Tonight's episode


Tomi lahren is on the daily show tonight this chick thinks trump is a god, I'm seriously hoping Trevor makes her feel bad because she is seriously naïve

reply

Trevor did a good job with her, but I still don't understand why she was on. She doesn't seem to realize that Glenn Beck, in creating The Blaze, modeled it after Fox News, and that she's where blonde bimbo meets stupidity, and really has nothing else to offer.

__________________________________________
"In your opinion?"
"Um, yes your honor, in my opinion."

reply

It was a great interview. Trevor made mincemeat out of her, but she created the funny. He was actually surprised how funny it was. He needs to find a way to bring humor to the interviews himself.

reply

The interview wasn't meant to be funny Trevor actually wanted to show how ignorant she really is.

reply

That is a fairly easy thing to do. Comedy is hard and his show is a comedy. It's been an issue all along with his serious interviews. And since the election it's been a bit of an issue with the first segment as well, seems like he is doing straight news sometimes. I get that he is bewildered and in shock (Colbert is still there too, as am I), but he's got to bring the funny.

Trump makes this really difficult, I said a year ago he was death to satire. You can't get more unrealistic. Pointing out the irony of his campaigning on Clinton's GS speeches and then appointing a GS treasury sec is now the job of straight news. And that's just one of 100 examples. It's not funny to say Devos wants to destroy public education and make poor kids work, it's reality.

Noah has made his job a bit harder by moving away from Stewart's focus on Fox's ridiculousness. I don't know what he should do.

reply

Going off that, it takes some talent to make Glenn Beck more likable since he's apologized for his anti-black remark and Obama fearmongering;whether it's sincere remains to be seen but it's better than her so far.

The villainy you teach me I will execute-and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.

reply

[deleted]

Don't be ignorant. BLM has never supported the looting of stores, and just because they see a looting and don't stop it does not mean they advocate for it. If you passed by a store in the process of being burglarized, and didn't immediately stop what you were doing to prevent this from happening, then by your logic I guess we can assume you're completely in support of that store being robbed.

reply

[deleted]

Barbie con: I'm in the lion's den.
Noah: Is that an Africa thing?

Um, no Trevor... it's a common, well-known phrase but good to see your "that's racist" faux outrage come out so quickly. Start as you mean to go on.

She's a child internetter. Low hanging fruit. You simply gave the silly girl oxygen whilst pretending that you were bringing down the KKK leadership. Well done.

reply

That was his best line, that was funny! The one time he went for the joke and you rag on him. Yikes.

reply

How is taking a well known (and entirely congruent) phrase and trying to construe it as evidence of racism... a joke? If it is a joke then it's at his own expense since he would essentially be admitting that he's already made up his mind about her.

If he lets her hang herself... THEN he can mock her as a racist.

If he mocks her as a racist before she's even said anything then... he's exposing himself as someone who doesn't want to listen to her -- only mock her.

The comment revealed that he was on the defensive from the word go and approached the interview as if he was dealing with the upper echelons of the KKK leadership -- he wasn't; he was dealing with 24 year old internetter.

Only she gained from this. Noah's squawking echo chamber viewers would whoop and cheer no matter what. She took his accusations and mockery on the chin. She just got more viewers.

He did not.

reply

People who watch the show all the time know he does "Africa jokes". It can't be called a segment, but it gets a chyron, but you can't throw one of those up in the middle of an interview. So, of course it was a joke at his own expense (those are the best kind).

As far as the interview in totality, he handled it well and she stammered the same talking point instead of answering a question. He questioned her about her anger and by the end you saw it coming out, she didn't compose herself well.

My issues with the interview, as with all his political and author guests, as I previously posted is he doesn't make them funny enough. The audience will clap instead of laugh at points (this is something Bill Maher has talked about), but in this case they didn't even do that. This was new for the show, they were so horrified by what she was saying it was jeers.

reply

In the lion's den is not an Africa thing though; it's a phrase you use when admitting you're in your opponents house/environment.

