The Push For Colbert's "Restoring Truthiness" Rally 703
jamie writes "A grassroots campaign has begun to get Stephen Colbert to hold a rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to counter Glenn Beck's recent 'Restoring Honor' event. The would-be rally has been dubbed 'Restoring Truthiness' and was inspired by a recent post on Reddit, where a young woman wondered if the only way to point out the absurdity of the Tea Party's rally would be if Colbert mirrored it with his own Colbert Nation.'"
Count me in (Score:5, Funny)
If he will resort to weeping publicly over his concern for our great Republic, I will show up and offer him a kleenex. It's only decent.
Re:Count me in (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Count me in (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, Beck was the first one to think to hold a rally, and now everyone else is just mimicking Beck.
Re:Count me in (Score:5, Insightful)
Something about him having a dream [wikipedia.org] or something like that.
Re:Count me in (Score:5, Insightful)
It was sad enough to see Beck's shameless self promotion, let alone to now see Colbert's cynical copycatting of shameless self-promotion
Haver you never seen Colbert's show?
Re:Count me in (Score:4, Interesting)
So your comparing a show on Comedy Central to a show on a cable news TV channel?
The big difference is - yes both are showmen, but Glen takes it a step further by genuinely convincing his viewers that the scary stuff he reveals on his show is in fact true (and if you don't believe me - ask one of his many followers).
Re:Count me in (Score:5, Insightful)
Colbert's entire shtick is parodying shamelessly self promoting pundits like "Papa Bear" O'Reilly and Beck.
Re:Count me in (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the part about Colbert I always found so awesome...through parody, he speaks more truth than those with a "serious" agenda.
Of course, nothing is funnier than someone who thinks Colbert is serious. My friend's mom is a die hard conservative, and she thought Colbert was serious about everything he did (taking it as Comedy Central's counterpoint to The Daily Show, in the interest of being balanced.) I showed her clips of Colbert getting his start on The Daily Show, and of him talking politics outside of his "Colbert" character.
Her head exploded.
Re:Count me in (Score:5, Insightful)
The Best Thing Ever was when some Bush-administration lackey took Colbert seriously enough to invite him to speak at the 2006 White House Correspondents' dinner.
That speech made Colbert forever one of my personal heroes.
Re:Count me in (Score:5, Insightful)
but Colbert and others continue to tell us all that nothing's wrong
Jon Stewart and Colbert are constantly talking about the budget problems lately...they both do many things, but acting like nothing is wrong certainly isn't one of them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I was responding to this:
It was sad enough to see Beck's shameless self promotion, let alone to now see Colbert's cynical copycatting of shameless self-promotion
I felt it was pretty obvious what my point was. It is not sad to see Colbert's 'cynical copycatting of shameless self promotion,' because that is what Colbert does, and has always done, and it's funny.
It seems you have mistaken what I wrote to mean that I support Beck or O'Reilly. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And your point is... what exactly?
His shtick is funny and has more truth in it than O'Reilly/GB's festering mouth(s) could ever dream of.
Festering mouths? Really? Why the hatred? I mean, it's OK to disagree on the subject matter, but do you really need to literally HATE those with a different perspective on life? I believe yours and nearly every other post here, are proof that it's not the right that are the "hate mongers", but the left.
So it's true. The left does project.
Re:Count me in (Score:5, Insightful)
Cannot contain the laughter...
That was the perfect Colbert immitation of cyclical fallacy based arguments!
Build a strawman, name it hatred, claim "literal" hatred, denounce the made up statement, over-generalize and claim as proof.
The last line though, was absolute perfection. Projecting your own hatred in a statement about projection.
Classic Colbert.
Re:Count me in (Score:5, Informative)
I suggest you read over your comment again and see if you can spot the hate in your own posts before commenting again. You are making it too easy to show what the problem is.
