Why do you think there are so many great liberal comedians and so few conservative ones? It's not a matter of simply taking things more seriously on the right, underneath the humor and sarcasm, the famous liberal guys make extremely serious points. What is it then?Please allow me to leave you with the best example of liberal humor I've encountered this year on The Daily Show. Jon Stewart is a god! The thirteen seconds from 8:38 to 8:51 did almost kill me, leaving me kicking, convulsing and hypoxic in the fetal position on the floor. That image is on the house -- you're welcome.
Please leave a comment.
Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck. All more entertaining than Jon Stewart.
ReplyDeleteComedians are, in reality, social critics. They use their sense of humor, hyperbole, sarcasm, irony and sardonicism to examine and comment on societal and personal problems. Inside every good comedian's rant is genuine truth.
ReplyDeleteThe reason that there are no conservative comedians to speak of is that conservative politicians already do all of the things listed above--except that they lack a sense of humor and have no idea what the truth is, never mind any intention of owning it.
RedAz, they're funny if you like to laugh at them, not with them.
ReplyDeleteAnd Limbaugh, Coulter and Beck are all hugely less factually accurate than Jon Stewart. Amd they presume to represent themselves as commenting on current events when what they are is propagandists.
But other than that.....they are still nothing alike.
Stewart and Colbert both use the SPF*'s own burnin' stoopit to lampoon them. Rush, Annie, Glennie, Hannity, Savage, Corsi and the rest of the factaversive fools on the reichwing? They just make shit up--not funny shit, just shit.
ReplyDeleteI know there are people who think that those sick fucks are funny; those are the people who cheered when Ron Paul said that people who can't afford healthcare should just die.
*SKKKrotalMurKKKinPatriotiKKK Front.
George Carlin has got to be rolling over in his grave by Democrats trying to connect him to a political party. But it is easy to understand, like Ron White says, "You can't fix stupid."
ReplyDeleteUnlike the group RedAz cited, Carlin tended to be fact based, but even he was not all that much attached to fact if it interfered with his comedy.
ReplyDeleteTo their credit, both Stewart and Colbert are far more rigorously attached to facts than anyone I've seen yet, serious or comedic, on the right. And that goes double for the audience, not just the performers.
I find being that fact averse to be the ultimate 'stupid' that could be fixed, in theory, but never is, in practice.
"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
ReplyDelete- quoted by Rudyard Kipling in From Sea to Shining Sea
"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
ReplyDelete- quoted by Rudyard Kipling in From Sea to Shining Sea
November 27, 2011 5:07 PM
This is not something that Limpboy et al are doing. They simply make shit up. They've been doing it for at least as long as they've had national audiences. Twisting the facts will work for them--if they happen to have any--otherwise they simply lie.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
- quoted by Rudyard Kipling in From Sea to Shining Sea
Excellent observation - I do love Kipling - but so little of what informs our discussions have a factual basis or people who DO research facts. Again sorry but I see this on the right more than on the left.
I won't claim to be perfect, but I do think I've been intellectually honest in using facts on this blog, consistently.
"I do think I've been intellectually honest in using facts on this blog, consistently."
ReplyDeleteActually, what you have is called, 'confirmation bias'.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"I do think I've been intellectually honest in using facts on this blog, consistently."
Actually, what you have is called, 'confirmation bias'.
November 27, 2011 6:28 PM
I don't think so; I look for the facts before forming the opinion. Further, I DO look at those sources which disagree as well as support. Clearly, I don't list every single source I look at here, but try to restrict it to one or two of the better sources that I actually quote.
My understanding of confirmation bias would be if I only looked at sources which agreed with a particular position, and ignored or disregarded anything which disagreed.
That is intellectually dishonest.
But NOT as incredibly intellectually dishonest as having NO facts from which to proceed, but only ideology. Sadly that is too often what I DO see in the blogosphere. And it DOMINATES utterly and completely the right wing media, including the blogosphere.
