Jon Stewart Points Out Liberal Hypocrisy in the Wake of Donald Trump’s Win

Nap · Nov 18, 2016

Mac77 said:
except that being a liberal himself he almost never thought they were wrong

I'm guessing you didn't watch the daily show much? It wasn't every night but it wasn't rare for him to take jabs and mock liberals as well.

Mac77 · Nov 18, 2016

Nap said:
I'm guessing you didn't watch the daily show much? It wasn't every night but it wasn't rare for him to take jabs and mock liberals as well.

30 seconds mocking liberals and rhen 20 minutes attacking conservatives

But thats ok because stewart is a liberal

So long as I dont forget which side he is on

Nap · Nov 18, 2016

HonestJoe said:
Not an insult towards him, an insult to everyone and anyone labelled (by you, themselves or others) as “liberal”. My objection is to taking a simple term with no clear definition that is applied to loads of people all around the world, often with entirely negative connotations, and attributing a specific characteristic or consequence to it, and thus by extension, every single one of them (in this case, that you’ve never vote for them).

I’ve been labelled “liberal” many times – I don’t accept it but it’s applied all the same. Without knowing anything about me what-so-ever, your statement has automatically dismissed me as a valid candidate for any elected position. You wouldn’t vote for me, full stop. Now I don’t actually believe you’re personally that divisive (as your exception for Stewart shows) but the fact even you fall so easily in to the simplistic divisive labelling just demonstrates how pervasive the trend is and why those of us capable of being better than that need to actively oppose it.

Generally if someone has different views than you then you typically aren't going to vote for them. Especially in the current landscape of American politics.

I love Bernie and feel like he is one of the few respectable politicians out there but I could never vote for him due to his policies.

Nap · Nov 18, 2016

Mac77 said:
So long as I dont forget which side he is on

Sad thing is now you have to remember that for all media. Would be nice if we had at least one source of unbiased news.

Mac77 · Nov 18, 2016

Nap said:
Sad thing is now you have to remember that for all media. Would be nice if we had at least one source of unbiased news.

Its even more sad that the leftwing American mainstream media is so untrustworthy

Often foreign news services report bad news about the democrats it gets reported in our country

We have become alomost like russians in the old soviet union listening to Radio Free Europe for the truth

HonestJoe · Nov 18, 2016

Nap said:
Generally if someone has different views than you then you typically aren't going to vote for them. Especially in the current landscape of American politics.

Of course. The point is “liberal” (or “conservative”) isn’t a set of individual views and polices. They’re stereotypes, simplistic divisions usually used to actually dissuade people (especially voters) from listening to, understanding and considering the range of individual views and policies different politicians and candidates will actually express.

Beyond your appreciation of Stewart as a person, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if you couldn’t find all sorts of policy and principle points where you actually agree with him (or at least don’t completely disagree). You’re just caught up in the binary politics where he’s on “the other side” and so automatically believed the opposite to everything you do.

Thoreau72 · Nov 18, 2016

Nap said:
I never really viewed using the terms liberal/conservative as an insult, just simply a label. Am I doing it wrong?

I think HonestJoe's point is that labels, especially "liberal" and "conservative" are grossly inaccurate. They are somewhat useful, but never account for individual differences in political philosophy, and are most often very misleading and incomplete in describing any individual.

Further, they carry a connotation that is often derogatory.

Zyphlin · Nov 18, 2016

Mr Person said:
No, he's not. A perfect example of why it has always been false when other conservatives have acted like John Stewart is just this kooky liberal out to unfairly make conservatives bad. He doesn't. He calls it like he sees it, and he has pretty clear vision.

Yes, he is overall a liberal, so naturally he's going to agree with liberal policies more than conservative policies. But I'd say that's not bad bias, just normal human inclination.

I think there's always been a noticeable difference between JON STEWART and Jon Stewart of the Daily Show, to be honest.