Here's the wiki:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
Here's the specific types:
1.Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.[1]
2.Quoting an opponent's words out of context - i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).[2]
3.Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments - thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
4.Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5.Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
Without asking for details on why the poster used an adjective that's not a completely factual representation of "some kind of dental infection" you go off about how he/she has committed "what I'd call a hateful attack" and use that logic to condemn a group of people by generalizing a post or posts into a representation of the group which you disparage in a conclusion of "proof that it's not the right that are the "hate mongers", but the left." Finally using the name calling that you are supposedly denouncing.
Try reading this:
Strange that every time I see an argument against (group A), it is almost always based on how hateful (Group A) is.
See any similarities between your own (generalized) statement and what you are trying to prove in your posts?
By your own words you were participating and instigating that process. You based your post on how hateful a group is and used an example of someone using an adjective to give visual power to their opinion without asking or participating in a discussion based on facts, You purposly misconstrue it to suit your own hatefull indignation.
Now you're in a bad spot because you have to avoid the recursion of having the original poster and yourself on the same path of having called the other side names. To leave your straw man misrepresentation a straight example: Do you think that by describing shows or people on one side as having "festering mouth(s)" is more accurately about claiming that they had a "dental infection" or that they were "spouting disease", as in hate or fear mongering? Now compare that to your own finger pointing and name calling and see how much better you and your side are for not spreading hatred without waiting for or wanting the facts or a discussion thereof.
Re:What if Beck is a Colbert? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well of course. Beck, Limbaugh, and Coulter, it's pure performance art. The only difference between them and Colbert is that Colbert plays the whole thing for laughs, and makes few secrets that it's satire. The real eye opener here is just how fucking stupid the Teabaggers are that they don't realize that they're falling for a joke. Now I still Beck is an immoral pile of crap, not because of what he says, but because he doesn't wink at the audience like Colbert does.
Re:Count me in (Score:5, Insightful)
"Colbert" is in fact a persona not a real person,
and the single best part of this is the Bush Administrations complete idoicy when they booked him for the White House Correspondents Dinner.
That was pure gold.
Re:Count me in (Score:5, Informative)
> I don't find him funny. It's not that I don't have a sense of humor, it's that I no longer find a joke funny after hearing it over and over and > over and over again. We get it. Colbert thinks Bill O'Reilly and what he believes are conservative talk show hosts are ignorant, racist,
> bigoted, self serving, pompous asses. I got it in the first ten minutes the very first time I saw his show. After that, it's been the
> predictable telling of the same joke over and over and over again.
yeah, I expected this sentiment, and it's pretty obvious that you were offended with the stripe of this show, the political bent, and tuned out.
Which is too bad, because when Colbert gets going, he gets going, and his range is far more versatile than you let up above..
For example, here was his take on the supreme court case to strike down restrictions on corporate spending - 'let freedom ka-ching':
http://vodpod.com/watch/2198494-colbert-the-word-let-freedom-ka-ching
Extremely incisive, informative, and yes, funny. Or his take on the BP oil spill..
http://www.in.com/videos/watchvideo-the-colbert-report-put-the-cursed-monkey-paw-down-8414401.html
I'd say that in both cases he's dead on accurate, and dead on clever. It stays fresh precisely because of the creativity and range; if it were what you say, it would have died off long ago.
Ed
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It goes back longer than that. Hell, even the crowds that went to see MLK Jr weren't the first to organize a protest or march at the National Mall.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It goes back longer than that. Jesus was pretty good at holding a rally. And before him, Moses could rally the troops and get them to march through the freakin desert for years! Damn, noah could even rally the animals!
Re:Count me in (Score:5, Funny)
Jesus and Moses were at the National Mall?
I've never read the Book of Mormon, but I don't think the National Mall makes an appearance in it, but Jesus is here in the New World.
Whoever keeps modding Wyatt Earp Flamebait, (Score:3, Insightful)
Stop it. It isn't flamebait. I may be a liberal and Wyatt may be conservative, but even I can tell he's not here to incite flames.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I prefer to refer to it as "passing the torch to the next generation"
*sits back and relaxes*
So, kids, run forth... and get off my lawn! (I just recently had it sprayed with volatile highly-combustible compounds)
Re: (Score:3)
Shameless self-promotion? :)
FWIW, I think Beck's motives are purely personal. I do honestly believe that the organizers of both the Million Man March and Promise Keepers actually wanted to effect change with their marches (though self-aggrandizement likely played a role too). I don't believe Beck actually honestly believes the shit he spews.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's scary... it would take some special kind of crazy for that to be true.
