones.

While I know its fake, I actually do watch it for the commentary. I also dont see his show as liberal propaganda considering he rails "everyone" and not just one side. But I think the funnier part is how "insulted" the right gets about this show of his. So they take the usual route of attacking his audience or his style of politics/humor. The reason why the right feel his show is biased is because well at the moment the right are the majority right now and are causing the most problems? Dont you think? Wait until democrats get in the seat, he'll do the same.

Stewart said it best "You guys take it out on me when I follow a cartoon turd that can talk?" I can't believe you compared O' Reilly to what Stewart does. Thats a reeeeeeeaaaaaal stretch my friend.

What can I say? Every time I watch Daily Show (sometimes my gf watches) I can expect the same shit: Iraq is a quagmire like Vietnam, Bush is an idiot who can't speak, Republicans are bible-thumpers, etc. etc. and I get to watch my gf nod and look at me like I'm supposed to defend myself.

She's not stupid, she just agrees with the premises Stewart (and his audience) goes with - see above. For me, it's boring (and sometimes offensive) to watch him make jokes out of things I actually care about, and it's painful to watch him selectively pick facts, just to make a joke, and present that as news (fake news!) that people like my gf see as truth.

I apologize for the parenthetical abuse... I'm kinda busy at work today.

[dena miscreant]

I can't help but think that both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert hate most Democrats just as much as most Republicans.

I forget where I heard it, but Republicans will tell you they will fuck you over before they do it, but Democrats will lie about it and then fuck you over.

Of course, it goes back and forth, but I think that perfectly sums up the popular political parties in our country if you think about it. Politicians are not out to help the people, they are out to make their lives easier, and often, more profitable.

[Harlan Hoyt]

But GrinR, you have to admit, when Republicans (and not the cuddly, friendly Rockefeller type, but the extreme, Christian kind) control all three branches of government, involved us in a divisive war, and have taken on an electoral strategy of "screw the 49% who disagree," a show like the Daily Show mocking Democrats would kind of be kicking the guys when they're down. You don't get funny satire by mocking people out of power.

Oh, and you have to admit: Stewart absolutly took Bill Bennet apart. That was hilarious.

[Captain Awesome]

I apologize for the parenthetical abuse... I'm kinda busy at work today.

Heh, dont appologize. I enjoy a good debate. I also admire that you didnt go the usual route and write off what anyone has said in such an absolut manner here. Which most political threads turn into...monkeys & poop!

I can understand your view, but I think right now its because Republicans are in the hot seat due to all their choices and mistakes at the moment. They're worrying about all the wrong shit. He's slung great crap at the left too, especially in those special interviews and reports. Give it time, once the lefties get in the seat, Stewart will have just as much ammunition for them :)

[Spigot]

Crud. Everyone beat me to mentioning this awesome segment.

TDS and Colbert Report are about the only shows I refuse to miss an episode of. I'll tape them every night to watch the next day without fail.

I think that viewing either show as a news source is wrong. Both shows, whatever their political bent may be, are essentially skewering the way that mainstream media reports the news. Sure, TDS skews towards the blatant Democratic cheerleading side of things but I've seen Jon take many potshots at how inept the Democrats have been since losing the 2004 election. While there are the occasional interviews with a right winger where Jon slips into a left vs. right mentality, I've been really impressed at the amount of interviews with Republicans or right-wing advocates where he has treated them with respect and intelligence.

I think Jon's biggest thrust of late has been to plead with the politicians to stop treating the general public like they are idiots. Complex ideological debates are reduced to 3 word sound-bites and a variety of talking points and you can tell that it just frustrates the hell out of him. Colbert has an easier time of it since his show is more of a parody of a right-wing talk show and he has that facade to hide behind.

That said, I find myself looking forward to The Reporrrr a lot more than I do TDS these days. I think it's got that extra layer of subversiveness that is just so delicious to someone brought up on years and years of Canadian political satire.

[Captain Awesome]

I forget where I heard it, but Republicans will tell you they will fuck you over before they do it, but Democrats will lie about it and then fuck you over.


Republican: I have a shitty idea!
Democrat: I can make it shittier!

- Lewis Black

[Kefkataran]

GrinR, I know your point here is that Stewart has become bitter, but, honestly, it seems more like you're the bitter one. Just saying.

[chowweekly]

GrinR, maybe you could clear something up for me. I thought generally conservatives were bible-thumpers. Isn't that how they rationalize their anti-gay and pro-life views? No offense, that's just what they taught me in school.

[GrinR]

Republican: I have a shitty idea!
Democrat: I can make it shittier!

- Lewis Black

"Republicans are the party of BAD ideas. Democrats are the party of NO ideas."

- Lewis Black

(another guy I think is wrong, wrong, wrong, but funny as hell anyway)

[Kefkataran]

And as much as I love the shows, the sad truth is that many of the fans would tend to be irony-gorged and convictionless, as is the fate of much of our generation. Laughing at the stupid people who care about things is a lot easier than admitting that our own shiftlessness and arrested adolescence is a major part of the problem.

While I'd agree with this about many of the fans, I don't think it's the case with Colbert or Stewart, as you made clear in the first paragraph. And while entertainment is their first care, I've read interviews where Stewart at least says that he also seeks to make people think and potentially change some things, if nothing as grand as viewers may want or imagine.

GrinR, maybe you could clear something up for me. I thought generally conservatives were bible-thumpers. Isn't that how they rationalize their anti-gay and pro-life views? No offense, that's just what they taught me in school.

Aw, hell, you're going to make him angry.

[GrinR]

GrinR, I know your point here is that Stewart has become bitter, but, honestly, it seems more like you're the bitter one. Just saying.