For Noah to try and make that a racist comment... exposed his predisposed position. He had clearly already concluded that she was a bigot.

That's fine but to insinuate it at the beginning, before the interview, makes him look like a bully.

He bested... a silly internet girl in her early 20's. All she had to do for the win... was take it and smile. And that's exactly what she did.

She gained something from the exposure alone. What did Noah gain?

reply

He had previously done an entire segment exposing her as a bigot! With that out of the way, it was a great joke. He has gotten a lot of credit for this interview and she has been roundly blasted. Glen Beck has been forced to defend her. She didn't take it with a smile, her anger was quite apparent, though her tweet afterword was a commendable attempt.

reply

Nope. She smiled and allowed Noah's audience to dictate the interview's tone (which he also allowed).

She remained calm, made her points and let Noah mock her (which she clearly knew he would do anyway).

And again, how is... "is that an Africa thing" a great joke? It's the comment of a man who wants to see racism where there is, in fact, none.

I'd never heard of this girl before he brought her up. But like so many... I now do. She gained simply by being there and taking it on the chin.

Again I ask, what did he gain?

reply

How is taking a well known (and entirely congruent) phrase and trying to construe it as evidence of racism... a joke? If it is a joke then it's at his own expense since he would essentially be admitting that he's already made up his mind about her.


You're construing it in such a fashion. Had you cared for watching the whole interview, she posed the statement after being booed, and she was booed for her well known ignorance. A thousand or less subscriber on YouTube is a mere netizen with low exposure, she has a lot of listeners, after being brought to the center stage by Glenn Beck, so I suggest the apologist act of her being a nobody or of no significance should be dropped.

Only she gained from this. Noah's squawking echo chamber viewers would whoop and cheer no matter what. She took his accusations and mockery on the chin. She just got more viewers.

He did not.


That's a statement you can neither support, deny or easily verify. As for someone getting more viewers... earlier this week, Noah had shown, that Cruz bases his lies on selective facts, and she wasn't far behind with the "18.5 times more likely" claim. In any given year, 2 to 3 hundred unarmed civilians die from being shot dead by the police, so that number times 18.5 would mean thousands of law enforcement agents every year. Going back to the original claim a) it doesn't talk about unarmed people and b) the statistics don't register race, so transforming it the way she did it was an ass pull. Only those viewers would turn to her fold, who already are only interested in what they want to hear, fact check and peer review be damned.

For the record, I don't like any kind of echo chambers. Nor do I blindly believe anything people say about someone I don't like or disagree with, or believe everything people say I like or agree with. For what it's worth, she is the megaphone to people who are ignorant, including to the fact, that they're ignorant, and don't like to be called out on it, and wish to do away with basic human decency unless it reaches them personally. Like a true populist, Donald has already abandoned his loudest promises to people, who, other than voting for him present no worth, it only takes time for them to realize of being screwed over, by which time it will be too late, since the only crowd he has to please is the GOP establishment and their financial backers, who control both houses and validate his appointments.

I live in the Gordius Apartment Complex, my interior designer was M.C. Esher.

reply

You're construing it in such a fashion. Had you cared for watching the whole interview, she posed the statement after being booed, and she was booed for her well known ignorance. A thousand or less subscriber on YouTube is a mere netizen with low exposure, she has a lot of listeners, after being brought to the center stage by Glenn Beck, so I suggest the apologist act of her being a nobody or of no significance should be dropped.


She's a right wing internet commentator. Do all right wing commentators who are guests on the show get a smug dismissal at the first hurdle? Are the idioms and phrases they elect to express themselves with, received as hate-filled microaggressions?

Nope.

He tried to insinuate that she was making a racist comment -- she wasn't. It was a dick move, pure and simple.

That's a statement you can neither support, deny or easily verify.


I personally had never heard of the girl until Noah brought her up. I will now keep an eye out for her content.

Statement verified.

