Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
brah

WashPost Exposes 'Daily Show' Lying Ambush (Merged)

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Mr. E. Monkey

Monty, was Hillary in Benghazi?

Nicely put.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
firecoco

Monty, was Hillary in Benghazi?

 

Oh gee...You're going to get a nice long post now with highlighted words and italics

 

It's like the lefties on this board defending everything Obama does...Because they like Obama like Monty likes Jon Stewert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

Monty, was Hillary in Benghazi?

 

Nope.

 

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

Oh gee...You're going to get a nice long post now with highlighted words and italics

 

It's like the lefties on this board defending everything Obama does...Because they like Obama like Monty likes Jon Stewert

 

That's completely unfair firecoco (and frankly I'm a little shocked - I wouldn't have expected that from you.)

 

I'm not "defending" Stewart at all (much less defending "everything he does" :rolleyes:) I'm merely waiting until he's actually done something wrong before condemning him for it. What the f**k is wrong with that?? I have already condemned the actual perpetrator, Jones, pointing out that what he did was despicable in any case, regardless whatever else may or may not be done in the future.

 

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lyria

Also, I don't understand the controversy over this. It is a comedy show. Bits are written for a scripted result.

 

I agree. And it isn't like the nature of the show isn't well known. You agree to be interviewed, you ought to be able to figure what's going to happen with that interview.

 

That said, if you promise something and don't deliver (and in fact do the opposite) then that's clearly unethical and could land them in some sort of civil action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lyria

That's your prerogative, I suppose. As a writer and executive producer for the show, I will continue to hold him accountable for what was done under the auspices of his show, regardless of how he tries to spin it.

 

I think that's reasonable. Presumably, he would have at least some degree of control. If there's going to be backlash from this, it should land on both Jones and Stewart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. E. Monkey

I think that's reasonable. Presumably, he would have at least some degree of control. If there's going to be backlash from this, it should land on both Jones and Stewart.

Exactly. Regardless of what they choose to air, there's no convincing me that he had no idea that this "interview" was going to take place, or what was planned.

 

He puts his name on the product, he's responsible for it. Bottom line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Diamond369

I think it is a shame that Jon Stewart is doing this. Why couldn't he just be funny and be objective at the same time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
E Van der Vliet

I agree. And it isn't like the nature of the show isn't well known. You agree to be interviewed, you ought to be able to figure what's going to happen with that interview.

 

That said, if you promise something and don't deliver (and in fact do the opposite) then that's clearly unethical and could land them in some sort of civil action.

I'm sure the contract these people signed with Comedy Central was is Comedy Central's favor. There will be no civil action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lyria

I'm sure the contract these people signed with Comedy Central was is Comedy Central's favor. There will be no civil action.

 

Probably. I wonder if the people to be interviewed about preserving the team name really read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
E Van der Vliet

Probably. I wonder if the people to be interviewed about preserving the team name really read it.

Probably not. They most likely had their heads in the clouds over being on TV. A mistake many people make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quickbeam

The idea behind this kind of comedy segment is to find a cause which lacks logic and to give some exponents of that cause enough rope to hang themselves. That's the format of the segment and it's very useful and funny. It's useful because it showcases the cognitive biases which afflict the human mind.

 

It is ridiculous to claim that The Daily Show behaved unethically. Everyone knows that it's a comedy show which looks for absurdities in politics and culture.

 

Reds**** is a term which evokes a long, painful history of denigration and oppression of the First Peoples of America. When people ask you to avoid assigning that term as a name for people or organizations, the respectful, courteous thing to do is to comply. Only an insensitive douche continues to use such a name when it would cost them nothing - absolutely nothing - to use a neutral name unburdened by painful historical baggage.

 

Calling a team the Washington Reds**** is as socially hurtful as calling a team the Nantucket Nig****. It's funny how when one insulting name gains verboten status, insensitive cretins find other ways of indulging their cretinous urges. They retreat to a different cultural battlefield. For some people, that involves mindlessly defending the name Washington Reds****.

 

Just let it go!

Edited by Quickbeam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

The idea behind this kind of comedy segment is to find a cause which lacks logic and to give some exponents of that cause enough rope to hang themselves. That's the format of the segment and it's very useful and funny. It's useful because it showcases the cognitive biases which afflict the human mind.

 

It is ridiculous to claim that The Daily Show behaved unethically. Everyone knows that it's a comedy show which looks for absurdities in politics and culture.

 

Reds**** is a term which evokes a long, painful history of denigration and oppression of the First Peoples of America. When people ask you to avoid assigning that term as a name for people or organizations, the respectful, courteous thing to do is to comply. Only an insensitive douche continues to use such a name when it would cost them nothing - absolutely nothing - to use a neutral name unburdened by painful historical baggage.