Oh I'm bitter about losing Stewart. I'll fess up to that instantly. I bought two copies of "America" (that's the book right?) and gave them to friends to get them into TDS. I miss when he was even-handed. I really miss it and it makes me mad when I think about how he threw away a chance to really be a brilliant commentator instead of just another Al Franken. So yes, I'm bitter.

[Kefkataran]

Oh I'm bitter about losing Stewart. I'll fess up to that instantly. I bought two copies of "America" (that's the book right?) and gave them to friends to get them into TDS. I miss when he was even-handed. I really miss it and it makes me mad when I think about how he threw away a chance to really be a brilliant commentator instead of just another Al Franken. So yes, I'm bitter.

Glad that we're clear on that, then.

[Achilles]

The reason why the right feel his show is biased is because well at the moment the right are the majority right now and are causing the most problems? Dont you think? Wait until democrats get in the seat, he'll do the same.Compare an interview of a left-wing guest (like Howard Dean) to an interview of a right-wing guest. Even if the guest has nothing to do with the war, the line of questioning within one or two questions will end up on the war in Iraq and Stewart will proceed to get exceptionally serious. For example the guy who wrote the book about the "party of death". Stewert put the topic on Iraq by branching off an abortion question that actually had something to do with the book.

I used to watch the Daily Show more, but rare is the topic that isn't playing to the left these days, and when the humor gets sucked up by a crusade someone decides to embark on it just becomes an un-funny show which assembles out-of-context clips from the real news that I've already seen that day.

I saw the segment that this article refers to last night, and I did notice that they only cut in clips of Republicans talking with one exception. I guess I’m to believe that no Democrats said anything foolish on the topic. And even though they said a dozen times that they were in San Andreas, the game shown wasn’t actually San Andreas. Which I thought was an odd choice given that they were trying to show how un-savvy the politicians were, then end up using the wrong game.

[Busted_Astromech]

She's not stupid, she just agrees with the premises Stewart (and his audience) goes with - see above. For me, it's boring (and sometimes offensive) to watch him make jokes out of things I actually care about, and it's painful to watch him selectively pick facts, just to make a joke, and present that as news (fake news!) that people like my gf see as truth.
But that's exactly what Colbert does. He's just as left-leaning as Stewart, maybe more so, because his whole character is a repudiation of a right-wing talk show host: whenever his character supports and idea he's undermining it.

You tried to analyze why you liked Colbert but not Stewart and came to the conclusion that your views are heard if mocked. But I don't see any substantive difference between the two styles--they both take the same sides on the same issues, just done through different means.

I'll agree that Stewart has leaned more heavily against Iraq and Bush in the past two years. But the main responsibility is to write 15 minutes of humor 4 days a week. It's much harder to make fun or relatively the relatively moderate proposals the Democrats are pushing these days (certainly nothing beyond the moderate Clinton) than it is to make fun of extremism, which is currently the theme du jour among a lot of Republican congressmen. They make fun of the Democrats being weak as often as the joke can be made; otherwise there isn't nearly as much material as there is by a party and administration which is at the least beyond the traditionally accepted bounds.

For instance, Jon Stewart treats torture as unacceptable on its face. Step back to before 2001 and this is not a left-biased proposition. But today you can see it as a leftist position because he emphatically rejects arguments that it is up for discussion. This is a moderate's position, circa 2000. That's where Jon operates from.

[GrinR]

GrinR, maybe you could clear something up for me. I thought generally conservatives were bible-thumpers. Isn't that how they rationalize their anti-gay and pro-life views? No offense, that's just what they taught me in school.

You just did an anti-Colbert!

(I'll go ahead and take it seriously)

I was also taught that in school. Imagine my surprise when I got into the world that people are rarely so easy to categorize. One of the most influential books I ever read was given to me by a hippie-gone-conservative (and this guy hung out with Ken Kesey when he was young!) to help me understand the "conservative" way. Suicide of the West (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895265990/sr=8-1/qid=1151020094/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-3962054-7040113?%5Fencoding=UTF8) by James Burnham. I'm sure he's a virulent racist and RWM and blah blah all that, but that book laid out one of the most compelling frameworks for designation of one's political affiliation that I've ever seen.

Literally just a checklist of "issues" and where you stand on them, you start to see right away just how difficult it is to define one's personal ideals with larger ideologies, much less the ever-shifting ideals of a political party.

Sure, there's a lot of bible-thumpers in the Republican party. By the same token, there's also a lot of Communists in the Democratic party. I think generalizing is a waste of time if you're looking to actually do anything useful with politics. It's more interesting and productive for me to look at what's actually happening with specific topics/issues and proceed from there.

For instance, right now, I'm 100% focused on the GWOT and so I'm a Republican. If the Dems come up with a plan I think is better, I'll switch.

[Spigot]

I saw the segment that this article refers to last night, and I did notice that they only cut in clips of Republicans talking with one exception. I guess I’m to believe that no Democrats said anything foolish on the topic. And even though they said a dozen times that they were in San Andreas, the game shown wasn’t actually San Andreas. Which I thought was an odd choice given that they were trying to show how un-savvy the politicians were, then end up using the wrong game.
The little bit of tape they played prior to the commercial was from Vice City, but most, if not all of the Samantha Bee footage was from San Andreas.

That said, I think they (the writers) were spot on with that first response from Jon about looking on in horror wondering where the problem lay. If the politicians can't step in and tell their (supposedly) young kids to stop playing that clearly M-rated game, how on earth can mere citizens be expected to control what their kids play? Goverment to the rescue! Legislate that game!

Sigh.

[GrinR]

This is a moderate's position, circa 2000. That's where Jon operates from.