I think you should dig a little deeper.

reply

A right wing (more specifically, a Beck-type right wing) commentator on Blaze, not on a street corner. That you had not heard about her=/=nobody else has. She gained prominence on Facebook. As for the other part of your statement, if Bill O'Reilly had made that remark, he also would have laughed at Trevor's joke, because he does have a sense of humor, and the wit to defend himself (although he got into hot water over sending of Watters, who interviewed non-English speakers).

Ah, so you becoming her viewer is the verification, that a) she gains more viewers and b) Noah doesn't. It's called argumentation from personal incredulity, and is a logical fallacy. Here's why you can't verify your statement: viewership is only measured by the Nielsen rating, or DVR lists, and legal downloads. It's extremely hard to follow free platforms, and also to count viewership on a video from end to end, or just viewing snippets of it. Millennial broadcasters use channels, which are hard to put in valuable statistics, the closest would be reviewing subscriptions from this quarter year, except in the case of Facebook, you can subscribe and resubscribe any time with a dodgy use of multiple accounts, so only Blaze itself should be counted as a verifiable source.

Take a different idiom, where, for sh*ts and giggles she would admit to her destructive comments, and after being booed, she would have said "I feel like an elephant in a China shop". If the response is "Is that an Asian thing?" that's racist, but if the response is "Is the a Republican thing?" that's funny, since the elephant is their mascot. And yes, when a few days ago, Noah was out sick, they still went with Klepper saying the Africa joke, with the disclaimer afterwards, that "when you don't know your host will be sick and there's no time to change it". The joke here was twofold, the joke itself was funny, and how Klepper delivered it,that it wasn't he who was supposed to say it.

As they're a comedy show, jokes being made at the expense of the one being interviewed isn't new, and you should have remembered this being the reason why, when Pelosi was House majority leader, she banned Democrats from appearing on the Colbert Report. It is your right and your thing to like something or someone for agreeing with you (though you should be critical of that too, it's as American as apple pie), the problem is her being a mouthpiece for the idea that "I'm just saying what's on my mind, and unlike the other side, I don't get offended". She does as easily as you do. There was no need to oust her as a racist bigot as she already is by the admission of her own words. Heck, she compares something she doesn't like to an idea, whose representatives think, not bearing children of your race or marrying outside your race is genocide.

I live in the Gordius Apartment Complex, my interior designer was M.C. Esher.

reply

he also would have laughed at Trevor's joke


That's a statement you can neither support, deny or easily verify.

Ah, so you becoming her viewer is the verification, that a) she gains more viewers and b) Noah doesn't. It's called argumentation from personal incredulity, and is a logical fallacy. Here's why you can't verify your statement: viewership is only measured by the Nielsen rating, or DVR lists, and legal downloads. It's extremely hard to follow free platforms, and also to count viewership on a video from end to end, or just viewing snippets of it. Millennial broadcasters use channels, which are hard to put in valuable statistics, the closest would be reviewing subscriptions from this quarter year, except in the case of Facebook, you can subscribe and resubscribe any time with a dodgy use of multiple accounts, so only Blaze itself should be counted as a verifiable source.


Ah, so you begin sentences with ah.

A nice attempt to move the goalposts sir but you asserted there was no way to verify that she had gained a new viewer. I am a new viewer. Statement verified. I suggest you explore the word logic before you make foolish statements in future. Also while you're exploring logic, you might want to look up "argument from incredulity" as you demonstrably do not know what it means. It is a fallacy of not knowing. I know that am a new viewer ergo she has one new viewer.

Take a different idiom, where, for sh*ts and giggles she would admit to her destructive comments, and after being booed, she would have said "I feel like an elephant in a China shop". If the response is "Is that an Asian thing?" that's racist, but if the response is "Is the a Republican thing?" that's funny, since the elephant is their mascot. And yes, when a few days ago, Noah was out sick, they still went with Klepper saying the Africa joke, with the disclaimer afterwards, that "when you don't know your host will be sick and there's no time to change it". The joke here was twofold, the joke itself was funny, and how Klepper delivered it,that it wasn't he who was supposed to say it.


