Jon Stewart

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,558
17,082
136
yeah, pretty much. I just don't understand the Noah guy.

Jon Oliver is good, but he can be very ...stretchy with some of his pieces.

The issue with Noah and the current version of the daily show is that the jokes are about superficial crap. When Stewart was making jokes he would use the superficial stuff as filler to lighten up a larger, deeper point, whereas Noah uses the superficial stuff as the point of the joke.

Stewart made you think, Noah, not so much. That's why Oliver and bee are good and embody Stewart and the daily show of old.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,391
33,047
136
Ah, gotcha. So when you read this headline, you see it as only a few are racist.
I don't really see it as a few either. There are a large number of racists that support Trump, but again, not every Trump supporter is racist and I wouldn't even claim that most are.



See, I read that very differently. To me, that headline means that Trump voters are mainly driven by racism.
See, that statement right there by you can be taken to mean two different things:
1) All Trump voters are mainly driven by racism
or
2) Trump voters are mainly made of of racists (mainly here taken to mean most, but not all Trump voters)
I think both are inaccurate statements. Again, I do not think it is fair to say that most Trump supporters are racist. However, I think it is very fair to say that Trump would have lost by a huge margin if his racist supporters did not exist.



What about this article, that sure looks to say that its racial issues that drive Trump voters?

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/donald-trump-and-economic-anxiety/496385/
I read that article as dismissing the economic anxiety reason as the bullshit that it is. It posits that the true motivation is that people are worried that there isn't enough to go around for everyone so we need to limit the amount of "others" we allow to chase after the same things we are chasing after. Most of this translates into demonizing "illegals" which I don't think makes someone a racist. I do think it makes them extremely ignorant of the reality of the situation though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,147
1,330
126
While i get what you are getting at with your analogy i think it falls apart because unlike humans, cats all act the same. Only varying in color really. But they all lay around all lazy like and lick themselves etc. They don't have different religions or cultures that define them.

Yup. What I was getting at with the social construct. We're the only animals with these complex social interactions and they lead to all those biases. I'd like to think most of us have enough schooling to understand our species emerged in Africa and we migrated from there. We're one animal and the 'race' labels are what we've socially developed to define the nuances that make up the differences between different examples of our species.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,558
17,082
136
I don't really see it as a few either. There are a large number of racists that support Trump, but again, not every Trump supporter is racist and I wouldn't even claim that most are.



See, that statement right there by you can be taken to mean two different things:
1) All Trump voters are mainly driven by racism
or
2) Trump voters are mainly made of of racists (mainly here taken to mean most, but not all Trump voters)
I think both are inaccurate statements. Again, I do not think it is fair to say that most Trump supporters are racist. However, I think it is very fair to say that Trump would have lost by a huge margin if his racist supporters did not exist.



I read that article as dismissing the economic anxiety reason as the bullshit that it is. It posits that the true motivation is that people are worried that there isn't enough to go around for everyone so we need to limit the amount of "others" we allow to chase after the same things we are chasing after. Most of this translates into demonizing "illegals" which I don't think makes someone a racist. I do think it makes them extremely ignorant of the reality of the situation though.


Exactly. Its why a majority of trump supporters felt immigration was the top priority and Hillary supporters said the top priority was the economy.

Trump supporters aren't all racist, the message of racial anxiety simply resonated with them.
 

rommelrommel

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2002
4,429
3,213
146
What credibility does Stewart have discussing politics? Why is he being interviewed in this context?

He is a comic. He has repeatedly propagated lies during his former late night show and the excuse he typically used was "I am a comic, making jokes". When he takes off his clown nose and acts serious, but repeats the same lies, why do we lend them credibility by giving him a forum to speak in this context?

Evidence of Jon Stewart's new show being full of lies, and quotes from Stewart admitting no journalistic standards and comedy overriding truth.
Fact checking Jon Stewart, result is all lies

Can you just tell us what returning bantard you are now and save us the guessing game?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sheik Yerbouti

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
I don't really see it as a few either. There are a large number of racists that support Trump, but again, not every Trump supporter is racist and I wouldn't even claim that most are.