Which stopped being funny around 2004, for me. No biggie. Colbert gives me the laffs I need now.

[Busted_Astromech]

Sure, there's a lot of bible-thumpers in the Republican party. By the same token, there's also a lot of Communists in the Democratic party.
Come on, that's a false equivalency. As a dirty liberal I've yet to find any communists in the left blogosphere. Extremism is far more rampant among the right-wing in this country, who actually have a political party to represent them. The most extreme thing Democrats want is single-payer health care. Not even pacifists have a foothold in the Democratic party.

[CannibalKid]

Why is that too bad? Maybe candidates should work harder than slinging bullshit to produce more voting?

I don't really want to go into the whole candidates, platform, and constituants conversation and about how they're all related, but what I mean with my statement is that it seem obvious that the Daily Show is displaying the absurdity of all this game censorship, and if we can judge by the success of the gag, those watching the Daily Show will understand the absurdity. Yet, the demographic doesn't vote, so no one is combating this absurdity in the arena where it's fought (at the voting booths).

[Nintendo Revolution]

<3 Daily Show

[Achilles]

The little bit of tape they played prior to the commercial was from Vice City, but most, if not all of the Samantha Bee footage was from San Andreas.

That said, I think they (the writers) were spot on with that first response from Jon about looking on in horror wondering where the problem lay. If the politicians can't step in and tell their (supposedly) young kids to stop playing that clearly M-rated game, how on earth can mere citizens be expected to control what their kids play? Goverment to the rescue! Legislate that game!

Sigh.You have a sharper eye for your GTA games than I. I did think it was strange that they'd show a clip from Vice City instead of SA though.

What the politicians don't understand is that the soccer moms won’t even remember that their representatives did this for them when election time comes around, and gamers will be perpetually pissed about it. Hillary’s poll numbers are down these days, I wonder how much of that has to do with her anti-game stance.

[Maskatron]

Sure, there's a lot of bible-thumpers in the Republican party. By the same token, there's also a lot of Communists in the Democratic party.

Yeah GrinR, you were making some sense until you broke out this Coulterism. An equivalent statement to this would be to say there's a lot of white supremacists in the Republican party. Equally ridiculous.

[dorkandproudofit]

The whole conceit of the Daily Show is that it's FAKE NEWS. Stewart says so over and over again. The reason I stopped watching was because he now uses that as an excuse to produce what is essentially liberal propaganda. It's funny, if you're already on the same page as him. It didn't use to be like that, pre '04 election. He was really, really hurt by that election, personally, and it was never the same again.

To mistake TDS's "fake news" for real news is to accept that newsclips, edited with the goal of maximizing the (already liberal) viewpoint to get a laugh, are representative of the truth. They are no more so than the "interviews" on Bill O'Reilly's show.

*as Yoda* A Bush-lover GrinR is! :p

[Cool AN]

I can't help but think that both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert hate most Democrats just as much as most Republicans.

I forget where I heard it, but Republicans will tell you they will fuck you over before they do it, but Democrats will lie about it and then fuck you over.

Of course, it goes back and forth, but I think that perfectly sums up the popular political parties in our country if you think about it. Politicians are not out to help the people, they are out to make their lives easier, and often, more profitable.

Honestly that is the impression I have gotten to. I have seen Stewart take stabs at Democrats many times, but it is getting less frequent since the Republicans are the ones in the news, so of course Stewart and Colbert are gonna comment on what they do.

Edit: Also, it was a brilliant episode.

[GrinR]

Come on, that's a false equivalency. As a dirty liberal I've yet to find any communists in the left blogosphere. Extremism is far more rampant among the right-wing in this country, who actually have a political party to represent them. The most extreme thing Democrats want is single-payer health care. Not even pacifists have a foothold in the Democratic party.

Progressive --> Socialist --> Communist, basically. Just a matter of degrees. Also, let's not forget the American Communist Party is alive and well. Every anti-war protest you ever see in the news is sponsored by International ANSWER and/or NION... HI2U Communists. But that's a different convo.

I have yet to meet a single conservative who thumped a bible, either.

[GrinR]

*as Yoda* A Bush-lover GrinR is! :p

Just the kind that my gf has, thanks.

[Kefkataran]

I have yet to meet a single conservative who thumped a bible, either.

Don't you live in, like, fucking California or something? That's why. Come to the Midwest or the South. You won't be able to breathe without hitting a Bible-thumping conservative. There's MANY more than there are communist left-wingers.

[Spigot]

You have a sharper eye for your GTA games than I. I did think it was strange that they'd show a clip from Vice City instead of SA though.
Yeah. Most of the stuff during the interview was during the big riot scene at the end of SA, along with some random shots of the neighbourhood just down the street from CJ's house. I spent FAR too long in that part of town to have it erased from my brain.

The Vice City footage was easy to spot for the big "Vice Point" location tag in the corner and the fact that it was Tommy standing there in his big blue shirt.

[LogainAblar]

Yeah GrinR, you were making some sense until you broke out this Coulterism. An equivalent statement to this would be to say there's a lot of white supremacists in the Republican party. Equally ridiculous.

You have to understand, the definition of Communism has been slightly altered in order to include a sufficient number of political dissidents. I've done alot of research and have concluded that the following revision to the word Communism should be made:

Communism: A political ideology that seeks to contradict the White House.

With this new piece of information, GrinR's original statement certainly holds true.

[Achilles]

Communists are people who want the government to have control of business and industry. I think I’ve only ever met one (a friend of mine) and I live on the west coast. Though I do my best to avoid those circles (colleges). More common you’ll find socialists, who think the government should impose huge taxes on the rich until the wealth has been much more evenly distributed.