Wow, talk about personal incredulity. If you can't see that he was just being a dick, it means he wasn't? He was just being clever and political. No dear, let me explain. She is a right wing commentator who is about to go on a show that is notoriously libtard and she begins with the opening phrase (which in itself was a plea for him to go easy on her) "I'm in the lion's den."

Absolutely the correct idiom. She was indeed in the lion's den.

His response was to construe that congruent idiom as... she hates black people -- even as a personal dig at him. It was simply not funny, not clever and not fair. It was another hilarious example of the outraged libtard generation -- find something to be offended by and if you can't, then manufacture something (they're called microaggessions because they're so small... they're not actually there).

Defending it makes you an ass. Trapped in the echo chamber with the rest of them.

As they're a comedy show, jokes being made at the expense of the one being interviewed isn't new


Sorry no, this again is more disingenuous bullshït (you're very good at it). This was not a joke, this was an accusation of race hate. The purpose is not to attack racism, the purpose is to build a scary looking man of straw and attack it while your audience jeer.

As for her being a fair target, the vast majority of people watching would either A) be regular viewers and thus already aware of her through Noah (as such they would have wanted him to mock her) or B) they would have been casual viewers utterly ignorant of the girl. In the latter case, Noah opening with an unjustified accusation of bigotry by misconstruing her entirely well-intentioned idiom... would have immediately alienated and annoyed them.

Because most of us -- unlike you -- are not bigots who have already made up their mind. Secondly, as a consequence of the controversial nature of the interview, she will now be all over social media (I have already seen YouTube videos defending her) and she will assuredly gain more exposure as a result.

She sat there, took the small-minded hits and smiled. She WILL gain from this.

it's as American as apple pie),


Which is English.

reply

As a matter of fact, I can. Though they have not yet met, he did meet Stewart and Colbert on several occasions, and can deflect their remarks with humor, with bringing humor of his own. There isn't much I like about the guy, but he does have humor and style, and knows, how Comedy Central works, something Lahren has yet to learn.

Sheet, I had moved the goalposts? Now, that's rich. Your validation for your blanket statement was, that by you becoming her viewer and not his, it must be universally true. Yes, I have demonstrated how difficult it is to actually measure viewership beyond subscription, and that which time frame outside media platforms, like Facebook should be used. As a matter of fact, it is quite impossible to actually measure something being actually watched and not just being on while people do other things.

Who, except you here says that he was a dick. Again, she entered under a barrage of boos (the audience was already aware, who she is), then settled to use the lion's den phrase. There are 2 factual mistakes here: one, the conservative camp is not a homogeneous entity, she could get boos from the Never Trump camp as well, and second: you mustn't have watched a lot of the Daily Show if you think it's libtard, they're just as grilling with Democrats and third parties, but that would destroy the narrative.

It's not Noah's personal agenda, that Lahren is a racist. Now that you became her viewer, watch a lot of her shows, her own admissions damn her without outside interference. You're defending a person who equates a movement that pushes for more transparency and the following of the actual law with a recognizable brand of white supremacy, the latter of which is responsible for almost every domestic terror attack, that isn't being committed by Islamic radicals.

That was funny, I liked your joke, I truly did. She came up with the 18.5 times more likely claim, and had twisted in a way, that does not represent the actual study, and then claim you're not someone who had already made up their minds. If you truly hadn't, you would have gone to the source and called out her BS. It's irrelevant, that the pastry is of English origin, the idiom is "It's as American as apple pie" and yes, being vary of everything, even the things people say you like is one such thing, yet you can't follow through.

Lahren is only as important, as Beck thinks he has use of her. She claimed, that if the new president would go against what he had promised, she would criticize him. In reality, she would have done that already, as he did abandon his loudest of promises. She will only be critical of him, when it's something that personally affects her.

