Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Robert Baratheon

Jon Stewart: Unfunny Hypocrite and Liar [on Israel & Gaza]

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Jon Stewart: Unfunny Hypocrite and Liar

 

The Daily Show has always leaned progressive, but it has made the full jump to left-wing propaganda outlet with its dishonest and lopsided coverage of the Gaza-Israeli conflict:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmPJb6Mcu6g

 

What is Stewart’s point exactly? The rockets Hamas fires at Israeli population centers to indiscriminately harm as many people as possible don’t count because Israel manages to shoot down many of them?

 

In true pundit fashion, Stewart – in the course of ridiculing a smartphone app which warns Israelis of incoming rocket attacks (har har) – selectively omits that Israel does warn Gaza citizens of impending strikes using technology via phone messages, air-dropped pamphlets, loudspeakers, and a variety of other methods besides warning shots before engaging in air strikes. How often does Hamas warn Israel of impending rocket attacks? (Never.) Stewart conveniently decides not to air footage from the same interview he samples showing an Israeli pilot calling off an airstrike after being notified that there are children in the target zone. Doesn’t fit the narrative.

 

Later in his segment, Stewart (reluctantly) acknowledges that Israel makes phone calls to Gaza residents in many cases to get them to evacuate buildings being bombed, but yells indignantly at the camera that in Gaza they have nowhere to which they can evacuate. The false inference is that the evacuation request is to evacuate from Gaza and not from the building being bombed to save their lives.

 

Stewart is a frequent critic of Fox News for its biased, pundit-style conservative reporting and commentary. How his program is any different from a Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity report using humor to mislead viewers and slam political opponents is a question he is unlikely to answer anytime soon.

 

Source: http://wp.me/p4yevN-ak

Edited by Robert Baratheon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm always perplexed by people who accuse successful comedians of being "unfunny". Even the hack ones (which Jon Stewart is not). What are you thinking? It's like calling water dry. You're stating the opposite of something obvious.

"Unfunny" would imply that he lacks the ability to make people laugh. That's a pretty absurd suggestion, don't you think?

I've seen Jon Stewart make people laugh plenty of times. Not just people who agree with him politically, btw. Sure, on his Comedy Central show, his audience is people on the political left, and he makes them laugh with jokes at the expense of political opponents. Those specific jokes wouldn't make you laugh. But he's not trying to make you laugh, he's trying to make his audience laugh. And you're not his audience, at most you watch him looking for fodder for angry blog posts.

But, in a different setting, he can make a non-liberal audience laugh all the same(and has, he has had a lot of success being funny about topics other than politics, on MTV for instance, in the past). I bet he could even make you laugh, back before you decided to be angry with him.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NIcky ignores the whole point and argument of the post about Stewart's performance to settle on one adjective in the title. There is nothing in the post about Stewart's chops in general as a comedian, to lefties or any other audience. Presumably, RB finds the vicious distortions reported in the post to be unfunny. Why anything more than that needs to be inferred from the adjective is unclear, especially given the actual point of the post. Nicky's response is gratuitous and diversionary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NIcky ignores the whole point and argument of the post about Stewart's performance to settle on one adjective in the title.

Why are you stating the obvious? I chose to focus on the adjective on purpose. Never tried to hide what I'm focused on.

Why anything more than that needs to be inferred from the adjective is unclear, especially given the actual point of the post.

I haven't read the post. I don't care about the point of the post, I already know that Jon Stewart is a Liberal, that Liberals are wrong about politics, and that Conservatives are really upset about it.

I care about calling talented people names out of spite for their political views. I care when it happens to Gary Oldman, or Dennis Miller, or Alec Baldwin, or Jon Stewart.

Nicky's response is gratuitous and diversionary.

No, calling someone "unfunny" to try and make a political point is what's gratuitous. Pointing that out isn't.

Not sure how it's diversionary either. Notice how the rest of RB's post didn't distract me from addressing the issue I wanted to talk about? You should follow my lead, and talk about whichever part of the OP you wish to talk about. Feel free to drive the subject into the ground as much as you'd like, ignore me completely. You don't have to let me and my diversionary tactics derail your important points that a million conservative talking heads and bloggers have made before, you're much too clever for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw, I vaguely remember a guy who was going around referring to people in the third person when talking to them, a few months ago. He went away, I assume he was banned. Are you the same guy, GabrielB?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm always perplexed by people who accuse successful comedians of being "unfunny". Even the hack ones (which Jon Stewart is not). What are you thinking? It's like calling water dry. You're stating the opposite of something obvious."Unfunny" would imply that he lacks the ability to make people laugh. That's a pretty absurd suggestion, don't you think?I've seen Jon Stewart make people laugh plenty of times.