Another common far-left component of the Democratic party are the Green folks, who want to heavily restrict private transportation, oil drilling, timber cutting, etc. and want to blow tons of money on things like monorails. They’re usually vegetarians and they ride bicycles everywhere they go, though if you don’t offer them a ride when you drive to lunch, they’ll give you the evil eye.

[Busted_Astromech]

Progressive --> Socialist --> Communist, basically. Just a matter of degrees. Also, let's not forget the American Communist Party is alive and well. Every anti-war protest you ever see in the news is sponsored by International ANSWER and/or NION... HI2U Communists. But that's a different convo.
I'm not arguing that communism isn't the logical extreme of liberal policy, I'm just arguing that they have no place in American politics, unlike religious fundamentalists. I'm arguing that communist theories are not even present in progressive activist discusions, much less the acceptance certain extremists have been given by the Republicans.

[Kefkataran]

They’re usually vegetarians and they ride bicycles everywhere they go, though if you don’t offer them a ride when you drive to lunch, they’ll give you the evil eye.

Yay generalizations! I think the "All Republicans are Bible-thumpers" is stupid, and so is the "All Democrats are communists" and this. Or even replacing "all" with "most".

[pseudopseudo]

I like how this thread went from "HA! Stewart makes a funny about gaming legislation!" to blue vs. red.

But then again, how many threads actually stay on topic?

[Mr. Crowley]

I find Stewart to be soooo unfunny.

[Drinking_Buddy]

This picture sums it up (god bless America!!!):



You know who hotlinks? Terrorist!

Thats all I have to say.

[GrinR]

Don't you live in, like, fucking California or something? That's why. Come to the Midwest or the South. You won't be able to breathe without hitting a Bible-thumping conservative. There's MANY more than there are communist left-wingers.

Yes, and agreed and it's the same only the other way around here.

[Mason]

Yay generalizations! I think the "All Republicans are Bible-thumpers" is stupid, and so is the "All Democrats are communists" and this. Or even replacing "all" with "most".
Wait, so communists have been crowing about how they've been the deciding factor in American politics for the past 25 years? We have vast networks of communist TV and radio stations? Fuck me, I should get out more.

The Republican party basically wouldn't exist without conservative Christians, they're the fabled "base" that is currently keeping Bush out of the single digits. The few commies I've met hate Democrats as much as anyone, and their political reach is limited by the weak public reception of their poorly-xeroxed handbills.

So no, neither group makes up 100% of either political party (who claimed that?), but it's false to suggest that they're anywhere near proportional, either in size or in impact. Such a notion only exists in the elaborate projection fantasies of conservatives who are in painful denial about the degree to which their party has been co-opted by the religious right.

[bapenguin]

GrinR...i think you should change your user title to "Bush's Sheep"

I kid...I kid.

Anyway..this video was hillarious. It's a shame to think people that actually run this country said some of those things. UGH.

[niakori]

I was very understanding of GrinR until he actually used the term "liberal propaganda". :rolleyes:
Though I have a hard time separating conservatives from nationalists, so I guess I'm way on the other end of that spectrum.
If you can't take when your beliefs are made fun of, then well... there's always Fox. (read into that one)

Pong, yes.

[GrinR]

I was very understanding of GrinR until he actually used the term "liberal propaganda". :rolleyes:

To be fair, I certainly didn't mean that there isn't conservative propaganda. There's plenty of both. I just mean taking information, repackaging it so a specific meaning is conveyed, and broadcasting it as "truth" or "news". It's not. It's propaganda. Fox covers news better than any of the other newschannels, IMO, but only if you mute the channel and don't watch any of the opinion shows. That leaves about 3-4 hours a day of solid news.

[niakori]

News is so boring though, cartoon network is like, 4 channels away and so much more entertaining.

Yeah, I'm still trying my damnest not to grow up. 21 going on 12 :p
/hijack

[askheaves]

Damn, got to the conversation late. I loved this clip and it captured the argument to a tee. Also a little pissy that we only saw Republicans acting like idiots, since there's plenty of invective to go around. This is one TRULY bipartisan point-scoring issue and I'd hate to not see it examined as such.

As to TDS... I catch TDS + Colbert every night, and I always laugh. The "Party of Death" guy mentioned earlier was a perfect example of where I find issue with the show. That was Rammesh Panuru of National Review and he is among the most level headed writers and commentators out there. Because of his difficulties in front of a crowd, a slight hesitation left him absolutely to the wolves of the audience pretty much because he had the audacity to present the pro-life argument. Jon knows he has to play to that audience and he does.

Colbert does the same, obviously in his own way. I'm itching for the days when, after reading so much 'right-wing propaganda' in order to sound like us, it starts sinking in and he has to 'fake' being a 'fake' right-wing nutjob in order to keep his audience. That'll be one hell of a victory.

And, for the record, most right-wingers found his Press Dinner schtick hilarious. It was the room full of journalists who didn't laugh once.

[grammatoncleric]

I can only take watching an entire episode of the Colbert Report here and there. I loved him on Daily Show, but it seems more of a fad than anything else. His bleeding heart conservative character gets on me, because I get sick of that character after a while. I don't get tired of Jon Stewart because that's really him, taking cheap shots at conservatives and occassionally democrats. Sure it's got a liberal bias but it seems like the Colbert Report is nothing but liberal bias masked in their conservative shell. His interviews are unbearable to watch when he interviews anybody from the left (hey, come on this show so I can suck you off all day and let you hit softballs out of the park for the audience). If you think TDS has a liberal bias or is liberal, then I don't know how I'd categorize TCR because it's far harsher IMO. And the fact that TDS is Stewart, as himself, cracking jokes, and TCR is Colbert, playing a character sucking up to the democrats, makes me like TDS a lot more. I enjoy both, definately, but I get a lot more enjoyment out of TDS because Stewarts interviews are infinitely better. You actually get debate and opinion once in a while as opposed to the dual handjobs on TCR.

