'Murica! (226 Viewers)

Ocelot

Midnight Marauder
Jul 13, 2013
18,943
That's hardly relevant for the career Stewart has had though. It was his job to destroy.
And he was great at what he was doing, the point X was trying to make is that he'd probably not be a very good president/politician himself. And Stewart knows this as well.
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
39,321
And he was great at what he was doing, the point X was trying to make is that he'd probably not be a very good president/politician himself. And Stewart knows this as well.
I know. But that nyt ed is a bit silly, given that it was Stewart's job to represent that liberal smugness.
 

king Ale

Senior Member
Oct 28, 2004
21,689
Yep. Had to largely agree with a NYT op ed yesterday:

Jon Stewart, Patron Saint of Liberal Smugness
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/opinion/sunday/jon-stewart-patron-saint-of-liberal-smugness.html

It's always so much easier to destroy than to create.
"Specifically, they believe that liberals are much more open to change than conservatives, more tolerant of differences, more motivated by the public good and, maybe most of all, smarter and better informed. The evidence for these beliefs is not good. Liberals turn out to be just as prone to their own forms of intolerance, ignorance and bias. But the beliefs are comforting to many."

Those "comforting beliefs" (at least the part regarding tolerance of differences and change) have also roots in research that have conducted much better studies in much better labs, having used far better methodologies and exploited much more representative samples than the research the author cites. That part coming from a professor (and not a journalist or reporter) makes it even more strange to me.
 

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
84,750
And he was great at what he was doing, the point X was trying to make is that he'd probably not be a very good president/politician himself. And Stewart knows this as well.
Yep. We already have too many politicians who sit back and take pot-shots at things without contributing anything as it is.

I know. But that nyt ed is a bit silly, given that it was Stewart's job to represent that liberal smugness.
I wouldn't say it was his job as much as it was a missed opportunity as potential targets. There's a wide swath of potential mockery that Stewart avoided that was ripe for the picking, and he essentially chose not to over ideology.

"Specifically, they believe that liberals are much more open to change than conservatives, more tolerant of differences, more motivated by the public good and, maybe most of all, smarter and better informed. The evidence for these beliefs is not good. Liberals turn out to be just as prone to their own forms of intolerance, ignorance and bias. But the beliefs are comforting to many."

Those "comforting beliefs" (at least the part regarding tolerance of differences and change) have also roots in research that have conducted much better studies in much better labs, having used far better methodologies and exploited much more representative samples than the research the author cites. That part coming from a professor (and not a journalist or reporter) makes it even more strange to me.
Strange, yes, but not wholly inaccurate. Why liberals often attract such ire is the sense of self-importance that they are intellectually and/or morally superior to others ... when in fact the only major difference is an unwillingness to admit to one's own faults and flaws.
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
39,321
I wouldn't say it was his job as much as it was a missed opportunity as potential targets. There's a wide swath of potential mockery that Stewart avoided that was ripe for the picking, and he essentially chose not to over ideology.

.
I think that was the angle he was going for. At the very least he obviously catered to a specific crowd.
 

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,913
Strange, yes, but not wholly inaccurate. Why liberals often attract such ire is the sense of self-importance that they are intellectually and/or morally superior to others ... when in fact the only major difference is an unwillingness to admit to one's own faults and flaws.
So only one side is showing signs of self-importance? Come on.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 8, Guests: 197)