- debt collection
- voter identification and voter fraud
- abortion clinic laws
- trump
And he doesn't ever state things as "fact" when it is speculation. He only specifies facts when they are facts. And he never tries to push opinions into sort-of-kind-of factual sounding things like most news sites.
How would you talk about a topic where voters are being forced to show identification in such a way as to exclude most minority voters and even have people state on camera that is the goal? These are blatant abuses of power that should be heavily exposed.
This is why I have respect and don't feel he's too preachy.
There's absolutely no reason someone has to adhere to some arbitrary ratio of comedy to seriousness (edit: or preachiness, etc).
We're talking about comedy v. preaching to the audience, not when to make a joke and when to make a serious point. They're completely different discussions.
And to the Stewart point, he was perfectly able to explain (using comedy) why he believed something without implying that you are lesser for disagreeing with it. Oliver seems to be able to do that at most 1/3 as much as Stewart. The remaining 2/3 is "not only am I right for believing this, and not only are you wrong and you should feel bad about yourself if you don't, but you're so wrong that I can't even comprehend how you could possibly disagree."
Not completely. If there was a subculture that he didn't get along with, he'd feel completely at home with completely steam rolling them. (I.e. Dungeons and Dragons) What I liked about Colbert is that he would try to jump into the culture and make absurd jokes with the community.
So the ratio for the full show is less 50/50 and more 25/75, which is much closer to your sweet spot.
I think he (Oliver) is funny but I prefer the Colbert and Southpark satirical model as well. For some reason satire just seems less "preachy" even though it can be just as much so.
I find John's commentaries to be suitably supported by substance, with constructive conclusions.
I worry that characterization as "left" is a defence against cognitive acknowledgements that just happen to be dissonant with neurostatic precepts.
My problem with him is his facts, but his interpretation of them.
The main problem in Venezuela is the erosion of property rights. Nowhere in the report was this mentioned.
1. Chavez was elected in 1999 and utilized the OPEC cartel to decrease production and drive up the price. Utilizing the high prices, he gave away every socialist program that his increased oil prices could deliver.
2. When the socialist programs had to have more cash, Chavez muscled in on the oil producers and told them to find more revenue or else they would nationalize the oil rigs. Companies said there was no money unless operation and maintenance costs were foregone, and they would not undersign that so Chavez nationalized them (property right strike across the bow). This was done through the enabling law which ultimately what started the erosion of the rights.
3. As companies saw that profits could not be returned, they started to get the heck out of Dodge. Tariffs and other crazy price increasing measures were instituted until prices became very high. The government did the next property right erosion by controlling prices on goods. Black market took over to provide goods at real rates because the governments rates could not be met.
4. Any industry that was making a profit was derided in public speeches.
5. Foreign investors avoided investing in the housing market as they saw newly built properties nationalized. The government did not even pay the investors a compensatory fee!
The oil is price is an aside contributor, but when you do not respect property rights, say goodbye to anyone wanting to invest in you.
I'm trying to decide if his omission is okay or not.
Conservative (and I intend that as a swearword) hit-media present his lack of condemnation of "socialism" as a wrongdoing. Which certainly can be argued, that since he got airtime, he has some responsibility to educate, especially if he choose to talk about the topic.
However, I don't think he is a politology scholar, so not using a word so misued as socialism is probably a smart thing on his part, and sticking to the criticism of the consequences of the policies themselves is also an okay-ish solution.
I think shows what a dictatorship leads to is more important than condemning whatever ideology you think lead to it. After all, autorism always mutates the ideology it uses to justify itself, usually subverting all of the original ideas related to it in about 5 minutes after gaining power.
The socialist / communist people who elected him created the monster that he became, so those who wanted the platform elected and in his mind instilled his beliefs as "the will of the people" that we hear so much from those who are marginally elected.
No one ever wants to elect a dictator, however, the requirements of a socialist / communist leader lends itself much more to developing one when one utters: "It is the will of the people" to supersede the property rights of others.
The problem is, when someone has so much power to do this, ideologies don't matter anymore, and there's no argument that can best the "will of the people", because if the will of the people is wrong, then the people are wrong too, and since they are the majority, you're screwed with your logic (and rationality).
I'm saying these, because it's important to note that communism as an abstract idea is not worse or better than any other form of government, such as feudalism, or fascism. Ideally all could work. Given an ample supply of good kings, incorruptible premier secretaries and supreme leaders, and so on.
Naturally, the problems are foreseeable, so individual power should be limited. What better way to do that than to remove even the power of wealth generation? Bam! Instant communism, again.
And this works with property rights too. Someone offers you a very good deal on a crate of gold, you buy it. It turns out it was stolen from a national bank. But reversing that transaction would violate your property rights. (How far you would have to go to make sure you're not buying contraband/bootlegged stuff? Anyone can make up an example where you have done enough yet a lot of people will suffer as a result of your gains.)