[Kefkataran]

But then again, how many threads actually stay on topic?

You want threads to stay on topic? What are you, some kind of communist?

I actually think Colbert's interviews are his strongest suit, not because of his craziness but because he gets some REALLY intelligent, interesting guests on, and it's telling seeing how they react to him.

[Achilles]

Yay generalizations! I think the "All Republicans are Bible-thumpers" is stupid, and so is the "All Democrats are communists" and this. Or even replacing "all" with "most".It must have missed you that I was talking about one spesific person. Also I did not say "all". I said "usually". Yay mischaracterizations! I take it I touched a nerve.

[Kefkataran]

It must have missed you that I was talking about one spesific person. Also I did not say "all". I said "usually". Yay mischaracterizations! I take it I touched a nerve.

Nah, just annoyed because that's gone on a lot in this thread (and every thread about politics ever).

[Busted_Astromech]

The "Party of Death" guy mentioned earlier was a perfect example of where I find issue with the show. That was Rammesh Panuru of National Review and he is among the most level headed writers and commentators out there. Because of his difficulties in front of a crowd, a slight hesitation left him absolutely to the wolves of the audience pretty much because he had the audacity to present the pro-life argument. Jon knows he has to play to that audience and he does.
How is Jon Stewart asking pointed questions worse than titling a book "The Party of Death"? That's deliberately inflammatory, not intended to start a discussion (as Mr. Ponnuru tried to present it during the interview), but reinforcement for those who already subscribe to the views (and presumably subscribe to the National Review).

I'm not going to defend the audience, because frankly they annoy me too in their treatment of conservatives. But Ramesh is the guy who wrote the book called "The Party of Death." If you write something like that you should be prepared for any flak that comes your way, because it's well-deserved if nothing else.

[easi]

I liked it. Especially when they spliced in the Zarqawi MURDER VIDEO and said "hmm, I think one of those wasn't a game..".

[EternalGamer]

And as much as I love the shows, the sad truth is that many of the fans would tend to be irony-gorged and convictionless, as is the fate of much of our generation. Laughing at the stupid people who care about things is a lot easier than admitting that our own shiftlessness and arrested adolescence is a major part of the problem.

I think you can blame the South Park guys for both fostering and catering to this perspective a lot more than Colbert or Stewart. The truly ironic thing about Matt and Trey is that they pretend like they have balls of steel, willing to show or offend anybody, but in reality, they are completely lacking in any type of courage to back up a conviction. I see so many younger people mimicking South Parks copped attitude of "everybody and everything is gay" [sic]. It's an incredibly immature attitude and an easy way to seem "above the fray" just by pretending that all sides are wrong on every issue. It's a complete cop out that just allows you to avoid doing really do any type of soul searching.

But on the other hand, we have things like these politicians and their absurdities that discourage us so much from even attempting to act on any beliefs because we wouldn't even know where to start to address this type of inane ignorant pandering. And that's not to mention the world of giant media conglomerations, special interest groups, and corporations, that make us feel like anything we could ever possibly do is like trying to spit into the ocean to change the direction of it's flow.

This whole conversation reminds me of how much "I Love Huckabees" nails this constant cycle of our generation. It's alienation and reconnection. Being pushed away by the seeming inability to act, only to be pulled back into the "human drama" because you can't stand not to act. It is unfortunate, however, that so many people seem stuck in cycle 1. That perplexes me. I have no idea how you can successfully maintain that in world we live in. Despite my attempts at ironic distance, despite how much I enjoy listening to American Family Radio for a laugh during my commute, everytime I see Donald Rumsfeld at a press conference, I can't help but just about scream at the television and I'm ready to start staking claims in the name of Truth (yes, capital "T" Truth) all over again.

[Kefkataran]

Dan, that was the most well-worded post I've read in at least a month. Nominated for post of the year. Seriously, you hit my feelings on shit dead-on. Like seriously. Thank you.

[EternalGamer]

Thanks, but it was really just a re-articulation. As I mentioned in the post, I think "I Heart Huckabees" did a better job of communicating it than I ever could. And it was a hell of a lot funnier in the process. The dinner scene between Mark Walberg's character and the African guy's family was classic.

[Kefkataran]

Oh, I adore I Heart Huckabees, and I agree with you.

[GrinR]

Damn, I thought that movie was a bunch of metaphysical jabber tossed into a blender and served cold.

Now I have to go and watch it again.

Damn it.

[askheaves]

Glad to see there's a fellow Right Wing Conspiracy member, GrinR. :)

If you want some good fun, keep up with http://corner.nationalreview.com

[Kefkataran]

Damn, I thought that movie was a bunch of metaphysical jabber tossed into a blender and served cold.

Now I have to go and watch it again.

Probably not worth it if you're not into philosophy in general and existentialism in particular. Which I'm going to wager a guess you aren't.

[GrinR]

Probably not worth it if you're not into philosophy in general and existentialism in particular. Which I'm going to wager a guess you aren't.

Where the metaphysical meets the road of practicality, you'll find me rapt. Otherwise it's a sport reserved for the effete. In my opinion. Of course.

I loved Magnolia, Happiness, My Dinner with Andre, Solaris, and El Topo. Does that give me enough cred to get by?

[EternalGamer]

Probably not worth it if you're not into philosophy in general and existentialism in particular. Which I'm going to wager a guess you aren't.

