134
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 18 Feb 2024
134 points (70.1% liked)
politics
19104 readers
3570 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 believe we fundamentally disagree about what Stewart's job is. He spoke his mind in public for years, retired for several years, and now is back to speaking his mind in public again.
Sure? But that hasn't exactly been the fundamental issue you seem to be taking with his actions, is it? First you said:
To which I replied that it isn't fair to say Stewart can't criticize his preferred candidate just because talking heads will spin it whichever way benefits them. Then you said:
To which I replied that Stewart's audience isn't on the fence and the conservative talking heads' audience isn't either. Then you said:
To which I replied that your core issue seems to be with disinformation, not Stewart himself. Then you said:
To which I replied that TDS has always talked about the current news cycle and attempted to inject sanity into the discussion, which is absolutely true; I won't argue this point with you.
So yeah, Stewart made a conscious choice to talk about... the topic that everyone is currently talking about. And he didn't treat his preferred candidate with kid gloves. And pundits will use it as ammunition. If Stewart had been silent about this completely valid criticism of Biden, pundits would have just used someone else's out-of-context quote, or just made something up entirely.
It appears we will not agree on this issue, which is fine. Just giving my perspective on why Stewart isn't obligated to silence himself when he's not being in any way unreasonable. He's a comedian and a commentator, not a campaign staffer.
Stewart wasn't retired, mind you. He's had a show for the past two years. He only recently got cancelled for speaking of subjects Apple didn't like.
Also, please don't rehash our conversation. It's still written up there. The only possible purpose of that exercise is to put together a straw man. I remember what I said.
You could have skipped to the last line, which is where we disagree and where I think democrats and their larger sphere of influence are repeating a catastrophic mistake.
He's a campaign staffer. You're a campaign staffer. Everybody is a campaign staffer until such time as the opposing force isn't a fascist cult of personality.
If you don't see that, you're part of the problem. If Stewart is back to pretending that he can "restore sanity" by acting as if the other side had legitimate concerns that should be heard, he's part of the problem. That's not the game we're playing anymore. If you didn't realize the rules had changed when Trump won the first time, surely you must have noticed after January 6th, or when the poll numbers of the, again, actual rapist refused to climb down.
So no, his honest statements aren't irrelevant. They're a drop in a pond of, once again, information warfare. The wilful blind spots and bothsideism may be naivete or disingenuous misinformation, but my entire point is at this stage it doesn't mater. They don't belong. We're past those. You either play the game we're all playing or you're playing for the other guys.
True, he wasn't retired during that time. I was wrong. He just wasn't the frontman sitting behind the desk each night.
If you think I'm part of "the problem" because I do not identify as a campaign staffer and do not assign that role to others during an election cycle, or that valid criticisms of candidates are off the table during the election cycle, then we can end the discussion here. As far as I'm concerned, you're part of the problem because you assume, ultimately, that any nuanced discussion is invalid because Americans are too stupid or ignorant for that kind of discussion to ever be anything more than ammunition for the opposition, which I know isn't the case. Have a good one!
To be clear, I think being part of the problem isn't the same as being malicious, hostile or stupid. I think being stubbornly naive about the system working the way it's supposed to has its uses. It's a powerful tool to get the corrupt to shy away from breaking the rules if enough people assume the rules will be followed.
But I also think we punched through that wall like a bunker buster dropping from orbit years ago and a lot of the US is a toad that has been simmered to being full-on al dente by this point. Well meaning people hoping to get through this as if it's... you know, an actual democratic election are part of the problem despite themselves.
I don't think I'm being "stubbornly naive about the system" by thinking it's okay for people to engage in nuanced discource. You and I will not agree on this, and I am not interested in further engaging with someone whose hardline rhetoric has gone so far as to demonize valid criticism.
There's nothing Biden could do to lose my vote in this election, but I'm not going to pretend he's a perfect candidate. And anyone who thinks we need to treat him as such is deluded. Democrats and progressives (like me) knew he wasn't a perfect candidate in 2020, but they knew he could garner enough support to beat Trump, and he did. Will he do it again? No idea, but I'm not interested in silencing valid criticisms now any more than I was in 2020, because the game hasn't changed since then. You think January 6 changed anything? Ask any given Republican if January 6 changed which party they'll be voting for. There's your answer.
The game has changed because Republicans will stick with the coup party. That's my whole point.
If your political rival is willing to violently disrupt the process when they lose you're not having a fair and free election, and "valid criticism" becomes a distant second priority to... you know, going back to a situation where you get to have a democracy with fair and free elections.
That's the shift the Stewart approach refuses to acknowledge. And when I say "stubbornly naive" I mean that acting under the fiction that the rules are followed and things will behave how they're supposed to can be an inspiring, powerful thing. It can shame those who would flip-flop or gloss over procedure or principle to stick to the norms and conventions that keep society afloat.
But there's no shaming Trump and no shaming the trumpists. And if you're still hoping to inspire them into reasonableness when the death cult of the rapist orange fascist is actively telling you... what is it this week? That he will fund a completely unaccountable Gestapo? Well, you're being idealist right into democracy's collapse.
And to be clear, I'm not worried about your vote. I'm worried about the vote of the people who haven't gotten the memo, or are in the process of sliding down the spiral of fascism but aren't there yet. And I'm sure worried about the Rashida Tlaibs and the Berniebros and the leftists who will gladly butcher anything short of ideological purity and stay at home because "nobody has earned their trust".
If you or Stewart think voting for Biden exempts you from being part of that issue.... well, it doesn't. It doesn't under normal circumstances, arguably, but right now we're very far from that point. It's not like this hasn't happened before. That's why I keep going back to "but her emails". Was it valid criticism? Yes. Did it kill thousands of people during the pandemic? Also yes.
Is the tradeoff worth it? What will the "it's reasonable to ask if Biden is too old" body count be?