MovieChat Forums > The Late Show with Stephen Colbert (2015) Discussion > Partly to Blame

Partly to Blame

posted 8 years ago by dvd123
6 replies | jump to latest

For at least 8 years Hillary has been acutely aware of how large of a percentage of the public hated/s her guts. She knew damn well that Bernie had a far better chance of winning the election, and yet, she pushed on anyway.

She also had to be aware that, no matter what the employment rate, the loss of the manufacturing sector hit the rust belt hard. Any half decent politician should know that telling people things are great when they aren't is a sure fire means of pissing them off.

And then you've got more than just a few racist rust belters, who definitely have it rough, but whose lives aren't completely falling apart- but yet who staunchly believe the sky is falling because of a black president.

Hillary and racists. That's who deserves the massive bulk of the blame for our current predicament. But Colbert... if he didn't hang up the gloves when he did... sure, he would have been part of 'the media' that Trump's fanbase went to great lengths to ignore, but I still can't help wonder what impact Colbert and Stewart would have had if their shows were still running.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the two of them could have brought some much needed sanity to the primaries. And even if they couldn't have made much of an impact on the public perception of Trump, with the closeness of the election, an ever slight move of the needle could have made the difference.

So when you see Stephen's world crumbling down around him on the special as the results start rolling in, while the natural impulse is to feel sorry for him, I don't think he deserves quite so much sympathy. In a very small way, he helped dig this hole. Without his pointless yearning for creative fulfillment, who knows where we'd be today.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] The_NightRaven 8 years ago

I don't know where you get that they are slavophobes from, I can't even remember them mentioning slavs at all? I didn't even know slavophobia was a thing, it's not in the dictionary?

[–] mimosveta 8 years ago

I don't know where you get that they are slavophobes from, I can't even remember them mentioning slavs at all? I didn't even know slavophobia was a thing, it's not in the dictionary?

lol, they literally can't stop talking about slavs. but you're right, they don't mention slavs, they instead mention particular slavic nations and always in negative connotation.

As for dictionary definition I don't know what obsolete dictionary you're looking at, but you can read more about it here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavophobia

You should realize that fact that you've never heard of slavophobia is quite indicative of how slavophobia is well accepted, when there's literally no one to call you on that, when you're being it. You can't even poke fun of obese people eating junk food, cause someone would be there to let you know you're fat shaming. But not when you're being slavophobic. If you can't mention slavs in humane way, try not mentioning them at all.

I maintain slavophobia of both Obama's administration and liberal media, coupled with "not all terrorists are bad people" rhetoric, played a large role in getting trump elected. No one wants insane war against russia while us government is financing terrorists

___
Anyone who has ever read any spoilers,
knows that Winter Is Coming

[–] The_NightRaven 8 years ago

The reason we never hear much about slavophobia is that we almost never hear about SLAVS, neither positive NOR negative!
The definition on prejudice towards an ethnic group (The Slavs) is that the criticism is directed towards the entire group instead of singling out specific countries, so when you write "they don't mention slavs, they instead mention particular slavic nations and always in negative connotation." you disproved your own point.
Your Wikipedia article also makes it clear that what you are talking about was an old notion that peaked under WWII, back when Slavic nations were more visible in the geo-political spectrum, which is no longer as applicable, which is probably why we don't see any evidence of anti-Slavic sentiment today.
Russia is a large nation consisting of many ethnic groups, of which Slavs are merely one, any talk of Russia internationally refers exclusively to the NATION of Russia, not it's people, but it's government and politics.
Are you sure you are not a governmental official trying to make Putin look better by framing all the critique against him as "slavophobic" (BTW, even Wikipedia says the word is actually not "Slavophobic" at all, it re-directs into Anti-Slavic Sentiment.

"You can't even poke fun of obese people eating junk food, cause someone would be there to let you know you're fat shaming. "

Thatæs not why. It's because it would feel wrong to poke fun of how someone looks or acts, or other things they have no control over. One doesn't WANT to. Poking fun of nationalities though are always allowed, since that is not directed towards any specific persons but rather the fictitious stereo-type assigned to the country, regardless of race, gender, religion, etc., therefore not PERSONAL.
That's why it's frowned upon when you mock an obese person, like you mentioned, but nobody bats an eye if you make a joke about Americans being fat and eating burgers all the time.

TLDR;
Don't take things personally all the time.

[–] escadamausgaby 8 years ago

With leaders like Putin at the helm, I think a good amount of "Slavophobia" as you call it, is warranted and necessary.

[–] TMC-4 8 years ago

Part 1
https://www.datalounge.com/thread/17880686-what-did-hillary-do-wrong-

Part 2
https://www.datalounge.com/thread/17890446