There was a time when Jon Stewart's primary concern was to be funny. Humor is now merely a secondary concern. If he keeps heading down this road he'll be as bad as SNL. SNL gave up on being funny around the time that Bush "stole" the election from Gore. The entire cast was so full of rage they lost their ever-loving minds. From that point on, it was war. The humor became a secondary concern. They haven't been funny in years. They are just being a bunch of a-holes delivering insults with a smile on their face to hide their rage and hatred.

Obama, Hillary, SNL, and Jon Stewart are all following Saul Alinsky's playbook for "Progressives"

Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (They want to create anger and fear.)

Edited by Dogstar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The show caters to people who are politically to the left. Gonna have to agree with Nicky here - doesn't mean Jon Stewart isn't funny. It also doesn't mean that he doesn't make some salient points. 

 

 

 

Later in his segment, Stewart (reluctantly) acknowledges that Israel makes phone calls to Gaza residents in many cases to get them to evacuate buildings being bombed, but yells indignantly at the camera that in Gaza they have nowhere to which they can evacuate. The false inference is that the evacuation request is to evacuate from Gaza and not from the building being bombed to save their lives.

 

Not really seeing what your issue with this is here. I'm not saying Israel's aggression is unjustified, but there's certainly an argument to be made that there's been a lot of unnecessary civilian casualties. Stewart was making a point that a lot of people have made in response to Israel's warnings to residents of Gaza - there really is nowhere safe to be in Gaza right now. Citizens who evacuate to hospitals and schools have seen shelling all the same. 

 

 

 

 

In true pundit fashion, Stewart – in the course of ridiculing a smartphone app which warns Israelis of incoming rocket attacks (har har) – selectively omits that Israel does warn Gaza citizens of impending strikes using technology via phone messages, air-dropped pamphlets, loudspeakers, and a variety of other methods besides warning shots before engaging in air strikes. How often does Hamas warn Israel of impending rocket attacks? (Never.) Stewart conveniently decides not to air footage from the same interview he samples showing an Israeli pilot calling off an airstrike after being notified that there are children in the target zone. Doesn’t fit the narrative.

 

So you're saying that Jon Stewart was selectively deciding what to include in his (short) segment, based on what would make his point most powerfully and provide the most laughs? Huh. I wonder why he would do such a thing.

 

Maybe you missed it. The Daily Show has never aspired to be a news program. They're not a news program, they have never claimed to be a news program. The Daily Show is specifically crafted to do three things, in this order:

 

1. Make people laugh

2. Parody the awful, awful pundits that are actually serious about what they do, and come off ten times worse than the guy who's just joking about it 

3. Pander to their audience, i.e. politically left people.

 

 

 

Your criticism relies on Jon Stewart having any obligation, or even intention, to supply accurate news. The guy has a segment that lasts less than thirty minutes - he couldn't provide accurate news if he tried. So he doesn't. Instead he makes people laugh, and offers a voice that is a bit different from the more commonly conservative and centrist pundits on television. You don't have to agree with him on everything, I certainly don't, but your criticism is entirely unfounded. It's like you forgot that you were watching the goddamn comedy channel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be "by definition".

Doesn't that throw humor in the realm of subjectivism? If something is funny, then it shouldn't be about whether or not someone laughs. E.g. a group of friends laughing at the other friend who was playing the "knockout" game.

It seems to me that funny is similar to the concept of value as it has two definitions -- one in the broad sense (I.e. Anything that someone laughs at), and then the sense specific to the objectivist philosophy.

I don't think you could say that the person knocking out a random person on the street is really "funny" just because someone laughs at it.

Similarly, poison isn't really a value just because someone acts to obtain it in order to drink it.

Edited by thenelli01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ga

Doesn't that throw humor in the realm of subjectivism? If something is funny, then it shouldn't be about whether or not someone laughs. E.g. a group of friends laughing at the other friend who was playing the "knockout" game.

It seems to me that funny is similar to the concept of value as it has two definitions -- one in the broad sense (I.e. Anything that someone laughs at), and then the sense specific to the objectivist philosophy.

I don't think you could say that the person knocking out a random person on the street is really "funny" just because someone laughs at it.

Similarly, poison isn't really a value just because someone acts to obtain it in order to drink it.

I gave you a definition of "funny". By that definition, I can see some similarities to the definition of value: value is something that furthers your life, funny is something that makes you laugh.