That Halal turkey story is just one example of what democommie reduces to the common denominator of 'just making shit up'. Democommie, earthy and to the point, if not exactly elegantly eloquent.
How about P. J. O'Rourke?
ReplyDelete"I don't list every single source I look at here, but try to restrict it to one or two of the better sources that I actually quote."
ReplyDeleteYes, that may be true, but it is also true that those sources confirm your bias. Yet, we know that there are erudite, smart and intelligent products of thought out there that contradict your bias and they never get posted by you.
Maybe Ron White's line should be, "You can't fix confirmation bias.: LOL!!!!
"And Limbaugh, Coulter and Beck are all hugely less factually accurate than Jon Stewart."
ReplyDeleteI find them to be just as accurate as Jon Stewart.
Red Az, that's because you wouldn't know fact from propaganda fiction if it bit you on the backside.
ReplyDeleteAnon wrote:
ReplyDeleteYes, that may be true, but it is also true that those sources confirm your bias. Yet, we know that there are erudite, smart and intelligent products of thought out there that contradict your bias and they never get posted by you.
And yet, so seldom do we see anyone else post them here either. If there were so many as you claim, I'd expect to see more of them from the pro-gunners than we do.
But I'm faulted for not being factual enough somehow? How fair does that seem to you as objective criticism?
If it is not clear, I welcome factual arguments from the opposition point of view here. Please! I'd love to see more.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteWe don't fault you for lacking facts. We fault you for being unable to see how the facts bear multiple interpretations. Yours is not the only one, nor is it the only right one. Facts support a process argument, but they don't say much about values.
Grega Camp:
ReplyDelete"Dog Gone,
We don't fault you for lacking facts."
Because you can't.
"We fault you for being unable to see how the facts bear multiple interpretations. Yours is not the only one, nor is it the only right one."
You and your fellow gunzloonz bring no facts to most threads. Anonyliar faults dog gone for confirmation bias and only using those facts that support her position. Well, that's what most folks do. Get off the fucking whaaaaaaaaaaaaaamubulance and find some facts that are contra hers. Go ahead.
"Facts support a process argument, but they don't say much about values."
WTF does that even mean? If all we are talking about is "values", nobody needs any facts (a position with which the reichwing is both familiar and satisfied) just "values". Nothing like saying, "We don't haz no factz, so you can't use yourz!".
November 28, 2011 4:24 AM
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteI've told you time and time again that I'm aware of the facts in question. I know the numbers of firearms deaths and injuries in this country. I know the number of concealed carry licensees who commit murder--at least the VPC's number. I know the estimates of total licensees, gun owners, and guns in this country. What facts specifically do you think that I'm lacking?
The debate really is about what do we value. I value freedom and personal responsibility. Dog Gone values safety. Laci the Dog values authority and control. As for you, you enjoy being enraged.
"I value freedom and personal responsibility.'
ReplyDeleteBullshit. You are afraid to live your life without a gun. You're a coward. You value the gun. What a pathetic little man you are.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteSince you don't know me personally, you have no basis for making that statement. I lived for many years without firearms, and now I live with them. In neither case have I been afraid.
Aztec Red rightly said that, "Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck. All more entertaining than Jon Stewart."
ReplyDeleteI say "rightly" because he's entitled to his opinion.
The BIG difference is they're not trying to be funny, Jon Stewart is.
Greg Camp:
ReplyDeleteI don't need to know a man to read the fear in his rants.
Mikeb:
Of course AztecRed is entitled to be stupid, just as we are entitled to point out his stupidity.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteShow me the fear. Where is it? You've made the claim; now, prove it.
Greg Camp:
ReplyDelete"Democommie,
Show me the fear. Where is it? You've made the claim; now, prove it.