 

Calling a team the Washington Reds**** is as socially hurtful as calling a team the Nantucket Nig****. It's funny how when one insulting name gains verboten status, insensitive cretins find other ways of indulging their cretinous urges. They retreat to a different cultural battlefield. For some people, that involves mindlessly defending the name Washington Reds****.

 

Just let it go!

Interpretation:

 

If you trap people under false premises, it's ok if QB likes it.

 

If a minority of American Indians say they don't like the word Redskins, and this suits QB's political agenda, well then it's obviously a matter of the greatest importance! Anyone who thinks otherwise is -- you guessed it -- a racist!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trayned Band

The idea behind this kind of comedy segment is to find a cause which lacks logic and to give some exponents of that cause enough rope to hang themselves. That's the format of the segment and it's very useful and funny. It's useful because it showcases the cognitive biases which afflict the human mind.

 

It is ridiculous to claim that The Daily Show behaved unethically. Everyone knows that it's a comedy show which looks for absurdities in politics and culture.

 

Reds**** is a term which evokes a long, painful history of denigration and oppression of the First Peoples of America. When people ask you to avoid assigning that term as a name for people or organizations, the respectful, courteous thing to do is to comply. Only an insensitive douche continues to use such a name when it would cost them nothing - absolutely nothing - to use a neutral name unburdened by painful historical baggage.

 

Calling a team the Washington Reds**** is as socially hurtful as calling a team the Nantucket Nig****. It's funny how when one insulting name gains verboten status, insensitive cretins find other ways of indulging their cretinous urges. They retreat to a different cultural battlefield. For some people, that involves mindlessly defending the name Washington Reds****.

 

Just let it go!

 

This is awesome.

 

Tell you what, when Australia tackles it's own racism problems in football (soccer) and other sports, then you can come back and lecture us. Until then, mind your own business.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10082520/Aussie-Rules-football-hit-by-racism-row-as-player-Adam-Goodes-is-called-an-ape.html

 

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/jan/20/cricket

 

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/sydney-fc-lodge-complaint-over-alleged-racist-abuse-of-ali-abbas-20140309-34f4m.html

 

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/racial_discrimination/whats_the_score/pdf/introduction.pdf

 

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2010/09/13/how-big-problem-racism-australian-sport

 

http://www.foxsports.com.au/breaking-news/racism-common-in-australian-sport/story-e6frf33c-1111114656872?nk=e891f4ec3c56c0640c65400d11b8c705

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quickbeam
E Van der Vliet

The idea behind this kind of comedy segment is to find a cause which lacks logic and to give some exponents of that cause enough rope to hang themselves. That's the format of the segment and it's very useful and funny. It's useful because it showcases the cognitive biases which afflict the human mind.

 

It is ridiculous to claim that The Daily Show behaved unethically. Everyone knows that it's a comedy show which looks for absurdities in politics and culture.

 

Reds**** is a term which evokes a long, painful history of denigration and oppression of the First Peoples of America. When people ask you to avoid assigning that term as a name for people or organizations, the respectful, courteous thing to do is to comply. Only an insensitive douche continues to use such a name when it would cost them nothing - absolutely nothing - to use a neutral name unburdened by painful historical baggage.

 

Calling a team the Washington Reds**** is as socially hurtful as calling a team the Nantucket Nig****. It's funny how when one insulting name gains verboten status, insensitive cretins find other ways of indulging their cretinous urges. They retreat to a different cultural battlefield. For some people, that involves mindlessly defending the name Washington Reds****.

 

Just let it go!

Only a pansy types it as "red****." Pansy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
E Van der Vliet

Oh, and btw, redskin, redskin, redskin, redskin, redskin, redskin!!!

 

😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quickbeam

Only a pansy types it as "red****." Pansy!

 

It shows strength to needlessly use a name which carries painful historical baggage?

 

That is an odd definition of strength.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
E Van der Vliet

It shows strength to needlessly use a name which carries painful historical baggage?

 

That is an odd definition of strength.

When did I ever define it as "strength?" You choose to censure yourself. Just like a pansy.

 

Btw, I was being polite not using the other P word. Which you are, of course.

Edited by erp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quickbeam

When did I ever define it as "strength?" You choose to censure yourself. Just like a pansy.

 

Btw, I was being polite not using the other P word. Which you are, of course.

 

Do you mean censure or censor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
E Van der Vliet

Do you mean censure or censor?

Censor, thank you very much. However, I guess if you slipped and typed the actual name, you would have self censured yourself, as well. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

The idea behind this kind of comedy segment is to find a cause which lacks logic and to give some exponents of that cause enough rope to hang themselves. That's the format of the segment and it's very useful and funny. It's useful because it showcases the cognitive biases which afflict the human mind.

 

It is ridiculous to claim that The Daily Show behaved unethically. Everyone knows that it's a comedy show which looks for absurdities in politics and culture.