Something that will kill you (that's the definition of poison) isn't of value to you, the same way something that doesn't make you laugh isn't funny to you. The two concepts are similar because they're both relative concepts. Something is a value TO someone, and something is funny TO someone. 

 

To take that even further, a "valuable person" is one that tends to be of value to others, and a funny person is one that tends to make people laugh. I guess this second similarity is a bit of a stretch, since people aren't aiming to be of value to each other (they're aiming to be of value to themselves), but they are aiming to be funny to each other.

 

But you seem to disagree with that definition. If you do, then you need to provide a different definition before we can even begin to discuss whether your concept of funny is similar to anything.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think you could say that the person knocking out a random person on the street is really "funny" just because someone laughs at it.

 

I can't imagine what possible definition of "funny" you could come up with, by which someone's laughing, but the thing they're laughing at isn't funny to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It seems to me that funny is similar to the concept of value as it has two definitions -- one in the broad sense (I.e. Anything that someone laughs at), and then the sense specific to the objectivist philosophy. 

 

I sure hope that we don't need an Objectivist definition of "funny." It's starting to seem like someone needs to write a dictionary of common terms that have different meanings in Objectivism. Is there something inherently wrong with the definition of "funny" being "that which makes one laugh"? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't imagine what possible definition of "funny" you could come up with, by which someone's laughing, but the thing they're laughing at isn't funny to them.

 

I suppose that one could say that "funny is in the eye of the beholder"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose that one could say that "funny is in the eye of the beholder"

Depends on what you mean. If you mean "whether Jon Stewart is a funny person is in the eye of the beholder", not really. Stewart is objectively funny, he can make pretty much anyone laugh.

 

If you mean "a particular joke (or rather, a particular telling of a joke) is only funny if the audience laughs at it", absolutely. 

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ga

I gave you a definition of "funny". By that definition, I can see some similarities to the definition of value: value is something that furthers your life, funny is something that makes you laugh.

 

Miss Rand used two definitions of value:

A) General: That which one acts to gain or keep.

B- Specific: That which one acts to gain and keep, which furthers one’s life.

 

The second is specific to the Objectivist Philosophy.

 

So, no, I wouldn't compare those two definitions. I would say that Value using definition A (not the definition of value that you provided) and funny "that which makes you laugh" are similar.

 

 

 

Something that will kill you (that's the definition of poison) isn't of value to you, the same way something that doesn't make you laugh isn't funny to you. The two concepts are similar because they're both relative concepts. Something is a value TO someone, and something is funny TO someone. 

 

Poison is of value using the first definition.

 

 

But you seem to disagree with that definition. If you do, then you need to provide a different definition before we can even begin to discuss whether your concept of funny is similar to anything.

 

Well, I'd have two definitions.

 

A) General: That which makes one laugh.

B- Specific: That which makes one laugh, in accordance with rational values.

 

So, no, someone getting hit in the "knockout game" would not be funny to someone who values human life and a civil society.

Edited by thenelli01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christ, so now what I find funny isn't up to me anymore? Do we have a list of Objectivism-safe comedians and topics of humor, nelli?

Relax silly, I'm not an objectivist fanboy, so I'd appreciate if you would not attempt to belittle me and put me in that camp. You don't even know me.

But, my point is that there are many things that are objectively not funny - particularly things that contradict rational values that sustain life. So no, someone getting knocked out in a stupid game or being raped are objectively not funny.

Edited by thenelli01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I involuntarily laugh at someone tripping, would you say I "objectively" don't actually find it funny?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I involuntarily laugh at someone tripping, would you say I "objectively" don't actually find it funny?

No, you found it funny. That would be the general sense of the word funny as I described above. But is it objectively funny -- can you justify rationally laughing at it. In other words, should you be laughing at it and classify it as funny?

Just like poison is a value (in the general sense of the word value) to anyone attempting to obtain it. But should you attempt to obtain it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you found it funny. That would be the general sense of the word funny as I described above. But is it objectively funny -- can you justify rationally laughing at it. In other words, should you be laughing at it and classify it as funny?

Just like poison is a value (in the general sense of the word value) to anyone attempting to obtain it. But should you attempt to obtain it?

 

Does that mean Jaskn is having an irrational thought when he finds it funny?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that mean Jaskn is having an irrational thought when he finds it funny?

 

No. But if he laughs at, for example, someone being raped and murdered in the street and classifies it as "funny," that is certainly irrational. 