I don't think he really buys it... I think he's like a modern-day Joseph Smith... or at least wants to be.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Does it even count on someone who has an established history of playing video clips of the nazis when talking about his political opponents?
Re:Count me in (Score:5, Funny)
Also, in case you needed more of a reason, the proposed date is 10/10/10... Are you thinking what I'm thinking? 101010 in binary=42 in decimal. The answer is right in front of us!
Re:Count me in (Score:5, Funny)
But that's for the British convention of dd/mm/yy. What happens if you read October 10th with mm/dd/yy?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But that's for the British convention of dd/mm/yy. What happens if you read October 10th with mm/dd/yy?
I need my dates machine sortable. What happens if I use yy/mm/dd?
Re:Count me in (Score:5, Funny)
My God, it's windy in here.
Go Stephen! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but every political/issue rally is absurd. Million man march anyone? The countless demonstrations for the environment? Any rally with a politician?
These events only serve to make the participants feel like they are doing something.
Re:Go Stephen! (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, you think we were on track to win in Vietnam? And it was the protests that screwed things up? And you think the citizens of Vietnam are 'relegated to live under communism?' Vietnam had one of the highest growth rates in the world since the government instituted free market reforms in 1986. Vietnam is a member of the WTO, and well respected in the international community. The human rights situation is still abysmal, but improving. Give it time and Vietnam will be indistinguishable from the free and prosperous hybrid socialist/free market economies of Europe. As of right now, their economy is doing quite a bit better than ours. Funny how it was capitalism that imploded recently, not socialism.
Re:Go Stephen! (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, you think we were on track to win in Vietnam? And it was the protests that screwed things up?
Uh, yeah. We lost zero major battles in Vietnam. Exactly zero. Had the bombing campaign been allowed to continue and not been limited (again, due to liberal protests), we bet your ass we could have won that war.
Except the political battle.
And you think the citizens of Vietnam are 'relegated to live under communism?' Vietnam had one of the highest growth rates in the world since the government instituted free market reforms in 1986.
So, what you are saying is that Vietnam had one of the highest growth rates in the world since the government realized that communism doesn't really work and tossed aside all that "to each according to their need" bullshit.
That would be a sterling example of winning a war by losing a battle and letting Vietnam realize that communism isn't a plausible way to run a country in the long term.
Vietnam is a member of the WTO, and well respected in the international community. The human rights situation is still abysmal, but improving.
What gets me is the respect coming from you, even though you are fully aware that " The human rights situation is still abysmal...". A country with an "abysmal" human rights record is what we were there fighting to prevent. Populations don't want to be oppressed. They are forced to allow it to happen because the oppressor is stronger than they are and is either stronger or more staying power than those fighting for freedom.
We can't force democracy on people, by definition.
Give it time and Vietnam will be indistinguishable from the free and prosperous hybrid socialist/free market economies of Europe.
You mean, like they could have had since 1975? How many souls spent their entire lives under oppression because someone thought that if we showed peace and love that the world would turn into a John Lennon song.
Again, you cannot force democracy on people who don't want it. North Vietnam would not be as free as it is today had we not withdrawn from the war.
As of right now, their economy is doing quite a bit better than ours.
Really? While our economy sucks, it only sucks when compared to itself. Our economy grew more in the past year than the entire economy of Vietnam. The US GDP per capita is $46,381. Vietnam's is $2,942. Um, I think our economy is a bit better than Vietnam's. So, given your track record of "non-facts", I guess we can throw out your last point of "Funny how it was capitalism that imploded recently, not socialism."
GDP per capita is not adjusted for the market value of goods. I bet they have iPhone clones that cost 1/10th of what ours cost.
Re:Go Stephen! (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh yes. Unfortunately, the famous liberal dove Robert McNamara doesn't agree with you if you read between the lines of "Fog of War".