November 29, 2011 4:41 PM"
Your very presence on this blog, repeating the same tired, debunked talking points, time after time--that's fear. You're afraid to leave your house without a gun (although you have no problem leaving without your cellphone). You're afraid that your precious gunz are going to be confiscated--absent a lick of evidence that such a thing has ever even been contemplated at a statewide, never mind national level. You're aftaid. I can smell it from here.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteI call bullshit. Do you claim that I wear a seatbelt because I'm afraid of a car wreck? You're allowing your own predjudices to determine the motivations of someone else.
Also, since when does participating in a discussion imply fear? If I were afraid, why would I engage in an open discussion for the world to read?
Greg, It is fear that motivates people to carry a gun. You've said as much yourself. You want to be prepared "in case you're attacked." Is it too much of a stretch to say that's fear?
ReplyDeleteThe problem comes in when the thing you're preparing for is extremely unlikely to ever happen. And to compound that the measures you undertake to prepare, make all of us less safe, including yourself.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteNo, it's an awareness of what could happen. Again, am I fearful because I wear a seatbelt when I drive?
This claim of yours is the same type of thing that makes me doubt psychologists. You've decided what motivates us, and you draw conclusions on that. The problem is that you don't actually know anything about what really motivates us.
Presumably you also wear a seat belt because it is the law. Before it became a law in most states, relatively few people did wear seat belts, even after they were required by the manufacturer.
ReplyDeleteYour exposure to a car accident is directly related to your risk exposure by being in a car on the road.
That is not the case with crime. Once again you make false analogies.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYes, it's the law in my state, thanks to Federal interference, but we don't have a helmet law in Arkansas for motorcyclists. When I ride in a car, I wear a seatbelt. If I'm on a motorcycle, I wear a helmet. The law doesn't guide me there, because I'm following good sense.
My exposure to crime is directly related to living in a world in which crime occurs. Are you telling me that crime never happens? If that were the case, then my analogy would be false. Since crime does happen, my analogy is valid.
Seatbelts were appropriately required to be included by manufacturers; it was a great thing when state governments made it an offense as well not to wear a seatbelt or to have their kids safely secured in a child seat. I applaud those states which require a helmet.
ReplyDeleteWhy? Because it improves the number of people who use those items of safety equipment. Ditto requiring air bags.
Those are public health issues, and as such it is appropriate for government to regulate them.
In contrast a firearm is a choice, not a public legal requirement. And unlike seat belts or helmets which function as passive defense against injury, your firearm to be useful has to actively injure or at least threaten to injure someone else, at your whim.
The two things are not similar, they are not the same, they do not equate, it is a false analogy.
All this talk about having to have a gun to defend yourself makes me long to be able to carry a Louisville slugger or a machete whenever I go down to the variety store or Wendy's. Fuck CCLS, I want the WORLD to know that I'm gonna brain any sumbitch that has the balls to 'front me! Oh, what am I saying, that's just plain silly. It would be childish of me to tote around a 24" razor sharp machete, a 42 oz hickory bat or some other innocuous, inanimate object--when everybody ELSE haz teh gunz! Oogedy-boogedy!
ReplyDeleteDog Gone,
ReplyDeleteFine, you want a device that has to be used actively? How about a fire extinguisher? The main point remains: These are all devices that we use (and in the case of seatbelts, helmets, or handguns, we wear) to make ourselves safer. You can argue as to how much safer, but safer it still is.
Democommie,
I'm not sure how you could conceal a baseball bat about your person, but it's an interesting thought--perhaps in a violin case, or a cello case, since they're a bit long. By the way, I'm not sure that it is illegal to carry a baseball bat, at least not in my part of the world.
Greg says, "The problem is that you don't actually know anything about what really motivates us."
ReplyDeleteThe truth is I don't really care what motivates you. I find it interesting and I love to speculate, but it's never the main point. The main point is the death and destruction that results because of what you do, not you individually, but you in the broadest sense of gun owners at large.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteGun owners at large? Again, there are hundreds of millions of guns in this country and about a hundred million gun owners. If we were as bad as you make us out to be, the entire country should be dead by now. The numbers simply don't support your extreme beliefs about guns and gun owners.