See, that statement right there by you can be taken to mean two different things:
1) All Trump voters are mainly driven by racism
or
2) Trump voters are mainly made of of racists (mainly here taken to mean most, but not all Trump voters)
I think both are inaccurate statements. Again, I do not think it is fair to say that most Trump supporters are racist. However, I think it is very fair to say that Trump would have lost by a huge margin if his racist supporters did not exist.



I read that article as dismissing the economic anxiety reason as the bullshit that it is. It posits that the true motivation is that people are worried that there isn't enough to go around for everyone so we need to limit the amount of "others" we allow to chase after the same things we are chasing after. Most of this translates into demonizing "illegals" which I don't think makes someone a racist. I do think it makes them extremely ignorant of the reality of the situation though.

Then I think that makes you very unique. Most people that I see disagreeing with the wall make a racism argument. For your position, you seem to be saying that its demonizing illegals, and not Latinos. I think I agree with you there. I think a lot of people like to hate on illegals as damaging the economy when that could not be further from the truth.

That said, you will find that most here will make a different argument. They will say that the Right uses illegals as a code word. So when Trump was talking about Mexico not sending over their best illegals, what he was really saying was that all Mexicans are rapists ect.
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,839
8,430
136
Exactly. Its why a majority of trump supporters felt immigration was the top priority and Hillary supporters said the top priority was the economy.

Trump supporters aren't all racist, the message of racial anxiety simply resonated with them.

I think back and try to envisage every one of Trump's rallies that I came across and reflect on who those folks were, in aggregate, that I saw in the crowds. It seems to me what I saw sent a very strong and obvious message to myself and all who viewed those rallies. Coupling those scenes that repeated itself over and over again at every rally Trump held with a map of the states that voted for Trump, pretty much presents itself as an accurate graphical image of what demographic and the issues they were most concerned about that put Trump in the win column.

That being said, I'd say your comment is spot on. Although I think it rather dishonest that in nearly all of the interviews of folks that voted for Trump that I viewed, it was never mentioned that nativism and nostalgia was a reason they voted for Trump, when it was those very things that he was stressing in his rants and ravings.

IMO, those two factors played a much more significant role in Trump's victory, and it seems like those two factors are being ignored because it's not PC? Or it's something that folks should be ashamed of and prefer not to acknowledge as major factors in their voting for Trump?

On topic - Jon Stewart is a gold standard as far as I'm concerned. Not knocking Noah in any way, as he is quite talented and I do watch him occasionally, but let's be honest here, I feel some sympathy for anyone who had to replace him.
 
Last edited:

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,243
86
Oh, you're one of those social construct people. So tell us, why are the majority of athletes in the NFL and NBA black? Give me a break. There are inherent genetic chemical differences in us that are DNA-based, not environment. Hundreds of studies have confirmed this but I'm guessing you are one of those who think everyone is equal at math (studies show males especially Asian and white vs other races and females pick it up easier after puberty) and everyone is physically the same (AA's have been scientifically shown to have higher Test levels and different bone structure which give them an elite physical advantage). I happen to think these differences are what makes America awesome but fear of others unlike our own is inherent in us on a subconscious level (also proven by science). Which is partly why diversity and social cohesion have an inverse relationship and people voluntarily self-segregate. That's why I respect JS bucking the libtard trend of saying everyone is equal and America is so great right now! It's not and racial tensions are not very good right now.

There's some physical difference in humans as result of adaption over long period to the very wide range of climates/environments. It's likely as a result of the slave trade the physically weaker ones were filtered out one way or another.

Worth noting the people whose authority you're trying to appeal to here would laugh at your extrapolations. Also worth noting when people say some racist shit here, the conservatives know to keep quiet.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,391
33,047
136
Then I think that makes you very unique. Most people that I see disagreeing with the wall make a racism argument. For your position, you seem to be saying that its demonizing illegals, and not Latinos. I think I agree with you there. I think a lot of people like to hate on illegals as damaging the economy when that could not be further from the truth.