One of the main reasons the bombing was less effective that you make out was the C Chi tunnels [wikipedia.org] which IIRC were far more extensive than bomber-command wished to believe.
From Operation Thunder [schoolnet.co.uk]
So, how many million tons did we fall short of achieving an easy victory? Another 700 tons per man, woman and child?
Thanks for playing.
Re:Go Stephen! (Score:5, Funny)
I think the funniest thing would be the signs the Colbert supporters would be carrying. I'm picturing things like:
"You'll Pry My Teller-Ulam Configuration Thermonuclear Device From My Cold Dead Hands! / 'The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed!"
"Abortion Kills! / Also, Has Anybody Seen My Keys? I Think I Dropped Them Somewhere Around Here."
"I Have A Third-Grade Education And I VOTE!"
"Barack Obama Is An Incompetent Kenyan Socialist Buffoon Who's Carefully Engineering The Wholesale Restructuring Of Our Society For Militant Islam!"
"Don't Tread On Me / (pic) / Because I'm A Snake And Stuff!"
"I Don't Support Socialist Road Spending / I Took The Subway To The Protest!"
"Bring Back The 1950s!"
"There's A Gathering Storm Of Gays Coming For Your Kids. RUN! Run Like The Wind!"
Oh, and probably a lot of chalkboards. ;)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Great idea. (Score:4, Insightful)
The best counter-protest signs I'd seen were from the attendees of Comic-Con this year when the Westboro Baptist Church (The "God Hates Fags" guys) protested the event:
http://www.comicsalliance.com/2010/07/22/super-heroes-vs-the-westboro-baptist-church/ [comicsalliance.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Jon Stewart does a much better parody of Beck anyway, with his leaping around and nonsensical chalkboards and crazy pauses where he acts like he's going to cry.
Colbert is a parody of the more serious right-wing shows, not the histrionic and absurd Beck, which didn't really exist when he created that persona.
Re:Go Stephen! (Score:4, Insightful)
After a Colbert rally, I am quite confident that there will be trash all over the place.
Huh... so I suppose you've done an in-depth survey, and have thus proven that Colbert Report viewers are slobs... or something?
Fuck, I'm saddened, yet unsurprised, you got modded up... apparently there are 3-4 idiots out there who believe that baseless opinions insulting groups they dislike qualifies as "interesting".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have no idea how many people will show up at a Colbert rally, but I can tell you one very significant difference between the rally that Glen Beck held and one that Colbert holds. After the Glen Beck rally, it looked like the grounds crew had just finished getting the place ready for an event, everything picked up and put away, no trash on the ground. After a Colbert rally, I am quite confident that there will be trash all over the place.
I really hope that Colbert does hold such a rally, it will tell us a lot about what is going on in this country.
So is that a relevant issue? Should we decide the merits of MLK based on how many litterbugs where in his crowd compared to an equivalently sized Klan meeting?
A more accurate count (Score:3, Informative)
The reason it was so clean afterward is there were only 50,000 people there.
There were a lot more than that. [pajamasmedia.com]
Let's compare crowd estimates from the Colbert rally using similar pictures, shall we?
And instead of simply posting a derogatory reply for appearing to support the rally, you could instead argue against the calculation to come by the range of estimates (low end was 90k).
Re:A more accurate count (Score:5, Informative)
you could instead argue against the calculation to come by the range of estimates (low end was 90k)
The low end was 78k, from the guy in Arizona who is a "crowd estimation expert". His estimate was 87k +/- 9k, so from 78k-96k.
Now, I'm more willing to believe a guy who has a system and method for accurately estimating crowd sizes than I am a website who is analyzing several low-resolution oblique photos and trying to apply a single formula to the entire crowd. The photos the researcher from Arizona used were taken by a company flying balloons from high overhead to lower down, for the specific purpose of taking pictures for estimating the size of the crowds.
Their site is here: http://airphotoslive.com/ [airphotoslive.com].
Here is an article describing the guy's methodology with examples:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20015214-503544.html [cbsnews.com]
I'm much more willing to trust that guy to come up with a reliable estimate versus someone trying to guess at the average croud density and offering a range between 86k and 200k.