Even the parts where Olliver makes fun of Trump, for example the epic sagas about his hands or how he impersonated his own press secretary, are very clear signs whom I don't want to see in possession of nuclear launch codes. Or drones for that matter.
Thats not how the US system works.
And I am not saying that everything he says is always like that. It's just too much for my taste.
The US system is not that fragile. It's made to be able to deal with presidents smart or dumb.
I see no evidence that Trump should be any more dangerous than Bush or Clinton. He might say more outrageous things than even Bush to the international community but his rhetorics isn's his politics and he can't just send nuclear bombs at whomever he wants.
I also don't see why anyone would want a thin-skinned man child in charge of the only superpower in the world. Being in the center of at least one pretty strong fraud case doesn't help either. The argument "he just says stupid things all the time, but he will be presidential and wise when he is president" doesn't even begin to make sense to me.
The president will need permission to declare war.
Trump can in theory command the nukes to be fired without declaring war but this only works if there isn't any political opposition agains his case (i.e. it would be considered unpatriotic to disagree with his decision)
Given the general dislike for Trump there will be plenty of dissent if he decided to just send nuclear bombs left and right. The military would overthrow him pretty quickly.
So yes there are checks and balances and in the case of Trump they would make sure that he followed protocol.
You dislike him so your analysis of why he would be thin skinned has little value here too.
I have no personal interest in this as I can't vote, however I am not afraid of him more than Hillary (who is a known Hawk)
Trump's thin skin is a proven fact. He still isn't over the jokes over his small hands. He felt the need to defend his penis size in a presidential campaign. He attacks voters at his own events. He verbally insulted almost all minority groups. His default reaction to any criticism is to personally insult the critic.
No.
I've been on the opposite side of some of his rants. You do not get the best counter-arguments. It's just another media spin show where you get the weakest arguments, pre-digested and cued up with the best media management possible for you to laugh at them.
He can do a decent job of substantiating his points, but you are not getting anything like the whole story, and if you think you are, you're hardcore in a small filter bubble.
(And if you're about to start trying to explain to me that yes he does give the best counterarguments, you're pathologically in a small filter bubble. At the very least, I know better counterarguments than the one he prompts you to laugh at. And come on, pre-biasing you to laugh at the opposition may be fun but it's hardly the path to intellectual enlightenment.)
That said, I must give props to putting money where his mouth is in this case.
I stopped watching after several episodes in a row felt exceptionally biased and unfair. Alas I did not write down the topics so I've always had trouble describing to people why I don't like John Oliver.
And before you say "Well, yeah, the other side does that, but thank goodness my side doesn't do that", I would challenge you that as you read your next couple of political articles, click, pull them up, maybe zoom your browser until the entire article fits on the screen, then just sort of defocus your eyes for a moment and just look at the pattern of text and quotes on the screen. Do you already have a pretty good idea what the paragraphs are? Do they fit the description I just gave you? I won't claim to read a completely balanced media diet, I have opinions too, but I do at least sample a lot of things, and this pattern is universally used.
It's a cognitively-hazardous way to consume arguments even before we discuss its addictiveness. Putting it in video form is probably even worse.
Just because data supports global warming doesn't mean everyone agrees how to solve it or likes being berated and shamed because don't drive an electric car or ride a bike to work. Not everyone agrees we should shut off the US economy to slow down global warming. This is where partisan politics gets messy and people start merging their facts and their opinions.
But that's just it--large swaths of people think it's some higher order conspiracy. That it is all just made up.
> or likes being berated and shamed because don't drive an electric car or ride a bike to work. Not everyone agrees we should shut off the US economy to slow down global warming. This is where partisan politics gets messy and people start merging their facts and their opinions.
No serious group is doing that. But people are trying to ring the alarm bells that we will either have serious economic problems now, or severe ones later. There is no "keep doing nothing" and we'll be fine option.
Google is indeed unhelpful; I had never Googled "neurostatic", and it's possible I have the term wrong. That said, I seem to recall reading it somewhere.
Interestingly, the lead-in for Neuroplasticity on Wikipedia[1] states:
> [Neuroplastic] contrasts with the previous scientific consensus that the brain develops during a critical period in early childhood, then remains relatively unchangeable (or "static") afterward.
So I feel cautiously confident that I did read it, quite possibly in old medical textbooks that are not online.
I used "precepts" just because it felt like it conveyed the right concept in context.
I hope that helps.
Well, those on the left would think so. Oddly enough, those on the right think that facts, evidence & observation are derided as 'right.' Weird how that happens, isn't it? It's almost as though we all sincerely believe that we are correct and that those who disagree with us are incorrect.
When 99/100 scientists agree that climate change is a thing and random politicians, business leaders and religious leaders are the dissenters; fact is very clearly on one side and bias the other.