It helps if you have background knowledge of European existentialism/nihilism and American Transcendentalism (which are the two philosophies loosely being tossed about--everything is connected and you can make a difference in the world, or everything is shit, there is no connection, the world is chaos so give up your preconceptions). But the film is clever the way it takes these ideas and places them into the practical context of modern life. But the real brilliance of it, I think lies in its resolution (or lack thereof).

[Kelegacy]

I love Stewart and Colbert. Then again, I'm a bleeding heart liberal.

[EternalGamer]

Where the metaphysical meets the road of practicality, you'll find me rapt. Otherwise it's a sport reserved for the effete. In my opinion. Of course.

I loved Magnolia, Happiness, My Dinner with Andre, Solaris, and El Topo. Does that give me enough cred to get by?


I'm surprised to see My Dinner with Andre on your list there, GrinR. I like the film a lot, but it's very. . . new age-y. Some of Andre's stories (while fascinating) are something I would think would be quite outside your loop of interest. But maybe you are more interested in the subtle interplay between the two friends and their positions in life? That's probably what interest me most about it.

I assume that leaving off Richard Linklater (Waking Life, Slackers, Before Sunrise and After Sunset) was intentional? Is that an apt example of "non-grounded" to you? I can definitely sort of see that. It's the reason why I think Slackers is ultimately a better film than Waking Life (though I like both). What interest me most about it isn't even the ideas, it's the atmosphere of the city, the people in it and their situitions. There is a real sense of "place" in Slackers that doesn't exist in Waking Life (though that is of course intentional since it is suppose to be a Dream World). I think his best film, regardless, though is Dazed and Confused. I love that film.

[Kefkataran]

Where the metaphysical meets the road of practicality, you'll find me rapt. Otherwise it's a sport reserved for the effete. In my opinion. Of course.

I loved Magnolia, Happiness, My Dinner with Andre, Solaris, and El Topo. Does that give me enough cred to get by?

Seems like it might be, although whether or not philosophy is practical seems extremely subjective to me. *shrug*

I assume that leaving off Richard Linklater (Waking Life, Slackers, Before Sunrise and After Sunset) was intentional? Is that an apt example of "non-grounded" to you? I can definitely sort of see that. It's the reason why I think Slackers is ultimately a better film than Waking Life (though I like both). What interest me most about it isn't even the ideas, it's the atmosphere of the city, the people in it and their situitions. There is a real sense of "place" in Slackers that doesn't exist in Waking Life (though that is of course intentional since it is suppose to be a Dream World). I think his best film, regardless, though is Dazed and Confused. I love that film.

While I absolutely love Slackers and Dazed and Confused, I actually think Waking Life is my fave Linklater film. I love almost anything Linklater though.

[IagoTheHunted]

Joy! Stewart is the MAN!

[GrinR]

I'm surprised to see My Dinner with Andre on your list there, GrinR. I like the film a lot, but it's very. . . new age-y. Some of Andre's stories (while fascinating) are something I would think would be quite outside your loop of interest. But maybe you are more interested in the subtle interplay between the two friends and their positions in life? That's probably what interest me most about it.

I assume that leaving off Richard Linklater (Waking Life, Slackers, Before Sunrise and After Sunset) was intentional? Is that an apt example of "non-grounded" to you? I can definitely sort of see that. It's the reason why I think Slackers is ultimately a better film than Waking Life (though I like both). What interest me most about it isn't even the ideas, it's the atmosphere of the city, the people in it and their situitions. There is a real sense of "place" in Slackers that doesn't exist in Waking Life (though that is of course intentional since it is suppose to be a Dream World). I think his best film, regardless, though is Dazed and Confused. I love that film.

It's exceptionally difficult to try to explain why (or maybe how) I relate the metaphysical to the pragmatic. Caffiene-free, I'll take a stab at an analogy. A common rock found on any beach is just a rock, but pick it up and give it to someone and it's a unique gift.

My Dinner with Andre is focused on this interplay, even though it's not about it specifically. I make the distinction between plot and meaning for movies like this (and Tampopo, for instance) because they're so disparate. You have a man who's relating tales of the spiritual and a common man absorbing it in a mundane way. The spiritualism is the rock, the passing and understanding of it makes it a gift.

Waking Life, in contrast, offers nothing but the metaphysical. There is no point to it but to allow the metaphysics to just wash over you, I assume with the hope that it's pollen will find something fertile in your mind and grow. I can appreciate the methodology, but non-directed meaning like that I can get from simply living my life; I don't need a movie to offer me epiphany.

You're right that I don't like most of those movies by Linklater (it occurs to me that's an ironic name), and it's because of this perspective.

[Kefkataran]

Waking Life, in contrast, offers nothing but the metaphysical. There is no point to it but to allow the metaphysics to just wash over you, I assume with the hope that it's pollen will find something fertile in your mind and grow. I can appreciate the methodology, but non-directed meaning like that I can get from simply living my life; I don't need a movie to offer me epiphany.

You're right that I don't like most of those movies by Linklater (it occurs to me that's an ironic name), and it's because of this perspective.

I guess this is one of our fundamental differences. The way I look at it is that I can take something purely metaphysical like Linklater offers and CONNECT it to my life. Like, I don't need him to specifically ground everything in reality because I can understand what he's saying, make my own connections, and make it practical. And I can say with complete honesty that Waking Life completely changed my life in completely positive ways.

P.S. I don't really see how Linklater's name is ironic, so I'm going to assume you're misusing the term ironic. I'm an English major. QUIT IT.