Re:Go Stephen! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It's easy to get 1M MORE people to stand up for government handouts, affirmative action, race baiting, and pop culture coolness.
...than bigotry, ignorance, self aggrandization, and chalk boards? Yes, yes it is. Thank you for pointing out the obvious.
What the hell? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is this on Slashdot?
I couldn't care less about the Tea Party or Colbert. It isn't real news. It certainly isn't for nerds.
Re:What the hell? (Score:4, Insightful)
Page hits, my man, page hits (Score:5, Funny)
Controversy leads to page hits. Page hits lead to advertisers. Advertisers lead to income. Income leads to getting laid.
Mystery solved.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Should the dark side be somewhere in the chain of reasoning?
Re:Page hits, my man, page hits (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the fellow below had it right when he completed the cycle with "Getting laid leads to marriage, and marriage leads to SUFFERING!"
The Date (Score:4, Insightful)
The date they want to hold the rally is 10 October of '10. I.E., 10/10/10, however they have the poster written with the date as 101010, which is binary for 42, which, as we all know, is the answer to life, the universe and everything. Its the ultimate truthy thing. It's the ultimate nerd thing. Only thing its missing is a sign saying "Repent! The Singularity is Nye!" with the Science guy himself staring everyone down like Uncle Sam.
Re:What the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't debate things anymore, we have competing demagogues shouting past each other, lying, and using naked appeals to emotion to push their agendas. Beck is the most visible at the moment, but he's certainly not the first nor the last. Hell, they don't even really debate things in the halls of Congress anymore, they just shout their talking points at each other to rile up the extremists on either end of the political spectrum because they're apparently the only ones who still vote.
Meanwhile, comedians like Colbert try to point out the absurdity of it all, and everyone has a good laugh, and no one changes their behavior. A rally at the Lincoln memorial would accomplish nothing. Beck's followers would either ignore it or use it as fuel to steer even further toward the extreme and follow Beck even closer. Beck's detractors would have a good laugh about it, but they're already convinced Beck is a nutbar so it's preaching to the choir for them.
On the other hand, if it was well-executed it would probably give Colbert a ratings boost, so at least he and the guys over at Comedy Central would get something out of it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
they just shout their talking points at each other to rile up the extremists on either end of the political spectrum because they're apparently the only ones who still vote.
Actually, the republicans scream/vote to appease the extreme end of the spectrum. The democrats vote to appease the republicans. If the democrats actually listened to the people who elected them the US would be out of the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan and we'd have a single payer health care system.
Re:What the hell? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you really want your kids to learn creationism in school, have 99% of the budget spend on military and hunting homeless and immigrants become a recreational activity? This is what will happen if everyone (including nerds) will keep saying - "That none of my business".
Don't forget the oceans will rise to swallow the coasts and corporations will take all our rights.
All because of that party of FEAR!
Re:What the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is precisely because I care about the environment that I am concerned about people who conflate caring for the environment with fearmongering.
Re:What the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
"hunting homeless and immigrants become a recreational activity?"
HELL YES. Bring this on, immediately.
Seriously, why do people insist on trying to equate illegals with immigrants? The first act of an illegal is disrespect our national and its law, their very method of entry into the nation demonstrates they are unfit to enter our society. The first act of an immigrant is to show respect for our nation and culture and to undergo significant (but not unreasonable) efforts to become a part of it.
There is a reason why legal immigrants integrate into america and make it stronger with parts of their former culture while illegal immigrants form pockets of what they consider to still be their culture.
Sorry, you don't really believe that do you? (Score:3, Insightful)
Your comment is in line with "elect Republicans and they will take your Social Security away" or "Elect Democrats and they will raise taxes"
Even if somehow one party managed to control two thirds of both houses and the white house the courts would still be there as well as the court of public opinion. Even while Democrats had a majority in both houses they rarely got anything done. When they did they resorted to parliamentarian tricks and deception. Hell we saw bill after bill passed without Congressmen
Re:What the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Tea Party isn't news?
