Republicans: continued

[Joe]

...and other hacks are known to dismiss concerns such as he described, because they are Republicans expressing them.

I get it though. Would take a lot more courage to take the republican side, than the democrat one.

At least in academia, hollywood, network TV or social media...

I can see you saying that, since you're a fan of his. I don't dismiss his concerns, but I doubt Crowder's sincerity. This just looks like self promotion.

I would go further and outright say that it IS self-promotion. That doesn't dismiss them either, so that is sort of moot.

I listened to his interview with John Stossel. Stossel used to be a regular on my local paper's op-ed page, and I share his view of Crowder's comedy, that it's unnecessarily mean. I don't think he was that impressed with Crowder either.

I must say I agree. Crowder started out as an actor, a comedian, and a pundit. He's never worked a reporter job, and it shows. It's kind of like Rachel Maddow's background in a way, strong on entertainment, but not so much on the discipline of reporting.

Ya. He doesn't have positions that are outrageous though, despite the fact that his comedy aims to be. He does a decent job on the 'change my mind' segments, and the beautiful thing is, anyone could do better. Often don't, but that's ok too.

You're welcome to your opinion, but I don't like the guy's mean streak and he lies too often for me to bother with him.

He and his posse strike me as the kind of guys who would pass a runner limping along a country road without checking to see if he or she needed a ride. I'd stop, and I bet you would too.

[pErvinalia]

Cunt would shout from the window as his car sped past "I wish you good cardio!"

[L'Emmerdeur]

I must say I agree. Crowder started out as an actor, a comedian, and a pundit. He's never worked a reporter job, and it shows. It's kind of like Rachel Maddow's background in a way, strong on entertainment, but not so much on the discipline of reporting.

'In a way' if you don't take into account that Maddow's background includes a bachelor's degree in public policy from Stanford and a doctorate in political science from Oxford University. Crowder on the other hand managed two semesters of higher education and quit to pursue his comedy/acting career.

Yes, but my point is not that Maddow is the same as Crowder, but is similarly challenged from a reporting standpoint. Reporter is a discipline separate from that of pundit, and that distinction is significant. Maddow has had some significant factual missteps, as has Crowder.

As pundits go, Maddow is certainly better at presenting a logical case. Crowder is a sloppy thinker who appeals to emotion where Maddow is well organized and persuasive as you would expect of her education level. In a way, they each fit their audience, but I don't treat them as highly reliable. They aren't paid to be objective sources of information.

I agree that Maddow's work is not unbiased, and that she comes out with false reporting on occasion--the falsehoods generally paint the right in a worse light. However, she generally will retract and correct them publicly. I get what you're saying, but I don't consider her background similar to Crowder's, nor is his work comparable to hers.

[Cunt]

You're welcome to your opinion, but I don't like the guy's mean streak and he lies too often for me to bother with him.

The 'lies' I've been directed to, are often in dispute.

As to his 'mean streak', i get that it feels wrong to you and Stossel, but I have to pass along a question posed by an expert (Salmon Rushdie)

what would respectful satire look like?

I don't mind that he reflected Maza's language back at him, but lots of people think that means Crowder is bad.

Even after what came of it.

He and his posse strike me as the kind of guys who would pass a runner limping along a country road without checking to see if he or she needed a ride. I'd stop, and I bet you would too.

Of course I would stop. I think he and his 'posse' would, too.

Thinking they don't is a weird take.

He seems much more Canadian to me than he does to you. My guess is that it is not because he attacks (with his comedy).

But because of a perception that he is 'punching down'.

[Animavore]

Reading time for Conservatives.

[Joe]

You're welcome to your opinion, but I don't like the guy's mean streak and he lies too often for me to bother with him.

The 'lies' I've been directed to, are often in dispute.

As to his 'mean streak', i get that it feels wrong to you and Stossel, but I have to pass along a question posed by an expert (Salmon Rushdie)

what would respectful satire look like?

I don't mind that he reflected Maza's language back at him, but lots of people think that means Crowder is bad.

Even after what came of it.