That said, you will find that most here will make a different argument. They will say that the Right uses illegals as a code word. So when Trump was talking about Mexico not sending over their best illegals, what he was really saying was that all Mexicans are rapists ect.
I am unique, thanks for noticing. I am a flaming liberal but it has never been a team sport for me. I break from Democrats/liberals when their policies don't make sense or don't make sense in the current climate. I am the first one to praise the GOP when they do something right, like I did when they were the first to abandon SOPA/PIPA. It just seems like I'm a rabid partisan because that is literally the only example of the GOP getting something right in the last 36 years that I can think of. On top of that, they only abandoned it because it was politically unpopular and have continued to push the same agenda in other ways.

Anyway, back on topic. Again, when someone says the right uses illegals as a code word, many do, but that doesn't mean we are saying they all do. In addition to that, many more are subconsciously racist when they assume every Latin American they run across is an illegal.

As for Trump's words, I believe we've been over this on the forum a few times. The only way to interpret his announcement speech is that he has never met an illegal that is a good person. If he had, he wouldn't have to assume some are good people, he would know some are good people. Now, do I think he has never met an illegal that he considers a good person? I don't know. I think he most likely has met some, in which case that qualifier was deliberately added to not piss off hardcore racists. I mean, why else would he have to temper a simple statement like "some of them are good people"? I think all but the most hardcore racists could agree with that statement. I also think it is possible, but not likely that his entire life exists in such a protected bubble that he has never had contact with any illegal long enough to get to know them. I say unlikely simply because many of his businesses have depended on illegals so not getting to know at least some of them seems preposterous, but this would be the one way that I can see that the statement isn't rooted in racism. The only other possibility that I see is that literally every illegal he has ever gotten to know has been a bad person.

A lot of people like to fixate on the "they're rapists" part, but in a vacuum that statement alone could be taken several ways, including that he just meant the bad ones are rapists. You put the whole speech together though, especially the "I assume" part and you have a speech designed to resonate with both conscious and subconscious racists.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,845
10,148
136
The only way to interpret his announcement speech is that he has never met an illegal that is a good person. If he had, he wouldn't have to assume some are good people, he would know some are good people.

I don't think Trump spends much time in the kitchen of his hotels, or at construction sites.

The basis of what he said is a standard Republican-leaning thought process, where the crimes their population commits are entirely attributed to their illegal presence and if they weren't in the country all that crime would not be happening. It exists in a bubble without stopping to question if that crime rate is any higher than the rest of the population. Granted, rural folks are probably a lot more isolated from violent crime than city folks. They also happen to be a lot more white. Which means the likelihood of running into this thought process is rooted in geographical, class, and racial biases.
 
Last edited:

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
I am unique, thanks for noticing. I am a flaming liberal but it has never been a team sport for me. I break from Democrats/liberals when their policies don't make sense or don't make sense in the current climate. I am the first one to praise the GOP when they do something right, like I did when they were the first to abandon SOPA/PIPA. It just seems like I'm a rabid partisan because that is literally the only example of the GOP getting something right in the last 36 years that I can think of. On top of that, they only abandoned it because it was politically unpopular and have continued to push the same agenda in other ways.

Anyway, back on topic. Again, when someone says the right uses illegals as a code word, many do, but that doesn't mean we are saying they all do. In addition to that, many more are subconsciously racist when they assume every Latin American they run across is an illegal.

As for Trump's words, I believe we've been over this on the forum a few times. The only way to interpret his announcement speech is that he has never met an illegal that is a good person. If he had, he wouldn't have to assume some are good people, he would know some are good people. Now, do I think he has never met an illegal that he considers a good person? I don't know. I think he most likely has met some, in which case that qualifier was deliberately added to not piss off hardcore racists. I mean, why else would he have to temper a simple statement like "some of them are good people"? I think all but the most hardcore racists could agree with that statement. I also think it is possible, but not likely that his entire life exists in such a protected bubble that he has never had contact with any illegal long enough to get to know them. I say unlikely simply because many of his businesses have depended on illegals so not getting to know at least some of them seems preposterous, but this would be the one way that I can see that the statement isn't rooted in racism. The only other possibility that I see is that literally every illegal he has ever gotten to know has been a bad person.

