Originally Posted by BigRedChief:
your watching a comedy show expecting Morrow/Cronkite truth?
Is it you're [sp] position that you have never taken anything said on any of these shows as anything other than comedic fiction, or at the least satirical distortion? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
Is it you're [sp] position that you have never taken anything said on any of these shows as anything other than comedic fiction, or at the least satirical distortion?
It's not comedic fiction.
It's humor-fueled editorial. They're not just randomly making shit up.
You cannot watch these shows without admitting they occasionally (or in my opinion, frequently) make good points. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Direckshun:
It's not comedic fiction.
It's humor-fueled editorial. They're not just randomly making shit up.
You cannot watch these shows without admitting they occasionally (or in my opinion, frequently) make good points.
They make interesting rhetorical points to ponder.
My beef is more with the way they phrase the counterargument.
They have an idea - Fine
They wonder why their idea hasn't been adopted - Fine
They misrepresent the heck out of the counterargument - Ah, here's the problem
Finally, they conclude that there are no good arguments against their idea. - unsupported and distorted conclusion. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
They have an idea - Fine
They wonder why their idea hasn't been adopted - Fine
They misrepresent the heck out of the counterargument - Ah, here's the problem
Finally, they conclude that there are no good arguments against their idea. - unsupported and distorted conclusion.
Originally Posted by WhawhaWhat:
Yeah but it got him in the White House.
Originally Posted by BigBeauford:
Holy Shit, post of the year.
To the extent this is relevant to the 2016 election, even then I'm not sure what it establishes.
It would seem to argue that Trump won the election, at least in part, by taking the current rhetorical landscape and using it to his own advantage.
That part of why Colbert/Oliver/Bee/Stewart etc are so traumatized by the past year is that he did their gig better and actually accomplished something with it.
Of all the criticism of Trump, asserting that he defended his good ideas by shortchanging the arguments of the opposition is a relatively novel one.
Nevertheless, not sure how turning my criticism of the 'late night method' of rhetoric onto Trump says anything about anything, except the state of the populace regarding how they prefer their debates. [Reply]
