It was satire you dolt. It was a send up of the so-called first world bubble, the ignorant American. someone outside her small social circle saw it, took it out of context, and ruined her life for it.
Such extreme public shaming is one of the most despicable things humans do. It's schadenfreude taken to the extreme. It's a violation of most of the values of modern civilization, and a return to mob rule and mob justice. It's punishment completely out of proportion to the incident. And the internet has allowed it to return.
There must always be room for forgiveness and understanding. Particularly of people who simply made a mistake and/or who truly want to change.
But people don't want to do that anymore. They want to burn you at the stake immediately and forever.
That is true, however there is an unequal application problem as presented as well. Such as the "1 offense every 5 days" being punished more than 100 offenses in a single day, along with the long standing controversy over excessive solitary confinement.
Ah but you forget. The current jurisprudence is to throw everything at them and see what sticks....and if it just so happens to be everything and they get a 10000 year sentence as a result.... oh well.
I actually had just been catching up on lawcomic.net a couple weeks ago, which prompted to read some other articles about eyewitnesses, memory, and the stark contrast between their public perception ("the gold standard" in court) and actual accuracy. id never really thought about it before.
People become conservative as a trend as they age not because their views change but because the goalposts of society move. The definitions of the words even indicate that the state of "conservativism" or "progressivism" is a dynamic field that changes over time.
Liberally biased system? Another revolution to kick out the liberals?
Son, you do know that in 1776 it was the Liberals who fought a revolution right, while Conservatives wore red coats. As for the middle class....um both major global depressions were caused unchecked uncontrolled capitalism adhereing to conservative ideals. The single greatest period of human prosperity, the period that actually created a thriving middle class for the first time in human history, was a result of liberal economic policies. Capitalism on its own does not create and sustain a middle class. It creates an underclass and a rich class. You fail at even basic history.
News flash: you cant vote absentee from your home district and in person at school.
In order to vote in the school's area you have to register. When you register, your state cancels your old registration, precisely so that you cant vote in two places, student or not. It's incredibly easy to do because a) computers, and b) the overwhelming majority of people go to school in their home state. Even for out of state students would have difficulty with this trick, because states talk to each other. And a fair share of states don't all out of state individuals (student or not) to vote locally. Unless of course the individual has or is becoming a local resident....in which the individual gives up his right to vote in his old state/district.
So again: you got nothing. You don't know what youre talking about. It's a made up issue.
That study has been debunked so many times. You should try reading that "study". Even calling it a "study" is being extremely generous, and disservice to actual studies. That study was nothing but garbage and that article is from a writer for the National Review, hardly an unbiased individual or unsurprising person to be saying "they must be biased, they told us we were wrong". The methodology of the study was literally to see who was rated False more often, and then proclaim that that is obviously "bias", the implied assumption being that both lie equally. That assumption is in no way a given.
My current state doesn't allow write-ins. In fact they'll toss out your entire ballot over it. Heck, they don't even allow third parties, neither candidates not voters.
In order for a party to be recognized it must have received 10% or more of the popular vote in a previous election. Now I ask ya, aint that some happy horse manure. The way the states going pretty soon the elections here will be predetermined one-party one-candidate affairs thanks to that law. though honestly it already is like that, as the Primary in the summer is already pretty much THE election, and the one in November is just for show.
Give it a try. The Nightly Show has a different format, more along Bill Maher's type. He monologues for only about 5 minutes, then goes right to a panel discussion. Each show is built around a single topic though, instead of touching on all current events. It's decent, I like it
Right now, you can look at the NBC/MSNBC file and see how that network’s pundits and on-air talent stand. For instance, 46 percent of the claims made by NBC and MSNBC pundits and on-air personalities have been rated Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire.
At FOX and Fox News Channel, that same number is 60 percent. At CNN, it’s 18 percent.
You may wish to reconsider who actually is having a harder time with reality. (Though my theory is CNN's number is so good because they have people like Don Lemon who essentially only say things so bad they aren't even wrong....like the black holes and aliens comments about the missing airliner). After all, MSNBC doesn't have 5 different websites able to generate an entire day's content just off correcting the things they got wrong that day.
So anyway. Our only problem with reality, is sometimes its depressing. But at least we still live in it, unlike the majority Fox and its viewership. (and actually I don't watch MSNBC (dont have cable) so your entire point is a misfire)
Realistically the democratic party is still controlled by the "new democrats", aka, conservative-lite.
Probably wont see an election cycle go from Moderate Democrat (Obama/Hillary) to Liberal Democrat (Warren) without a Republican in between them. And I figure that's one reason she's holding off, if she's even actually interested in running.