A lot of people like to fixate on the "they're rapists" part, but in a vacuum that statement alone could be taken several ways, including that he just meant the bad ones are rapists. You put the whole speech together though, especially the "I assume" part and you have a speech designed to resonate with both conscious and subconscious racists.

On board with the GOP doing little good. That is what makes this more annoying, is that I am being labeled as a Right wing person because I think the Left is doing dumb shit. If you are not carrying the party line, you must be the opposition.

As for Trump's words, I think its very unlikely he has met many illegals. I personally did, but I lived in a city that was in a poor valley area of CA. Hell, my best friends mom was illegal. Thinking about it, I probably knew more illegals than I did legal Mexicans. Anyway, the fact that you can at least say he was talking about illegals. Most that I saw on here were trying to say he was talking about all Mexicans. Even Spy whom I respect on the Left tried to make the argument that he was talking about all Mexicans. I think trying to make him seem like he was talking about all Mexicans turned a lot of Moderates off because they saw Trump's comments as anti immigration and not anti Mexican.

Being anti immigration has become accepted when it comes to the Right. There are amazing arguments as to why immigration is overall good, but the problem is that the Left tries to make it seem like its only good. We know that poor people commit more crimes, and many that come over are poor. They come to make a better life, but they are poor. So you are going to see more crime, even if the rate is flat or lowers. We know that legal immigrants commit crime at much lower rates than the national average, but illegal measurements are not really known. Texas has done some small studies, but nothing large enough to use as quality. Those did show a slight increase as its rate though. But, instead of talking about how Trump got to his idea, he was just called a Racist. No real discussion about data or anything else, just racist racist racist. When people so quickly go to extremes it turns moderates off. I think had people tried to push back on his preconceptions with data, it would have gone a lot better. Opinion, but I feel like its reasonable.

I don't think Trump is smart enough to design a speech in the way you think he did. He rambles and says a lot of nothing most of the time, which is great for politics. He was hard to pin down, because he always spoke vaguely when possible. Its very common for people to say some even when they talk about the majority. I catch myself doing similar things, such as saying "I'm not a fan of" to say I don't like something. Not being a fan is very different from not liking something, but I picked up the habit in CA. I have noticed that many others do the same, where they use words and phrases in a socially acceptable way, but leaves room to be misunderstood. What I think Trump is good at is using those words and or terms in almost everything he says. That gives him an out any time he comes close to a point.

Back to my point though. The left is far to quick to label people racists, sexist, homophobic ect for small things. Those terms are not analogue to most people and slamming them with those terms makes them ignore those accusations. This is where the anti-sjw crowed comes from. If you look at the Bill Maher clip, you can see the woman jump on Maher when he says that, just because you are white does not mean your issues are not real. She counters with, so what, we need to cater to white males more... you know, for a white person, equality feels like oppression. It instantly dismisses any issue as white people getting upset for equality. We live in the US, so most of our issues are small relative to many other places. That said, telling people their issues dont matter, or that they are not issues just them being racist is going to turn a lot of people off in this country, considering white people make up the largest single race.
 

nathanddrews

Graphics Cards, CPU Moderator
Aug 9, 2016
965
534
136
www.youtube.com
Personally, I'm growing tired of satire. The satirical drivel we hear day in and day out has got to be the primary contributing factor to the overly dramatic, sarcastic, and often sardonic tone that people have toward politics, politicians, and voters/supporters. Now with all of the imitators competing for clicks in the satire space, we see the proliferation of near-libelous sites/facebook pages that only further damage the ability to carry on with serious dialog. The thing about satire is that it is supposed to be a delivery vehicle for deeper thinking, but the vast majority of people only take away the jokes, then parrot those jokes to those around them which only serves to further mock opposing views. Whatever serious topic the joke was about loses its value and is replaced by meaningless noise.

I used to watch Politically Incorrect long ago and generally prefered it to Daily Show, but typically ended up watching Daily Show far more often due to its proximity to South Park. To hear JS speak about monoliths when he himself made a career out of endorsing monolithic mentalities for and against certain people and ideas is the very definition of hypocrisy. I appreciate the serious tone of the interview and agree with him on many points, but I find it predictable that many leftists spent ridiculous amounts of energy attacking Trump et al. for soundbites and generalizations only to become like saints as soon as they lost the election. Maybe, for once, they actually feel guilty for going too far and being so wrong? Or perhaps it's just the new strategy to be seen as the "kind, gentle, and understanding" alternative to "big, mean Trump"? Who knows.