The group whose dominating and inept control of the conservative voice in 2009 was a key factor in passing the sweeping healthcare reform bill isn't news?
No, they're news. It's just that no matter which side of the aisle you're on, they're bad news.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"The person who posted this image is incapable of reading directions. Feel free to publically ridicule him or her."
Consider yourself ridiculed.
Re:What the hell? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sheldon Cooper is the nerdiest nerd on TV in the US.
Idle? (Score:4, Insightful)
Shouldn't this be in idle?
Journalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Every so often I think it's a sad state of affairs for journalism when satirists like John Stewart and Stephen Colbert on a comedy channel are considered more reliable, trustworthy, and objective in their reporting than "serious" (for lack of a better term) journalists like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly on what's supposed to be a news channel.
Re:Journalism (Score:5, Insightful)
"serious" (for lack of a better term) journalists
The better term is "opinion show hosts".
Re:Journalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Journalism (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know that that's entirely fair. These things are on a continuum.
You look at an O'Reilly or an Olbermann (to pick two guys with very different politics), and if you're not in line with them politically, you'll probably disagree a lot with their interpretation of an event or its implications, but in some sense their starting point feels based in reality even if where they end up isn't.
I don't get that same sense out of, say, Beck.
Re:Journalism (Score:5, Informative)
There's your mistake. Beck and O'Reilly aren't journalists at all, serious or otherwise. Their shows are opinion pieces, start to finish. They're "serious journalists" in the same way that professional wrestlers are "serious athletes".
FOX should just give up the word news and start calling themselves a "political commentary" channel. That's what they really seem to want to focus on, and what they want to be. Why not just go with that? Note to FOX fans who take this as insulting, this isn't necessarily intended to be a negative thing. If anything, it would probably eliminate a lot of the criticism aimed at FOX News. There's nothing wrong with being a political commentary channel, and you don't need to pretend to hold to some kind of "Fair and Balanced" standard.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sadly, it's the same thing on other networks. ESPN: Mike & Mike show in the AM blathers about something. Later the same day, ESPN news coverage is largely ab
It's certainly easier... (Score:3, Insightful)
where a young woman wondered if the only way to point out the absurdity of the Tea Party's rally would be if Colbert mirrored it with his own Colbert Nation.'"
It's certainly easier than, you know, actually acknowledging and dealing with their ideas...
Re:It's certainly easier... (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean like how pretty much all of what they complained about was happening also under Dubya's reign in office and yet they only started complaining about these things once Obama got into office and continued the stupid policies of the previous administration?
Re:It's certainly easier... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's certainly easier... (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. Both sides are assholes which is why neither extreme should be the one holding power.
Re:It's certainly easier... (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Both sides are assholes which is why neither extreme should be the one holding power.
Sure... and then you get Obama, who's about as middle of the road as they come, hence why no one is happy. The Democrats wish he was more liberal, the Republicans wish he was more conservative, and everyone else wishes he was at least interesting enough to pay attention to.
Re:It's certainly easier... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's certainly easier than, you know, actually acknowledging and dealing with their ideas...
What ideas? You mean ideas like somehow thinking that Patrick Henry was a supporter of the US Constitution http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/09/patrick_henry_and_the_tea_part_1.php [scienceblogs.com]. Or maybe you mean Glenn Beck's pseudoscientific ideas about how the Smithsonian is involved in a massive conspiracy to cover up 19th century archaelogical facts?http://anthroslug.blogspot.com/2010/08/glenn-becks-pseudo-archaeology-part-1.html [blogspot.com]. Or maybe you mean the idea that Obama is going to put Republicans into concentration camps http://boingboing.net/2009/03/17/foxs-glenn-beck-says.html [boingboing.net]? You know, what? I'm sick of the notion that there is anything resembling worthwhile ideas coming from this man. At a certain point, it is a waste of time to actually respond to this paranoid nonsense in any other way than ridicule. And to the people who believe him or listen to him? Fuck 'em. Fuck every one of them for being too lazy or too stupid or too tribalistic to exercise their brains at all.