When Stewart is acting as Stewart...that time he went on Crossfire (OutSTANDING), instances like this interview, and even when he was doing interviews on the show...he always struck me as someone who was clearly liberal in his world view and opinions, but was generally fair minded and reasonable to deal with.

Typically, when there would be takes or statements or actions on his part that would leave me going "okay, that's a bit hackish", it was typically during some kind of monologue or bit on the show where it was clear he was simply the mouth piece for his writers. And I always took that with a grain of salt, because it was a comedy show and sometimes comedy pushes the boundary of reasonable, often for the sake of a joke.

He's absolutely liberal leaning, and that plays into how he criticizes at times (this is a natural result of human tribalism), but simply having a lean doesn't make one hackish or kooky. And I think he's someone that just like to talk and give his honest opinion for the sake of talking and giving his honest opinion, rather than attempting to purposefully craft it in a fashion to try and actually convince or persuade people significantly (an act that, intentionally or not, will cause you to slowly start presenting things in a somewhat more bias or dishonest fashion in order to accomplish you're objective). I think that straight talk and desire to just speak his mind, regardless of whether that influences people or not, is what makes him an insightful listen in these kind of situations regardless of whether I agree with him or not.

Nap · Nov 18, 2016

HonestJoe said:
Of course. The point is “liberal” (or “conservative”) isn’t a set of individual views and polices. They’re stereotypes, simplistic divisions usually used to actually dissuade people (especially voters) from listening to, understanding and considering the range of individual views and policies different politicians and candidates will actually express.

Beyond your appreciation of Stewart as a person, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if you couldn’t find all sorts of policy and principle points where you actually agree with him (or at least don’t completely disagree). You’re just caught up in the binary politics where he’s on “the other side” and so automatically believed the opposite to everything you do.

Of course I would be able to find common ground on some or even agree on many policies especially since I lean to the left on many social issues. The core of issues that I hold most important though are typically on the conservative side so it would be in my best interest to vote that side.

It goes back to my examples:
I don't know for sure on Stewarts stances but he seems like he would be fairly moderate on issues to where I feel I could vote for him (I could be wrong though)

Where Bernie's policies especially the ones I find most important are complete opposite to my views which really sucks because like I said he seems to be one of the few genuine politicians out there (I could be wrong because I didn't need to do much research to know that I could never vote for him)

Nap · Nov 18, 2016

Thoreau72 said:
I think HonestJoe's point is that labels, especially "liberal" and "conservative" are grossly inaccurate. They are somewhat useful, but never account for individual differences in political philosophy, and are most often very misleading and incomplete in describing any individual.

Further, they carry a connotation that is often derogatory.

I agree to an extent I just fail to see it as derogatory. It isn't about right or wrong just people's outlook and views.

You guys will have to forgive me, I have been up too long and have to get some sleep. I'm so tired right now I'm not even sure if I am making sense

jonny5 · Nov 18, 2016

Stewart was a comedian who had people write jokes for him making fun of conservatives, which is what his audience liked. I dont see why he is any more qualified to comment on the election than anyone else. You guys HAVE to stop this celebrity worship.

HonestJoe · Nov 18, 2016

Nap said:
I don't know for sure on Stewarts stances but he seems like he would be fairly moderate on issues to where I feel I could vote for him (I could be wrong though)

That’s fine and what I took your initial comment to mean. This version is much better because it doesn’t refer to “liberals” and doesn’t seek to generalise a massive number of people as ones you’d never consider voting for.

I do feel bad picking at your post to make this point but it is because I feel you’re capable of recognising and accepting the point, unlike so many of the people who throw the “liberal” and “conservative” labels around. :3oops:

Moot · Nov 18, 2016

Mac77 said:
except that being a liberal himself he almost never thought they were wrong

He sure thought Rachel Maddow and MSNBC were wrong....

[video]http://www.nbcnews.com/video/rachel-maddow/40141311#40141311[/video]

"...It shouldn't be surprising to anyone that Maddow, as a liberal, thinks that her side "plays nicer" than the other side. Stewart would probably point out that many people on the right feel the same way. That's true—and as Stewart argues, it's a good reason for people to not think of their ideological opponents as "evil" or "bad." Most people have good intentions. Sometimes good people do bad things—but that doesn't necessarily make them "evil."