He and his posse strike me as the kind of guys who would pass a runner limping along a country road without checking to see if he or she needed a ride. I'd stop, and I bet you would too.

Of course I would stop. I think he and his 'posse' would, too.

Thinking they don't is a weird take.

He seems much more Canadian to me than he does to you. My guess is that it is not because he attacks (with his comedy).

But because of a perception that he is 'punching down'.

The lies I've personally caught him in are sufficient for me not to trust him, and Stossel's attitude just strengthens my distrust. Also, Rushdie is a writer and seems like a reasonably smart guy, but his opinion isn't relevant here.

As for helping someone out, Crowder on his own probably. That group? I get a hinky vibe that I've learned to trust.

[Cunt]

I've seen enough smears to distrust those, too. Probably too much in the case of comedy. I think it's more important than is often recognized.

The reason I think Rushdie is relevant here, is that he was an expert writer, making a succinct point.

The fact that satire offends people - really offends them - is the point. It is often a kind of exercise of disrespect.

In his kerfuffles with social media, when I hear both their side and his, I can't help but see the heavy bias. For example, he treads quite deliberately on the (censorship) line provided by alphabet corp on his videos, and by using that line, they both make a killing.

So when alphabet corp pretends they want to disavow, and get into a spat, I tend to automatically stick to the basics - free speech and fuck censorship.

[Joe]

That's nice, but irrelevant to my point. It sounds like you are stuck in an information bubble. Perhaps you should listen to Rachel Maddow to give you another perspective. You do listen to people you disagree with, right?

[Cunt]

You should find a nice polite comedian to enjoy.

I hear Bill Cosby is family-friendly.

[Seabass]

You should find a nice polite comedian to enjoy.

I hear Bill Cosby is family-friendly.

There are plenty of comedians out there other than Billy Cosby who don't torment gay people for a living like your son Stephen Crowder.

[Cunt]

You should find a nice polite comedian to enjoy.

I hear Bill Cosby is family-friendly.

There are plenty of comedians out there other than Billy Cosby who don't torment gay people for a living like your son Stephen Crowder.

You should torment anyone except those you perceive as weak, lesser or delicate. If they are equal to you, fire away!

[Joe]

You should find a nice polite comedian to enjoy.

I hear Bill Cosby is family-friendly.

I'll take that as an admission that you don't listen to opposing viewpoints. Of course, I already knew that, but you should try it. You could call it gain of function research.

Thanks for the comedy advice, but I enjoy real comics who take on the powerful with their work, at real risk to themselves. Next to Carlin, Pryor, and Bruce, Crowder is a lightweight, crying because he might get kicked off platforms that cost him nothing. I hate to think how much he'd bawl if he broke a nail.

[Cunt]

Funny how all the 'take on the powerful' examples you have are from your youth.

Any current ones? Or is Crowder the only funny one making dangerous jokes about the powerful?

[Joe]

Funny how you can't admit that Crowder isn't in their league, or that you don't listen to opposing viewpoints, and yet you criticize people here for being closed minded.

Heck, Sarah Silverman is funnier than Crowder. Fox News probably agrees.

Crowder, who was for many years a Fox News contributor and had appeared on Hannity, was recently dropped from the Fox News slate for undisclosed reasons. A senior-level source at Fox News tells Breitbart exclusively:

Fox hired Crowder four years ago and gave him a lot of visibility. But the problem was that he was never that funny, and, in addition, he crossed the line more than a few times. So we let him go. It happens. This is a business. But now, sadly, on his way out the door, Crowder is proving his true colors, by being disloyal to the folks who took a chance on him and had him on the payroll for so long. The attack on Hannity only further underscores the wisdom of our decision to part company with him.

Yeah, dissing Hannity is some dangerous stuff.

[Cunt]

Silverberg...she used to be funny, but lately, she has turned to mocking trans people for political reasons.

She was a lot funnier when she was politically incorrect...

Who mocks the establishment well, in your opinion?

Who does good satire against the lefty causes? Hint: you can spot them by lefty folk being genuinely pissed off...