[Mason]

I think you can blame the South Park guys for both fostering and catering to this perspective a lot more than Colbert or Stewart. The truly ironic thing about Matt and Trey is that they pretend like they have balls of steel, willing to show or offend anybody, but in reality, they are completely lacking in any type of courage to back up a conviction. I see so many younger people mimicking South Parks copped attitude of "everybody and everything is gay" [sic]. It's an incredibly immature attitude and an easy way to seem "above the fray" just by pretending that all sides are wrong on every issue. It's a complete cop out that just allows you to avoid doing really do any type of soul searching.

But on the other hand, we have things like these politicians and their absurdities that discourage us so much from even attempting to act on any beliefs because we wouldn't even know where to start to address this type of inane ignorant pandering. And that's not to mention the world of giant media conglomerations, special interest groups, and corporations, that make us feel like anything we could ever possibly do is like trying to spit into the ocean to change the direction of it's flow.

This whole conversation reminds me of how much "I Love Huckabees" nails this constant cycle of our generation. It's alienation and reconnection. Being pushed away by the seeming inability to act, only to be pulled back into the "human drama" because you can't stand not to act. It is unfortunate, however, that so many people seem stuck in cycle 1. That perplexes me. I have no idea how you can successfully maintain that in world we live in. Despite my attempts at ironic distance, despite how much I enjoy listening to American Family Radio for a laugh during my commute, everytime I see Donald Rumsfeld at a press conference, I can't help but just about scream at the television and I'm ready to start staking claims in the name of Truth (yes, capital "T" Truth) all over again.
Sorry, didn't keep up with the thread. I'm glad at least someone thought I had a point, heh.

You're right that the symptoms are far more pronounced and annoying among the snickering billions of South Park conservatives/libertarians, but that's someone else's ugly lawn. TDS liberals/centrists are our own weedy patch of soil, and thus of far more concern to me.

There are few things sadder than how successful our vapid press has been at convincing educated, moral people that standing up for justice and reason will only make them look foolish. Guys like Stewart and Colbert do a bang-up job of demonstrating just how corrosive our media environment is to any form of rational discourse, but they're still entertainment shows, and mocking the jesters is as far as they take it (which is fair and understandable, nobody pays them enough to get up on a cross).

Too many people take the wrong message from this. Ironic laughter doesn't change anything for the better. At a certain point you have to develop some firm convictions, which will make you vulnerable. The chattering ninnies could mock the things you hold dear, you could be called a traitor (and then watch the Sunday talk show sages discuss back-and-forth about whether you are a traitor, giving both sides fair consideration), you could see those who share your values publicly eviscerated by lies that nobody bothers to correct, you could watch your whole nation go insane for several years.

These things hurt. But responding by fleeing to irony and entertainment is a complete surrender of the moral and intellectual responsibilities of citizenship and humanity.

[Kefkataran]

Mason, I'm reiterating what I already said to Dan earlier, but your post is dead-on and extremely right. The final paragraph, especially, really sums up the situation with too many people in America right now. Thanks for that.

[GrinR]

I guess this is one of our fundamental differences. The way I look at it is that I can take something purely metaphysical like Linklater offers and CONNECT it to my life. Like, I don't need him to specifically ground everything in reality because I can understand what he's saying, make my own connections, and make it practical. And I can say with complete honesty that Waking Life completely changed my life in completely positive ways.

P.S. I don't really see how Linklater's name is ironic, so I'm going to assume you're misusing the term ironic. I'm an English major. QUIT IT.

(posting in a dead thread... feels weird)

Yeah, it's the philosopher's lust that I had when in college that I grew out of. Sure I can take something metaphysical and link it to my life, but why bother when metaphysics are derived directly FROM my life? It's easier and more efficient to simply pay attention.

Link - later. As in "make the connection later on", which is what I was saying his movies seem to want the viewer to do, since the connection is not explicit.

[Wasson_]

It certainly has a great deal of relevance.

(-what Mason and the man from mississippi stated.)

[Achilles]

Sorry, didn't keep up with the thread. I'm glad at least someone thought I had a point, heh.I may not always agree with you, especially in political threads but I don’t think anyone can say that you don’t have a point.

What bugs me about the Daily Show seems to be the same as what bugs you about South Park. It disillusions the people who watch it instead of inspiring them to take politics and the political process seriously. It turns the issues and the process into joke fodder and entertainment. Basically it makes both parties look so bad that there’s no point in voting for “the lesser of two evils”.

The Republicans are rich racists, the Democrats are confused losers, that’s the Daily Show’s portrayal of them. How does this help drive its audience to vote except for a 3rd party (which are only safe because they’re too minor to be torn apart on the show)? I do wonder how many of the Daily Show’s audience actually went to the polls in 2004 in comparison to the rest of the population that watches news.

[Kefkataran]

Link - later. As in "make the connection later on", which is what I was saying his movies seem to want the viewer to do, since the connection is not explicit.

But that's not irony. But anyways, basically you're saying you don't like movies that force you to do some brainwork. And I'm not suggesting you're stupid at all, cause I know you aren't. I understand your viewpoint on this, I just really disagree. *shrug* At the VERY least I can't see why this makes the movies explicitly bad.

What bugs me about the Daily Show seems to be the same as what bugs you about South Park. It disillusions the people who watch it instead of inspiring them to take politics and the political process seriously. It turns the issues and the process into joke fodder and entertainment. Basically it makes both parties look so bad that there’s no point in voting for “the lesser of two evils”.


That's actually what Mason was saying -- that both South Park and Daily Show can do this, or at least that they share a very similar viewing population.

[GrinR]

basically you're saying you don't like movies that force you to do some brainwork. And I'm not suggesting you're stupid at all, cause I know you aren't. I understand your viewpoint on this, I just really disagree. *shrug* At the VERY least I can't see why this makes the movies explicitly bad.

