859
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
859 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.
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.
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!
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.
Given that your think he's pro-fifa and pro-brexit, I very much doubt you could pinpoint his stance on much of anything.
All of us have given sources. And try me.
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.