Comments | ontd_political: The Daily Show addresses the shootings in Tucson

ubiquitous_a in ontd_political

The Daily Show addresses the shootings in Tucson

Jan 11, 2011 11:34

Starting just after the 2:30 mark, Jon gets pretty serious in addressing this incident. Some of his comments may surprise you, and even those who don't care for JStew may agree with him on some points. Worth watching.

jon stewart, arizona, the daily show

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

purple01_prose January 11 2011, 17:18:33 UTC

Jon, I don't think that violent rhetoric *caused* it--I think it *led* to it.

ladypolitik January 11 2011, 17:39:54 UTC

co-signed

jesidres January 11 2011, 17:49:41 UTC

Thiiiis.

Rachel Maddow had said something similar, but pointed out that there is a distinctive difference between rhetoric and the literal threats that began being used in political speech- "I'm going to kick Obama out" vs. "If Ballots don't work, Bullets will". And that Jon just skipped over that kinda made me go "close, but no cigar."

purple01_prose January 11 2011, 17:52:33 UTC

I recognize he has a time limit, but seriously, does it take too long to specify something like that?

/grumblegrumblecomplaincomplain

He does this a LOT, which is why I don't watch TDS anymore. We don't live in a world that's easy to generalize; we live in a world of nuance, and sometimes I feel like he skates over the nuance because he can't be bothered with it.

ladypolitik January 11 2011, 17:56:08 UTC

we live in a world of nuance, and sometimes I feel like he skates over the nuance because he can't be bothered with it.

Aaaaaand scene.

doverz January 11 2011, 17:50:53 UTC

Agreed

jiaren_shadow January 11 2011, 18:11:10 UTC

Usually I really like him, and I agree that acting like Sarah Palin et al basically said "Jared Lee Loughner, you should go shoot a congresswoman, a federal judge, and a nine-year-old girl. It would be totes awesome." is not right, but I think the violent imagery and rhetoric used by mainstream politicians legitimizes violence as a means for voicing political grievances, and makes it acceptable.

huntertp3 January 11 2011, 18:16:22 UTC

Exactly. Jon has moments of brilliance and some of dissapointment.

watermeloncholy January 11 2011, 18:31:33 UTC

mte

brandontaco January 11 2011, 20:04:59 UTC

Exactly. I was pretty disappointed with what he said about this tbqh. I'm getting kind of tired of his "EVERYONE SUCKS EQUALLY!" mantra because it's just not fucking true.

jvmatucha January 11 2011, 21:24:24 UTC

Tah dah! What's missing from the debate!

lizzy_someone January 11 2011, 22:34:21 UTC

I'm not sure I understand what the difference is between X causing Y and X leading to Y...could you perhaps explain a bit?

blackjedii January 11 2011, 23:52:16 UTC

(I believe she / he means)

I tell you to go out and buy a bunny.

You buy a bunny.

Ergo, I caused you to buy a bunny.

I spend each day talking on your morning radio station how awesome it is to have a bunny, and how fuzzy a bunny is, and how inexpensive it is to buy a bunny.

You buy a bunny.

Ergo, I have led you to buy a bunny.

Does that work okay?

sihaya09 January 12 2011, 00:19:30 UTC

I loled, but good job.

blackjedii January 12 2011, 00:23:56 UTC

Yay! \o/

I thought bunnies would be a welcome change. However I do not advocate bunnies because bunnies are spazzes and rats are far more intelligent and interactive... but rodents are a no-go there are always guinea pigs. They're little sausages with fur!

lizzy_someone January 18 2011, 01:30:10 UTC

Ah, that makes sense, thanks!

Back to all threads