Well, that's not really accurate. I don't like movies that expect me to find my own message in their communication. It's like if a guy walks up to me and says, "chicken roost skies blues gilded cage of follies"... well, I can certainly make my OWN sense of that, and derive meaning from it, but I am too busy trying to decipher the mystery of my own life's undocumented features to want to actively pursue other people's puzzles.

Movies like Tampopo and El Topo certainly require brainwork, but their meanings are actually in the medium first and my brain second, rather than solely in my brain, period.

Also, I never said they were bad movies - I said they weren't for me and I felt that they were metaphysical jibber-jabber served cold (as in without a chef to make them into a meal).

[OrangePulp]

I may not always agree with you, especially in political threads but I don’t think anyone can say that you don’t have a point.

What bugs me about the Daily Show seems to be the same as what bugs you about South Park. It disillusions the people who watch it instead of inspiring them to take politics and the political process seriously. It turns the issues and the process into joke fodder and entertainment. Basically it makes both parties look so bad that there’s no point in voting for “the lesser of two evils”.

The Republicans are rich racists, the Democrats are confused losers, that’s the Daily Show’s portrayal of them. How does this help drive its audience to vote except for a 3rd party (which are only safe because they’re too minor to be torn apart on the show)? I do wonder how many of the Daily Show’s audience actually went to the polls in 2004 in comparison to the rest of the population that watches news.

I probably have to agree with you about the amount of people who watch the show that go to the polls, but I don't think that it's really the show's fault. Rather, thats a demographic the show targets. A lot of those people wouldn't vote, whether they watched Daily Show or not.

I, myself, have no problem choosing the lesser of two evils (in this case the Democrats). My only regret is that I (because of age) never got a chance to vote against that fucker, Bush. Really, it's not that I vote for the democrats, but rather against the republicans.

To get back on topic, I do regret that they didn't really take shots at some of the democrats, although it could be the republicans had the more ridiculous comments. On this issue, as has been stated before, people from both sides are being retarded.

[GrinR]

I, myself, have no problem choosing the lesser of two evils (in this case the Democrats). My only regret is that I (because of age) never got a chance to vote against that fucker, Bush. Really, it's not that I vote for the democrats, but rather against the republicans.

To get back on topic, I do regret that they didn't really take shots at some of the democrats, although it could be the republicans had the more ridiculous comments. On this issue, as has been stated before, people from both sides are being retarded.

How interesting. You're my political opposite.

[Kefkataran]

I don't like movies that expect me to find my own message in their communication. It's like if a guy walks up to me and says, "chicken roost skies blues gilded cage of follies"... well, I can certainly make my OWN sense of that, and derive meaning from it, but I am too busy trying to decipher the mystery of my own life's undocumented features to want to actively pursue other people's puzzles.

Except that's a bullshit analogy, because as abstract or metaphysical as the core of Waking Life maybe none of it is that nonsensical.


Also, I never said they were bad movies - I said they weren't for me and I felt that they were metaphysical jibber-jabber served cold (as in without a chef to make them into a meal).

I think Richard Linklater's one of the best contemporary directors working right now. Hell of a chef, in my opinion. *shrug*

[GrinR]

Except that's a bullshit analogy, because as abstract or metaphysical as the core of Waking Life maybe none of it is that nonsensical.
I think Richard Linklater's one of the best contemporary directors working right now. Hell of a chef, in my opinion. *shrug*

It's an old thread and I guess I'll take my "bullshit" elsewhere.

[Kefkataran]

It's an old thread and I guess I'll take my "bullshit" elsewhere.

Didn't mean that as an insult, I just think that analogy didn't even come close to working and was meant to make the movie sound more nonsensical that it is.

[Busted_Astromech]

What bugs me about the Daily Show seems to be the same as what bugs you about South Park. It disillusions the people who watch it instead of inspiring them to take politics and the political process seriously. It turns the issues and the process into joke fodder and entertainment. Basically it makes both parties look so bad that there’s no point in voting for “the lesser of two evils”.
Topically that issue was raised today by Richard Morin (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/22/AR2006062201474.html), who decried the negative influence Jon Stewart had on young people by turning them off voting.

But he's wrong. As Matt Stoller (a lefty blogger but writing in a nonpartisan fashion here) shows in two articles (1, (http://mydd.com/story/2006/6/23/23251/9250) 2 (http://mydd.com/story/2006/6/24/134039/134)) the problem with this analysis is that it ignores the fact that more young people, those who watch the show, voted than did in 2000.

And of course the Daily Show making people cynical is not something that can be blamed on Jon Stewart, just as the press cannot be blamed for riots that occur when US "indiscretions" are revealed. Just as those who watch the Daily Show have been shown to be more informed than consumers of traditional news, cynicism is not the result of Stewart's humor but the removal of the veil of ignorance. There's damn good reason to be angry at how our government is working, and bemoaning Jon Stewart will change nothing.

Young people are both more cynical and more politically active. Since the latter isn't former isn't negatively influencing the latter, moral pontification directed at the media's critics is but a shifting of the blame from where it lies.

Edited because Spigot is of course right

[Spigot]

the problem with this analysis is that it ignores the fact that young people, those who watch the show, vote more recently than they did in 2000.
Don't you mean, "the fact that more young people, those who watch the show, voted recently than they did in 2000"?

It stands to reason that people did vote more recently than in 2000 since there have been elections since then...

//end grammar check

[blackzc]

I gave up on Jon Stewart after the '04 elections. He's like a bitter broken record now, roughly the same as Real Time with Bill Maher.

Now Colbert? PURE. FUCKING. GENIUS.

He will hit the broken record territory soon enough.


Wait....colbert is the biggest player hater on the planet? :rolleyes: cept for mabye bill maher. That guy is so mad its unhealthy.