I live in the Gordius Apartment Complex, my interior designer was M.C. Esher.

reply

As a matter of fact, I can. Though they have not yet met, he did meet Stewart and Colbert on several occasions, and can deflect their remarks with humor, with bringing humor of his own. There isn't much I like about the guy, but he does have humor and style, and knows, how Comedy Central works, something Lahren has yet to learn.


There you go moving those goalposts again. From "he would have responded to that particular comment" to "he has responded to similar comments." Nope.

Sheet, I had moved the goalposts? Now, that's rich. Your validation for your blanket statement was, that by you becoming her viewer and not his, it must be universally true.


Nope. Try again champ. I said she has gained a new viewer. She has. The end.

It's not Noah's personal agenda, that Lahren is a racist. Now that you became her viewer, watch a lot of her shows, her own admissions damn her without outside interference. You're defending a person who equates a movement that pushes for more transparency and the following of the actual law with a recognizable brand of white supremacy, the latter of which is responsible for almost every domestic terror attack, that isn't being committed by Islamic radicals.


She's a right wing mouth breather who makes legitimate criticisms of a movement that demonstrably needs to be criticised. That her criticisms alone make her a racist is part of the problem. There is no dialogue here, only... you're racist.

She's a fùcking tool (anyone can see that) but she didn't go on his show to win any arguments, she went on his show to highlight that he'd already made up his mind about her and to be booed and jeered by the audience. I think she knew exactly what she was doing.

And I'll put money on it that six months from now... she definitely has more viewers and a bigger platform.

That was funny, I liked your joke, I truly did. She came up with the 18.5 times more likely claim, and had twisted in a way, that does not represent the actual study, and then claim you're not someone who had already made up their minds. If you truly hadn't, you would have gone to the source and called out her BS.


The point of the statistics is that they don't just support any one narrative and can be interpreted in numerous ways yet BLM now has a platform to claim otherwise. Conservatives are welcome to question it (and should). Noah regularly lumps the vocal minority in with the whole movement when it suits him and draws conclusions from that minority yet this isn't acceptable when it's BLM? They can march down the street chanting "pigs in blankets, burn em like bacon" or "what do we want? dead cops" but this according to Noah is (conveniently) nothing more than a small minority within the whole?

Ludicrous.

The attack on liberals right now isn't based on identity politics; it's based on... let's examine their claims and narratives more closely (especially given that we didn't bother to do this for 30 years).

reply

Dude, that's not moving the goalposts mean. Unlike your claim (Lahren gaining more viewers, than Noah) where objective methodology in regards to viewership that cannot be as accurately measured, knowing a person's past record in interviews with comedians is a different thing, which you would know, had you seen any of his interviews, and the segments he had done on his own show, when Stewart or Colbert was a guest. The Daily Show is still the same, Papa Bear does watch, so yes, an educated guess can be made how it would have went down, for one, it would have been funnier, from him as well.

No, you used plural in both cases, something you can only verify by subscriptions to Blaze and provider packages, that contain Comedy Central after the interview, which are 2 things. You might as well be her viewer from now on, but that wasn't the original statement.

Interesting narrative, and a complete misfire on realizing the difference between criticism and racism. It's a very old populist technique, take the most fringe of any movement, especially if they're not organized centrally, and present them as the core voice. It is the same as claiming this: because Trump was buddy buddy with Fox News, and had used the staff and the platform of Breitbart, therefore all viewers of Fox News also read Breitbart. Except that's factually untrue, for several reasons, one being, that Trump has been taken to task to verify his claims by Papa Bear, and two, ever since Trump disavowed the alt right (to the surprise of noone) Breitbart is dissing Fox News as a bunch of people who sold out (which is ironic, since the founder himself was against a lot of things his legacy now stands for). Many of the so called critics of BLM identify every looter with BLM based on skin color alone. Nobody, including Lahren has ever provided evidence, that any of the looters are registered with the movement. I could buy a South shall rise again tee, that doesn't make me a Confederate, only if additionally believe their goals. Back in the '60s, some small business owners tried to boycott the KKK by not selling them anything, and all what they did was disrobing, and looking like any other white person.