There's a level of analysis that has to come after you acknowledge that both sides sincerely believe they are right and they are playing nicer than the other side: deciding what the truth is. Either one side is nicer and/or more correct than the other, or the two sides are equivalent. This is something that is knowable. People will of course disagree over the answer. But people like Maddow shouldn't come in for criticism simply because they've decided that, in fact, their side is right and "nice." She believes what she's saying. She's passionate. She's open about her biases and opinions. Is that so wrong?..."

Jon Stewart vs. Rachel Maddow: The Uncut Interview | Mother Jones

Moot · Nov 18, 2016

jonny5 said:
Stewart was a comedian who had people write jokes for him making fun of conservatives, which is what his audience liked. I dont see why he is any more qualified to comment on the election than anyone else. You guys HAVE to stop this celebrity worship.

Um...America just elected a "celebrity". And it's not the first time, either.

Moot · Nov 18, 2016

Mac77 said:
Its even more sad that the leftwing American mainstream media is so untrustworthy

Often foreign news services report bad news about the democrats it gets reported in our country

We have become alomost like russians in the old soviet union listening to Radio Free Europe for the truth

So where do you get your news from...Macedonia?

j-mac · Nov 18, 2016

Moot said:
He sure thought Rachel Maddow and MSNBC were wrong....

[video]http://www.nbcnews.com/video/rachel-maddow/40141311#40141311[/video]

"...It shouldn't be surprising to anyone that Maddow, as a liberal, thinks that her side "plays nicer" than the other side. Stewart would probably point out that many people on the right feel the same way. That's true—and as Stewart argues, it's a good reason for people to not think of their ideological opponents as "evil" or "bad." Most people have good intentions. Sometimes good people do bad things—but that doesn't necessarily make them "evil."

There's a level of analysis that has to come after you acknowledge that both sides sincerely believe they are right and they are playing nicer than the other side: deciding what the truth is. Either one side is nicer and/or more correct than the other, or the two sides are equivalent. This is something that is knowable. People will of course disagree over the answer. But people like Maddow shouldn't come in for criticism simply because they've decided that, in fact, their side is right and "nice." She believes what she's saying. She's passionate. She's open about her biases and opinions. Is that so wrong?..."

Jon Stewart vs. Rachel Maddow: The Uncut Interview | Mother Jones

:lamo Um, yes.....

Thoreau72 · Nov 18, 2016

Nap said:
I agree to an extent I just fail to see it as derogatory. It isn't about right or wrong just people's outlook and views.

You guys will have to forgive me, I have been up too long and have to get some sleep. I'm so tired right now I'm not even sure if I am making sense

Any word can have a denotation and a connotation. That is, a strict dictionary definition, and then a more vague assignment of meaning. So you're right that a derogatory implication may not be intended by the user, but sometimes a word can imply an insult. And you're right that just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, sometimes a word may offend unintentionally.

Using "liberal" as an example, in 1787 the word had a good positive meaning implying in favor of individual rights and liberty.

During the 200 years since, the word today has mostly negative implications when used by many people. Not me, but many people such as Rush Limbaugh. He uses the word almost as a curse word, and many others do too.

jonny5 · Nov 18, 2016

Moot said:
Um...America just elected a "celebrity". And it's not the first time, either.

Exactly my point. This is how people like Trump get elected.

Mac77 · Nov 18, 2016

Moot said:
So where do you get your news from...Macedonia?

Some from the mainstream media

Sometimes from the UK

The internet is a growing source of information

Conservative talk radio combined with verification from a 3rd party source

In fact almost all news these days from any source must be vetted to make sure it is fact

But I have no illusions about being the only person or one of the few who keeps up with the news

Just slightly better informed than the average person on the street who are shockingly ill informed

Or at least I try to be

How about you?