860
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
860 points (97.4% liked)
politics
19159 readers
4582 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
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.
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.
That's because you're arguing from a standpoint of reality and engaging with a person acting in bad faith. They know they're wrong, shit they started off with wholesale lies the opposite of what we can see with our own eyes.
I think it's hard for people to know they are wrong.
They know what they know. It just might be wrong.
I don't want to start at assuming that cause if I did that during an experiment we might miss something that we don't expect. And people don't respond well to an already shut door and shouting. We know people regress into their positions harder most of the time too.
I believe you got to give them an out and hope they take it. If they don't so be it but if you never gave them an open door how can they move on?
I really appreciate that outlook and point of view. Of course, eventually you'll run across folks like this guy who even given the door won't walk through it but it's commendable to be open minded and kind.
I try to do the same but sometimes it's an obvious troll and you're writing a comment for whoever is reading the comments vs the person you're replying to.
Keep up that positivity and empathy, we all could use some more of that!
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.
Given that your think he's pro-fifa and pro-brexit, I very much doubt you could pinpoint his stance on much of anything.
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.
It is his country, though. He holds dual citizenship.
He lives in New York, you simpleton
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?
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.
Then it's a good thing I wasn't saying where he resided, now isn't it? That's putting words in my mouth. My previous statements about dual citizenship versus simply altered citizenship remain a good response to the rest of this.
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?
I'm not sure what counts as "living" and "residence" in everyone's eyes, but he has dual citizenship and definitely uses it, and it's not like he doesn't treat the UK with some element of homeliness. If it counts towards anything, he undoubtedly has family in the UK. Today, along with Election Day, also happens to be Guy Fawkes Day (or for some people, Anonymous Day, but that's aside the point). So any special schedule of his today would take place there.
Bonfire Night is really just not that big a deal over here. I'd happily bet you one shiny new pence piece that he's in the US today.
...really? What's Bonfire Night doing all the way across the commonwealth then? Places as far away as New Zealand celebrate it like it's America's fourth of July. One can considered me confused now.
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.
That is one thing.
Yeah, in the same way that who the prime minister of Canada is would decide whether I take future work trips to Quebec. If it's relative, it's on the low end of the consequence scale for him.
But it's not. It's not the same thing. You are assuming that's equal but it's not. It's not work trips but his job and place where his home is.
I'm done responding to you but you need to stop assuming you know other people and everything right.
There isn't other people agreeing with you in here. It's just you. And it's gonna make you lonely.
I'm not comparing a work trip to a home, I'm comparing someone who has the ability to operate in one place versus someone who is flexible with where they may freely exist.
In this sea of shame, I go by logic, not numbers.