Sure, because Nixon never said, "don't discuss race openly", and welfare, inner city crime are all code for what they actually mean. If any conservative in America would actually want to analyze claims, they'd fill up their ranks with people, who more realistically represent America. When I was close to Lahren's age, I was an ultraconservative myself, and didn't very much listened to any opinion, that opposed mine. In France, Marine Le Pen has managed to successfully court the gay vote against Muslims, she's ahead of Trump. I know, denigrating social groups we don't like does make one feel better, but that's not the way of the future. Democrats might have lost the South for a long time, Republicans however lose almost everyone who isn't white, due to the rhetoric, that the problem only exists, because you don't do anything about it. The fact is, that the GOP isn't the epitome of humanism, and interprets people as haves and soon to haves. That's why many poor white people voted Trump in the hopes he will deter the GOP from further punishing poor whites. Instead, he promoted Bannon, who represents a group who think poor whites are white trash. The KKK of today might be dwindling, but white supremacy isn't. When the Confederate flag was about to be taken down, white protesters shouted to blacks the color of their skin is the same as human waste product, not to mention Dylan Roof, who was in love with the South African apartheid.

I live in the Gordius Apartment Complex, my interior designer was M.C. Esher.

reply

Dude, that's not moving the goalposts mean.


Dude, yes it is. The fact that you don't know what moving the goalposts means does not surprise me though (given that you don't know what argument from incredulity means either).

Unlike your claim (Lahren gaining more viewers, than Noah)


Moving goalposts and now just a straight forward liar. Show me where I made that specific claim. My claim was that Lahren had gained a viewer and Noah had not (I am that viewer).

where objective methodology in regards to viewership that cannot be as accurately measured, knowing a person's past record in interviews with comedians is a different thing, which you would know, had you seen any of his interviews, and the segments he had done on his own show, when Stewart or Colbert was a guest. The Daily Show is still the same, Papa Bear does watch, so yes, an educated guess can be made how it would have went down, for one, it would have been funnier, from him as well.


And now you've gone from the assertion that... if Bill O'Reilly had made that remark, he also would have laughed at Trevor's joke,... to, well, it's an educated guess.

You are one of the most intellectually dishonest people I've come across on here 

Nobody, including Lahren has ever provided evidence, that any of the looters are registered with the movement.


So if you're not registered with the movement, you're not part of it? You can't possibly be this dumb or naïve. Are these people part of the movement?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xNxoeqf0Ws

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqQXmnMr_w8

I'm so glad you're not stuck in an echo chamber though. 

Sure, because Nixon never said, "don't discuss race openly", and welfare, inner city crime are all code for what they actually mean. If any conservative in America would actually want to analyze claims, they'd fill up their ranks with people, who more realistically represent America. When I was close to Lahren's age, I was an ultraconservative myself, and didn't very much listened to any opinion, that opposed mine. In France, Marine Le Pen has managed to successfully court the gay vote against Muslims, she's ahead of Trump. I know, denigrating social groups we don't like does make one feel better, but that's not the way of the future. Democrats might have lost the South for a long time, Republicans however lose almost everyone who isn't white, due to the rhetoric, that the problem only exists, because you don't do anything about it. The fact is, that the GOP isn't the epitome of humanism, and interprets people as haves and soon to haves. That's why many poor white people voted Trump in the hopes he will deter the GOP from further punishing poor whites. Instead, he promoted Bannon, who represents a group who think poor whites are white trash. The KKK of today might be dwindling, but white supremacy isn't. When the Confederate flag was about to be taken down, white protesters shouted to blacks the color of their skin is the same as human waste product, not to mention Dylan Roof, who was in love with the South African apartheid.


As the girl said herself, BLM started with good intentions but the moment you create a "two wrongs make a right" narrative, you're going to get yourself into all kinds of trouble. Making "whitey" the problem, asking him to check his privilege, to apologise for the behaviour of past people that shared his skin colour and chanting a negative message will only lead to a backlash. Working class white people are not rich, powerful white people. You're creating an unhelpful bogey man.