Now, if you just we're talking about the saner end of the Tea Partiers then there might be some argument that they have actual ideas, mainly resembling the form "I like government policies that make life better for me but not for other people." Do I need to address what's wrong with that also or are we done?
Well, because it's a "young woman" ... (Score:5, Funny)
I wasn't interested in this at all, until I read that it was a young woman who made the post to Reddit. Now I'm definitely interested. Does anyone know what she looks like? I mean, being a woman implies she's old enough, and young is certainly promising, but you never know. Before I get involved in something like this, I definitely want to know what she looks like. I've been burned on more than one blind date and Internet romance. Also, of course, is she married? Is she dating anyone? How seriously? Is he socially conscious? Because I am, and that's usually my hook, because I'm not really like a jock or anything, but some girls are into that. Also, we both like Colbert, so that's something in common too. Anyway, if anyone gets her email address or some pics, please send them to me, because this seems like a really cool idea from a young woman.
Smug Internet people. (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, you mean some smug Internet denizen came up with a way to launch a "hilarious" yet substance-free attack on a group she and all her cool friends just "know" is silly? What stunning news! Strawman used by baselessly smug group of left wingers against group of right wingers!
What next, are we going to have a story about a group of right wingers painting left wingers as Anti-American and playing the Outrage Card to rouse the rabble?
A pox on both their houses.
Doesn't it get boring after a while, reveling in how clever you and your Internet buddies who have developed some lame shared-language of goofball Internet memes are?
Oh, wait...
They already had a counter-protest (Score:3, Insightful)
The race profiteer Al Sharpton led a small group to protest the "hijacking" of MLK's memory.
Fools All (Score:3, Insightful)
To think that ANY political ideology, no matter where it sits on the spectrum of political thought, provides an optimum framework for solving the world's or nation's problems is the sign of a very small mind.
Re:Most of the pople who Watch Colbert..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Are usually nerdy college students or people who live in their parent's basement rent free. In other words dependents who are dependant upon staying out from the daylight. You really think they are going to get a bunch of them pryed away from their gamestations and computers long enough to go outside to a rally in the hot burning sun?
You would have better luck convincing Vampires to eat a cloves of garlic while standing in an open air church at high noon.
You shouldn't assume that everyone who watches the same shows you do is like you.
Re:Most of the pople who Watch Colbert..... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, no, there are all kinds of Glenn Beck fans. For instance, there is the crazy wing: libertarian crazies, religious crazies, racist crazies. Then there is the retard wing, home-schooled retards, closeted retards, old senile retards. We also have the diabolically evil faction, Wall Street evil, coal mining evil, big oil evil, the military industrial evil complex.
Glen Beck's popularity spans all sorts of crazy, retarded and evil.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Speaking from personal experience?
Re:Most of the pople who Watch Colbert..... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Ignore the Troll (Score:5, Informative)
You stopped watching during the Bush years, didn't you? Comedians tend to make fun of those in power. Comedy Central ridicules Obama and the Democrats plenty, now that they are the ones in power.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ignore the Troll (Score:4, Insightful)
It's obvious you haven't watched either recently.
Re:Ignore the Troll (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? Count the number of times John Stewart makes direct fun of a Republican, then rewatch an episode and count the number of times he makes fun of a Democrat. Each episode is HEAVILY weighted to make fun of conservatives.
First, sure, but making fun of one more than the other != only making fun of one, which is what the post you replied to was rebutting.
Second, to be fair, if you removed mocking Fox News from the count, I think it'd be pretty even up. As a comedian, what can you even do about that? Half the day MSNBC is airing what amount to Dateline NBC reruns or the equivalent and there just isn't shit funny to say about that. Olbermann at his most blustering and ridiculous can't hold a candle to the sheer ludicrousness of Glenn Beck drawing something completely nonsensical on a chalkboard and weeping about it.
(Colbert is a little more middle but still ridicules Republicans more.) Comedy Central is just as left-leaning as CNN and MSNBC.