America IS exceptional as a beacon, but not a beacon of multiculturalism or dividing people up on color/wealth/sex, but of one single culture from many individuals pursuing liberty above all else. E Pluribus Unum, baby.
 
Feb 16, 2005
14,080
5,453
136
Personally, I'm growing tired of satire. The satirical drivel we hear day in and day out has got to be the primary contributing factor to the overly dramatic, sarcastic, and often sardonic tone that people have toward politics, politicians, and voters/supporters. Now with all of the imitators competing for clicks in the satire space, we see the proliferation of near-libelous sites/facebook pages that only further damage the ability to carry on with serious dialog. The thing about satire is that it is supposed to be a delivery vehicle for deeper thinking, but the vast majority of people only take away the jokes, then parrot those jokes to those around them which only serves to further mock opposing views. Whatever serious topic the joke was about loses its value and is replaced by meaningless noise.

I used to watch Politically Incorrect long ago and generally prefered it to Daily Show, but typically ended up watching Daily Show far more often due to its proximity to South Park. To hear JS speak about monoliths when he himself made a career out of endorsing monolithic mentalities for and against certain people and ideas is the very definition of hypocrisy. I appreciate the serious tone of the interview and agree with him on many points, but I find it predictable that many leftists spent ridiculous amounts of energy attacking Trump et al. for soundbites and generalizations only to become like saints as soon as they lost the election. Maybe, for once, they actually feel guilty for going too far and being so wrong? Or perhaps it's just the new strategy to be seen as the "kind, gentle, and understanding" alternative to "big, mean Trump"? Who knows.

America IS exceptional as a beacon, but not a beacon of multiculturalism or dividing people up on color/wealth/sex, but of one single culture from many individuals pursuing liberty above all else. E Pluribus Unum, baby.
awesome. so don't watch it
satire has been a part of the democratic process as long as there's been a democratic process. I believe it helps keep the powers in check, albeit very minutely.
From Aesop to Horace, to Chaucer to Moliere to Dickens to Twain to Rogers to Brooks to Bruce to Wolfe to Zappa to Carlin to Trudeau to Maher to McFarlane to Stewart to Colbert, etc. I would hate a world without them.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
26,255
15,666
136
Oki, this is what I got :

- doesnt miss the daily show
- moved on to next stage in life
- Jon for president 2020

Right?
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,353
1,862
126
John Stewart may have a bias, but hes never been afraid of pointing out hypocrisy on any side of the fence.

He is of course right. We should not lump Trump supporters into a basket just like how nobody should lump all Muslims or all Jews into a basket.



Daily show is meh now (Sorry Trevor, your stand up comedy is funny, but your not on the same level as Jon)
Colbert is watered down now.
Larry Wilmores show was boring.
Jon Oliver is good.

But Samantha Bee, Full Frontal. I friggin love her. She is vicious, vitriolic, and informative. She is fighting the good fight.
 

nathanddrews

Graphics Cards, CPU Moderator
Aug 9, 2016
965
534
136
www.youtube.com
awesome. so don't watch it
satire has been a part of the democratic process as long as there's been a democratic process. I believe it helps keep the powers in check, albeit very minutely.
From Aesop to Horace, to Chaucer to Moliere to Dickens to Twain to Rogers to Brooks to Bruce to Wolfe to Zappa to Carlin to Trudeau to Maher to McFarlane to Stewart to Colbert, etc. I would hate a world without them.
Not sure you read my post. Just because I'm critical of Stewart and satire, doesn't mean I'm against it without question.
 
Feb 16, 2005
14,080
5,453
136
Well, you should have kept reading. "Growing tired of" and explaining why is different than "I hate it and will never read/listen/watch it again." :cool:
fair enough, but I'd argue that it implies you're no longer interested in watching/reading/hearing it.