Which is exactly what the KKK also did.



reply

Only she gained from this. Noah's squawking echo chamber viewers would whoop and cheer no matter what. She took his accusations and mockery on the chin. She just got more viewers.

He did not.
See, you did use plural, you've redesigned it to sound as if you only meant you being a viewer. On the other hand, making an educated guess on how Papa Bear behaves while he's on Comedy Central is based on something more tangible, his interviews that he had done there. Many commentators and critics have compared Lahren and Noah to O'Reilly and Stewart. O'Reilly has given interviews to Colbert since he switched to CBS, and their back and forth did not change. Yes, we can also make an educated guess, that as of now, Noah would not be ready to debate Papa Bear, but then again, Bill also doesn't make that many outrageous claims as Lahren does.

You've clearly never watched any of his interviews with Stewart or Colbert. Bill knows, when he's about to be trapped, and deflects them with either laughing at the joke or by bringing a joke of his own. An educated guess is a substantiated claim, but full verification only happens, when the 2 meet. However I focused on how Bill would have handled it (based on his record), so it's not dishonest. By the way, I won't play your ad hominem, so you might as well put them back in the cave, where you've found them.

So, your evidence is 2 videos, titled by people, who see all BLM activists as looters and criminals. To substantiate your claim, bring up the court cases on well known activists of the group, where they have been charged with a criminal act of looting or murder. During an act of general lawlessness, people tend to do things they think they can get away with, as it happened with general blackouts or natural disasters, it's not a skin color thing.

Dude, you both (you and Lahren) don't understand what you claim here "it was good, but it was hijacked". Just this year alone, 847 unarmed people have been shot dead by the police. You think it's about the past and the economic status. First of all, many well off people give a rat's behind about poor people, regardless of your skin color, ergo, poor white people too, and it won't change either with a new president. Second of all, you're misconstruing the meaning of privilege, as if it only covers wealth. It also includes a plethora of other things, and specifically in relation to law enforcement, the lack of constant suspicion.

If I still were an ultraconservative, I'd argue, that the rules to "randomly check" black and brown people has been enforced by selective Republicans, and doesn't represent its entire voter base, who have a great relation with minorities, especially in religious matters. I could cite, that carjacking is more related to individual wealth, and since most carjackers are not professionals, but poor schmucks, the aim isn't the problem, but the method. So, driving while black wouldn't be framed as racial profiling, except... if you stand by your claim and analyze what they're saying (something allegedly wasn't done for decades) you'd recognize, that many of these practices are also fervent in areas where crime is low. I'd lay the counterclaim, that the meaningful discussion on peaceful coexistence has been held back for decades, and even Bill Clinton went too tough on crime to carry favor with the GOP. So it's not a Republican thing either (which is true, in certain aspects North Carolina is more liberal on race, than the state of New York is).

So, it's not a "whitey" thing, it's an ignorant thing. To not experience being pulled over frequently without being charged, to not get shot while lying down, trying to protect an autistic person with special needs, to not have cops, who falsify evidence, to not have "gypsy cops" who can move from precinct to precinct, and can expunge their records of wrongdoings, to not be stopped because one allegedly resembles a description, or not to be tazed without confirming if the tazed is mentally ill, which is against correct usage. It's a personal privilege, not a financial one.

The actual Serpico is a Republican, he was a *beep* Yet, you remember, for what he fought for, and this battle isn't that much different from corruption, it's a different kind. The former police chief of Chicago, who between 1972 and 1990, had falsely accused and tortured people shares a prison with Bernie Madoff. In today's world, he probably still would lead the Chicago PD, as not many killer law enforcers get to trial and get convicted.