Edited by thenelli01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Nicky pointed out, I think you are using a different definition of "funny" than the simple dictionary definition: "causing laughter or amusement." Laughter is involuntary, based on already-held notions and ideas. Maybe you mean to use a word like "flippant" or "unserious."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon Stewart: Unfunny Hypocrite and Liar

 

The Daily Show has always leaned progressive, but it has made the full jump to left-wing propaganda outlet with its dishonest and lopsided coverage of the Gaza-Israeli conflict:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmPJb6Mcu6g

 

What is Stewart’s point exactly? The rockets Hamas fires at Israeli population centers to indiscriminately harm as many people as possible don’t count because Israel manages to shoot down many of them?

 

In true pundit fashion, Stewart – in the course of ridiculing a smartphone app which warns Israelis of incoming rocket attacks (har har) – selectively omits that Israel does warn Gaza citizens of impending strikes using technology via phone messages, air-dropped pamphlets, loudspeakers, and a variety of other methods besides warning shots before engaging in air strikes. How often does Hamas warn Israel of impending rocket attacks? (Never.) Stewart conveniently decides not to air footage from the same interview he samples showing an Israeli pilot calling off an airstrike after being notified that there are children in the target zone. Doesn’t fit the narrative.

 

Later in his segment, Stewart (reluctantly) acknowledges that Israel makes phone calls to Gaza residents in many cases to get them to evacuate buildings being bombed, but yells indignantly at the camera that in Gaza they have nowhere to which they can evacuate. The false inference is that the evacuation request is to evacuate from Gaza and not from the building being bombed to save their lives.

 

Stewart is a frequent critic of Fox News for its biased, pundit-style conservative reporting and commentary. How his program is any different from a Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity report using humor to mislead viewers and slam political opponents is a question he is unlikely to answer anytime soon.

 

Source: http://wp.me/p4yevN-ak

As I haven't seen the Steward show, i'll comment blind on Gaza. Otherwise, yes, he's trying to be a left-wing O'Reilly; the American public is not well-served by this two-sided rhetorical circus.

 

Yet Stewart is hardly the first to observe that there really isn't any place to get out of danger when under attack by the zionists. Perhaps in this respect there are still some americans who seriously believe that one bomb or shell destroys exactly and only the specific house that's targeted. 

 

Due to the hollywood nonsense, perhaps these ignorami are furthermore unaware that the emitted force from an explosion kills children at 50 meters, etc.... as well as deadly force from shattered glass and debris....etc....

 

Yes, Hamas fires rockets into their own occupied land. But why not? It's theirs, after all! Why not have a little fun with glorified fireworks? So if a settler gets hit, well, that's too bad. 'Shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet Stewart is hardly the first to observe that there really isn't any place to get out of danger when under attack by the zionists.

Yes, there is. "the zionists" use targeted attacks against Hamas operatives and weapons. The place to get out of the way is everywhere except around those targets.

Perhaps in this respect there are still some americans who seriously believe that one bomb or shell destroys exactly and only the specific house that's targeted.

No one believes that. But the capabilities and limitations of Israeli cruise missiles are public knowledge. You're more then welcome to look them up on the Internet and see how far away you need to be from a target, to not be injured. It's not that far, the Israelis are very good at surgical strikes, and in general they use much smaller payloads than the US military, precisely to limit collateral damage.

...Due to the hollywood nonsense, perhaps these ignorami are furthermore unaware that the emitted force from an explosion kills children at 50 meters, etc.

So children should be kept 100 meters away from any Hamas rocket building factories or storage facilities, then.

I wonder why they're not. Could it be because Hamas is using schools and neighborhoods to build and store weapons in, not to mention launch them from?

(not that your assertion that the average Israeli missile has a kill radius of over 50m is true: it isn't)

Yes, Hamas fires rockets into their own occupied land. But why not?

Lots of reasons.

1. It's starting a war agaisnt a more capable enemy (so it's just going to war for the sake of being at war, without any prospect of victory),

2. all it accomplishes is to provoke a justified response, which ends up killing far more of their own people than the supposed "occupiers"

3. it's starting a war against a democratic and far more moral political entity (surely, even you understand that "the zionists" have a better political system than Hamas),

4. it's an illegal act of war under a set of widely accepted rules of conduct in war (because it deliberately targets non-combatants),

5. it is meant to promote a theocratic dictatorship

6. it's an act of attempted genocide (an incompetent and ineffective one, but still: Hamas' stated goal is to clear the entire territory of Israel of the five million Jews who live there)

7. "it's their own occupied land" is not a very accurate representation of the situation to begin with, since there was never a political entity called Palestine, let alone one called "Hamasville", before.

etc., etc.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×