835
Teary-eyed John Oliver begs reluctant voters to back Harris
(www.thedailybeast.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
835 points (97.3% liked)
politics
19159 readers
4529 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I feel like the argument can be made he's not even a sovereign political speaker anymore. I stopped watching him after he supported FIFA's corruption because "FIFA is like a religion" and opposed the Scottish referendum while supporting Brexit. I figured he'd always just look to what classic Brits are supposed to do and just think that way, and if this is cry-worthy to him, am I wrong?
Wow, you really coming in here saying the literal opposite of reality and expect us to buy your bullshit?
Obviously the other comments have given sources showing how wrong you are, just fuck right off with the lies.
Lol, like what? Does liking a sport and hating and exposing the corruption of it's organizers equate to supporting it's organizers? https://youtu.be/DlJEt2KU33I?si=WJAc7yVePsn0GwaA
...and apparently understanding the frustration with the EU but calling leaving it insane and urging people to vote against brexit is "supporting" it? https://youtu.be/iAgKHSNqxa8?si=JsEMq6gV7-tp5y7k
Like are you even trying? Nobody is perfect, John Oliver included, and I'm sure there are reasons to dislike him but could you at least chose topics he hasn't released multiple YouTube full clips of episodes of his show where he literally contradicts your point?
Does he? For one, he clearly supported Brexit no matter what the semantics of it are. The main point is he's so wrapped up in his identity he can't separate himself from predictable issues that sometimes raise eyebrows (again, Brexit VS the referendum come to mind). Someone not being perfect doesn't equal self-irreconciliation. The main theme with him, if anything, is matching what he's a stereotype of. Seeing him "cry for Harris" sounds like that on steroids and just the level he goes to by doing that, which I wouldn't even call good form when it's not his country who he's crying over the candidates of, is the only biggest surprise from him all year, which isn't a great thing to have to say.
Does he what?
What do you mean by the word "semantics" in this sentence? I don't think it means what you think it means.
Here are some examples of John Oliver opposing Brexit:
guardian, 2019
Last Week Tonight, Jun 2016
Last Week Tonight, Brexit ii
Last Week Tonight, Brexit iii
John Oliver publicly, repeatedly opposed Brexit, using his considerable platform to do so. With respect, you are talking out of your anus.
You seem to want to paint John Oliver as a stereotype, and then claim that this is all he is. I find that reductive, ignorant and distasteful. Here is someone who addresses issues varying from presidential accountability to gambling laws, national, international and global issues, with compassion, logic, humanity and humour. And you try to boil him down to a stereotype. You're not even able to define the stereotype you're trying to invoke. It would be funny if it weren't shameful.
No, I'm talking out of his.
He was using a massive literary device about it but it's still there, hence "semantics" (yeah I know what it means, who else does?)
Having a diversity of issues to speak on doesn't mean he isn't typical about them. I gave a gist, meaning there is more to what he says, but that doesn't mean the gist doesn't apply, or what type of person, then, does being teary-eyed about a candidate we all knew he would pick invoke then, when we are facing the most complicated election in US history? Not the best time for a fandom to project shame and that what someone is saying is considered shameful.
What?
Like what??
That video is him mostly gently middle of the road hand holding about how he thinks it's a bad decision but he won't say it to directly cause he is always scared of backlash and thinks his job as comedian is to ruffle no feathers.
I don't like him very much but... No? You are actually way off here and somehow reading something way more out of this in a way I don't understand as an outside observer.
Giving a gist is not being right. I just really think you need to take a moment and reconsider your base and set some foundation. And not presuming we see what you see when looking for your proof.
It could easily be read in the reverse way... with him using something that resembles sarcasm to promote-not-promote it. Especially if read literally by the viewer from a transcript, with the pros specifically designed to not help him. It's how rhetoric works, from all sides.
If you don't believe me about the stereotype bit, name any outlook he has spoken on and I can give a description of why it fits that charge.
Apparently not that easy if you are alone in it right?
Maybe consider you are missing something. It's not wrong to not side with everyone else but it should make you stop and consider it and then you can continue if you want. I'm just trying to give you the moment for reflection.
I agree that middle of the roading is not helpful and can normalize terrible things by act of just making them seem less terrible cause it was right next to better options but that's not the same as directly advocating for it.
And we already aren't sure you are comprehending their position with the right tone, I'm not sure more examples will help your case. Or even what you are trying to say as none of us are seeing it with you.
It's ok to pause and get yourself and your points together. I hope you find what's worth being committed to and what's ok to drop and let go of cause right now I think you are confused and could use it.
Look at some of the comments then. I'm not the only one.
Did we watch the same video?
He says that yes, EU isn't perfect, but Britain would be absolutely crazy stupid to leave. He says it multiple times, in different ways, but the point remains.
As explained, yes.
It is his country, though. He holds dual citizenship.
He's not in America though, so it doesn't change anything. He's in the UK. The US president holds no reach over him. No matter who becomes president, he's going to wake up in the UK when it's all done and it's going to be as if it was just a blip for him.
He lives in New York, you simpleton
Notice I said "in", not "lives in", as in he can hop back and forth. This is starting to sound like a fandom.
Even so, the US president holds reach over his livelihood in NYC as well as his job in an American company.
If that held a lot of relative weight due to his circumstances, that would be one thing.
What the heck? But he's not "in" the UK either. He films in the US and lives in the US and performs in the US.
You are changing definitions of things and somehow you have decided fandom is a slur? I get it. I don't like modern fandoms but like very different culture from people just trying to correct you on basic blunders.
I just don't actually get your points at all. You could think we were deflecting or apologizing for him. But fandom?
...and any of that is supposed to mean this person everyone says has dual citizenship is always in the US? If he didn't have dual citizenship and entirely changed his citizenship to "American", that would be one thing. I'm not the one changing definitions.
An American could fly to Japan on holiday, an Italian could take the train to Germany, a Chinese national could boat to Singapore. Just because you can go somewhere else doesn't change were you reside.
He could leave. So could lots of others, it's not exactly a simple thing and not exactly a unique to him thing. You still care about your house when you leave home.
You are now changing the goal on what you said cause you still feel like you don't want to be wrong but it's really ok. I won't judge you for backing off the ledge.
You said he wasn't in the US, but he is. You imply he doesn't care but that's an opinion you can't prove without being him. Just move on. You owe nothing to this argument and gain nothing for it. I hope you can, cause I already am.
Hope you get a moment to breath.
How is he not in America if he lives and works there and has done for a long time?
The same way it's possible someone might not currently be in their house even though they live in their house.
Is he currently living in the UK?
Not wrong, just incoherent.