Comparing today's racism to the KKK is like comparing today's populism to bloody dictatorships. The bogey man exists, it got the new president elected, with unsubstantiated statements, like all Mexicans are rapists, they bring drugs, crime, but some, he assumed were good people. Unlike claiming direct calls to racism in his agenda, his supporters did make it clear how they wish to live in an ethnostate, which is something the KKK had not said publicly, it's a step beyond mere white supremacy. The attacks, which law enforcement agencies designate as terrorist attacks, are being committed by religious fundamentalists and white supremacists, and it has been on the rise since Obama took office. Some people, like Dylan Roof or David Duke can't stomach a non-white president. That's also a point of contention in regards of media bias: if a perpetrator is non-white, almost all media outlets report on their rap sheet, but when it is white, traumatic or social issues come to the foreground, despite the fact, that anyone, who is capable to bomb doctors isn't a person whose only brush with the law were parking tickets.

Being critical is not a question of skin color, and that ability is lost with every minute by listening to populists, like Lahren. Her being ultraconservative isn't the problem, existing in a bubble is. In a calm and civilized society, she wouldn't get a voice, as the only thing she knows is her own opinion based on second and third hand information. If she were a liberal and spout, how all conservatives are brain dead, I'd say the same thing. Being critical is one thing, but it also needs direct confrontation of said ideals, like, in addition to appear on Noah, actually go and book Kapernick so she could ask him directly, but that's not going to happen.

I live in the Gordius Apartment Complex, my interior designer was M.C. Esher.

reply

I was surprised by how many missteps Trevor made tonight. it should have been a slam dunk, but she did argue some points clearly and he just left it hanging there.
Case in point was the illegal immigrants verses people trying to immigrate through the present legal channels. Different people have different ways into the country is not a good answer. Would that work with burglary? different people have different ways of acquiring their wealth?
There were a number of different ways to tangent off this point, one being yes I see your point, another being compassion, another being ways to address immigration to make it more fair, or dealing specifically with the amnesty angle,
There were a number of occasions Trevor pleaded impartiality and earnestness when he clearly wasn't interested in that. A bit of grace on his part would have gone a long way to making the taste in ones mouth better at the end of this.
I don't think Trevor was well enough equipped to pull this one off.

reply

He totally owned her.

reply

He could have owned her 10 fold. He messed up far too much. She was an easy mark and he struggled with her. He actually lost some issues to her by leaving them hanging.
Jon Stewart wouldn't have taken it as an opportunity to ridicule someone with school yard jokes either (traffic lights gag, which he then set himself up for and own goal, and she didn't take it????), he would have lead the conversation to make her question what she was saying and shown respect throughout.
On top of that he would have made it funny,........much more funny.

reply

No. What he actually did expose himself as a complete uninformed retard who can't make any point without speaking in hypotheticals, using false premises, moving the goal post, or being snarky or smug. But he said something you trained monkeys want to hear so of course it sounds good. Or can we not make analogies to 'monkey see, monkey do' anymore because a few racists refer to blacks as monkeys so now that word only has one connotation, right?

But like it's been said already. She was a low hanging fruit, and any idiot can still be on the right side of an issue and not know how to formulate their side properly. If he tried that crap against me, he would have been destroyed. I would put him right in his place because someone like him has ZERO right to question any type of oppression from where he sits. Getting a prominent job and gaining immediate success despite having zero talent or qualifications other than being black, and not even an American, so he stole some American blacks job too. I'd rather hear Dave Chappelle or Paul Mooney discuss race in this country, rather than this outsider douchebag who tries to appease the mass boneheads by speaking softly and with that fake sincerity. Total smug douchebag puppet dancing on the strings of the media, whose career is finished one this high school production of this show gets canned. Jon Stewart was actually a counterbalance to the phony narratives the media tried to relay to the American people. This dunce just echos theirs.

reply

He owned a 24 year old internetter who politely sat there and took it.

Score!

reply

and if you look at it from a bipartisan position, he didn't fully 'own' her, he made some hits, and dropped some balls, and some of his hits were insincere and cheap,

reply

New record, 1 minute 58 seconds before mentioning Trump. Longest in months

~~the coins in the jar are for charity,~~
~~the coins in the tray are for sharing~~

reply