 

Reds**** is a term which evokes a long, painful history of denigration and oppression of the First Peoples of America. When people ask you to avoid assigning that term as a name for people or organizations, the respectful, courteous thing to do is to comply. Only an insensitive douche continues to use such a name when it would cost them nothing - absolutely nothing - to use a neutral name unburdened by painful historical baggage.

 

Calling a team the Washington Reds**** is as socially hurtful as calling a team the Nantucket Nig****. It's funny how when one insulting name gains verboten status, insensitive cretins find other ways of indulging their cretinous urges. They retreat to a different cultural battlefield. For some people, that involves mindlessly defending the name Washington Reds****.

 

Just let it go!

 

Good gawd you're a mindless buffoon.

 

If you had ever had the brains to familiarize yourself with the actual facts, you'd be aware that it was native Americans themselves who first coined and used the term "redskins":

 

"redskin" emerged from French translations of Native American speech in Illinois and Missouri territories in the 18th and 19th centuries. He cites as the earliest example a 1769 set of "talks" or letters from three chiefs of the Piankeshaw to an English officer at Fort de Chartres. The letter from Chief "Mosquito" (French: Maringouin) had the following passage in French: “I shall be pleased to have you come to speak to me yourself if you pity our women and our children; and, if any redskins do you harm, I shall be able to look out for you even at the peril of my life.” Another letter in the set, this from a "Chief Hannanas," contained the following passage: “… You think that I am an orphan; but all the people of these rivers and all the redskins will learn of my death.”

 

The term appeared again in an August 22, 1812 meeting between President Madison and a delegation of chiefs from western tribes. There, Osage chief "No Ears" (Osage: Tetobasi) response to Madison's speech included the statement "I know the manners of the whites and the red skins," while the principle chief of the Wahpekute band of Santee Sioux—French Crow—is recorded to have said "I am a red-skin, but what I say is the truth, and notwithstanding I came a long way I am content, but wish to return from here."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_%28slang%29

 

And what's more, every team's name is specifically intended as praise; a compliment; something supposed to denote bravery, strength, integrity, courage, etc. That's why nobody has ever named their team the "cowards" or the "weaklings" or the "morons" etc etc etc. Therefore all native Americans should be proud that a professional sports team has chosen "Redskins" as their name. Same goes for "Indians" and "Warriors" and "Braves" and "Chiefs" and so on.

 

This whole "controversy" over the name "Redskins" is pure BS; silly, contrived nonsense perpetrated the by usual idiots who are always looking for something.....anything.....to be "offended" by. And that's why it's to be expected that somebody like you would so eagerly jump on the BS Bandwagon.

 

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hank Scorpio

Good gawd you're a mindless buffoon.

 

 

 

And what's more, every team's name is specifically intended as praise; a compliment; something supposed to denote bravery, strength, integrity, courage, etc. That's why nobody has ever named their team the "cowards" or the "weaklings" or the "morons" etc etc etc. Therefore all native Americans should be proud that a professional sports team has chosen "Redskins" as their name. Same goes for "Indians" and "Warriors" and "Braves" and "Chiefs" and so on.

 

This whole "controversy" over the name "Redskins" is pure BS; silly, contrived nonsense perpetrated the by usual idiots who are always looking for something.....anything.....to be "offended" by. And that's why it's to be expected that somebody like you would so eagerly jump on the BS Bandwagon.

 

:rolleyes:

 

 

BINGO!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wyn

The idea behind this kind of comedy segment is to find a cause which lacks logic and to give some exponents of that cause enough rope to hang themselves. That's the format of the segment and it's very useful and funny. It's useful because it showcases the cognitive biases which afflict the human mind.

 

It is ridiculous to claim that The Daily Show behaved unethically. Everyone knows that it's a comedy show which looks for absurdities in politics and culture.

 

Reds**** is a term which evokes a long, painful history of denigration and oppression of the First Peoples of America. When people ask you to avoid assigning that term as a name for people or organizations, the respectful, courteous thing to do is to comply. Only an insensitive douche continues to use such a name when it would cost them nothing - absolutely nothing - to use a neutral name unburdened by painful historical baggage.

 

Calling a team the Washington Reds**** is as socially hurtful as calling a team the Nantucket Nig****. It's funny how when one insulting name gains verboten status, insensitive cretins find other ways of indulging their cretinous urges. They retreat to a different cultural battlefield. For some people, that involves mindlessly defending the name Washington Reds****.

 

Just let it go!

 

:rofl:

 

They don't let you out very often, do they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howsithangin

When did I ever define it as "strength?" You choose to censure yourself. Just like a pansy.

 

Btw, I was being polite not using the other P word. Which you are, of course.

Kucing_belang_jingga_%28orange_mackerel_tabby_cat%29.JPG

 

 

:whistling:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...