If you think the modern incarnation of CNN is left-leaning, you're seeing what you want to see and not what's actually there. If anything, they attempt to be "balanced" to a fault, giving voice to both sides of an issue even when one of those sides (be it conservative or liberal) is clearly insane. If I was a politician and came out tomorrow saying I thought we shouldn't set kindergardens on fire, CNN would find some nutball who thought we should to provide a counterpoint.
Re:Ignore the Troll (Score:4, Insightful)
The Daily Show and the Colbert report make fun of the brainless.
Fortunately for the Democratic party, they are spineless.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Both sides still get it pretty regularly.
But let's be honest, there isn't a liberal Glenn Beck. There just isn't anyone even in that league in terms of humor value. You have to go where the jokes are, and a guy who writes crazy conspiracy crap on a chalkboard while crying is a gold mine.
Even if you somehow secretly cloned, say, President Obama and raised him in a secret lab to be the worst parts of everything his detractors claim him to be, then somehow swapped him for the real president, the result would
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You obviously have never seen any of Keith Olberman's political rants.
I have. Partisan, absolutely. Demagogue-y, sure. As ridiculous as Beck? Not even close on his best day.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly...They made fun of Clinton because he got a blow job. They make fun of Bush because he acts folksie and dumb. They make fun of Dick Cheney because he has a Darth Vader Complex. As for Obama, what are they going to do? They can't do racist humor. He isn't dumb or crazy, and he only seems evil to rightwing conspiracy theorists. So what jokes do you make?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Is it their fault all the good fun is to be had pointing out how hypocritical and untalented the Right Wing is? If you want to watch jokes (try to be) made at the expense of the Establishment/Left, just watch Saturday Night Live (you may or may not laugh)...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If you need to use a binary translator to determine that, then you're on the wrong website.
Please hand in your geek card on your way out.
Re:Think not what your country can do for you.... (Score:4, Funny)
We choose to do it not because it is easy, but because it is hard.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Getting rid of Beck would be like getting rid of Hitler, you risk having someone competent replace him after giving the followers a martyr and renewed (frothing mad) fervor.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wasn't that the argument for keeping Jack Thompson around?
He's been disbarred and shamed, no one has taken his place yet.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Getting rid of Beck would be like getting rid of Hitler
You destroy everything he's built up until he commits suicide in his basement?
Re:Truthiness (Score:4, Informative)
In order to understand the difference between the term "truth" and Colbert's made-up word "truthiness", you'd have to, you know, actually watch the show at least once.
Colbert is a comedian who openly uses lies and manipulative humor to get laughs among his followers. He mocks everything in sight, with a double helping reserved for himself. He's in the business of entertainment, not news. He's a complete attention whore because that's what pays the bills.
I don't know the term for the opposite of "comedian", "tragedean", maybe? Whatever the term would be, that's Beck. He openly uses lies and manipulative tragedy to get outrage among his followers. He derides everything in sight, with a double helping reserved for anyone who he thinks his followers might agree with him on. He's in the business of entertainment, not news. He's a complete attention whore because that's what pays the bills.
Re: The Lone Conservative... (Score:4, Insightful)
Having been visiting /. for over 15 years I'm shocked at the amount of, what appears to be, left wingers here. It's never really come up but am I in the conservative minority on Slashdot?
It's hard to say. A lot of people used to vehemently defend the Iraq war, but as the public soured on it they became a distinct minority. We still get a fairly large number of anti-Islam anti-Muslim posters... I was shocked by the views I saw posted here (and modded up) on a story a week or two ago.
But maybe all that doesn't really reflect conservative/liberal politics.
Traditionally we've had a very large number of "Latter Day Libertarians", by which I mean self-described Libertarians who apparently don't care about anything but gun ownership, taxes, and laws that might restrict their ability to become filthy rich.
Also... The most vocal group isn't necessarily the biggest group. We should have a /. poll on political orientation.
Younger people are typically left-wing. As you get older, and if you're responsible, you'll begin swinging right... unless you're a career politician...
This is conventional wisdom, but I'm not sure it's true. I have certainly gone the opposite direction.
Also, I suspect liberals and conservatives disagree intensely what "responsible" means.