Who is the local act there in Oz? I've become more interested in these foreign shows that do TDS bit with their local regional issues. It's a great way to get people to acknowledge, address, and even just think differently about their issues, and thus get a better understanding of them.
The Daily Shows bits with the correspondents are great cause they point out the BS in our own world, and especially our own country. But being a nightly show production time is more limited, as well as air time.
That's why Last Week Tonight is so great. They get to the same thing, but because they are weekly and an hour long, it's no longer a bit, but actually in the realm of actual long form investigative journalism. This is good, we actually benefit by having both shows. We get a taste of things with the TDS bits, and LWT is then like an entrée that gets deep into one thing every week. This way we get even more informed than better, creating even more people to terrify Faux.
Yes, the idea that well informed young voters who care about issues and are aware of the.....shenanigans... of the Right should be terrifying to the Right.
Which is why they keep trying to make it harder for them to vote.
At least Maddow's show, along with most the others, is unabashedly presented as an opinion show that talks about news. Whereas everything on fox is an opinion show that pretends to just be about the news. Even their actual "just news" segments editorialize constantly.
Take a scale of 1 to 10, 5 being dead neutral. MSNBC is roughly a 7 on average (Joe Scar is essentially a 3-6 depending on topic, Maddow a 7, and so on). In comparison, Fox is a 0.
Or as someone once said, the difference between The Daily Show and Fox news is that TDS admits to being a fake news show.
I really like the new guy, Trevor Noah. I'd also go with Aasif Mandvi.
I love Oliver. But I think his spot at HBO may be the best place for him, because instead of nightly digs at current events, he gets to do real long form journalism, which is truly rare these days. And he gets to combine it with the usual BS/hypocrisy-pointing out. Combing the Daily Show with long form journalism and/or investigative reporting is as useful and important, and possibly more so even, as the informational value of TDS.
As Colbert said, part of their success came from Stewarts asking them to have an opinion, instead of going for softball jokes not being afraid to skewer someone. Part of the appeal of the show, is its willingness to throw the BS flag. And in so doing, it engages viewers and makes them think deeper than most folks do.
From that standpoint, pretty much any of the correspondents could do it:
Samantha Bee, though her humor isn't always to my taste Jason Jones, may be the most similar in style, if more abrasive Jessica Williams, funny but sometimes not as biting as the others Trevor Noah, I really like the newest member. He really seems not afraid to "go there".
But personally if I had to choose, I'd go with Aasif Mandvi. He just as funny and qualified as the rest.
But most importantly, he's Muslim, which would provide for years of entertainment from the resulting apoplectic RWNJ's.
Slashdot Mirror
It was satire you dolt. It was a send up of the so-called first world bubble, the ignorant American.
someone outside her small social circle saw it, took it out of context, and ruined her life for it.
Such extreme public shaming is one of the most despicable things humans do. It's schadenfreude taken to the extreme.
It's a violation of most of the values of modern civilization, and a return to mob rule and mob justice.
It's punishment completely out of proportion to the incident.
And the internet has allowed it to return.
There must always be room for forgiveness and understanding.
Particularly of people who simply made a mistake and/or who truly want to change.
But people don't want to do that anymore.
They want to burn you at the stake immediately and forever.
That is true, however there is an unequal application problem as presented as well.
Such as the "1 offense every 5 days" being punished more than 100 offenses in a single day,
along with the long standing controversy over excessive solitary confinement.
Ah but you forget. The current jurisprudence is to throw everything at them and see what sticks....and if it just so happens to be everything and they get a 10000 year sentence as a result.... oh well.
'Murica.
Land of the Free.
I actually had just been catching up on lawcomic.net a couple weeks ago, which prompted to read some other articles about eyewitnesses, memory, and the stark contrast between their public perception ("the gold standard" in court) and actual accuracy. id never really thought about it before.
People become conservative as a trend as they age not because their views change but because the goalposts of society move.
The definitions of the words even indicate that the state of "conservativism" or "progressivism" is a dynamic field that changes over time.
Liberally biased system?
Another revolution to kick out the liberals?
Son, you do know that in 1776 it was the Liberals who fought a revolution right, while Conservatives wore red coats.
As for the middle class....um both major global depressions were caused unchecked uncontrolled capitalism adhereing to conservative ideals. The single greatest period of human prosperity, the period that actually created a thriving middle class for the first time in human history, was a result of liberal economic policies. Capitalism on its own does not create and sustain a middle class. It creates an underclass and a rich class. You fail at even basic history.
News flash: you cant vote absentee from your home district and in person at school.
In order to vote in the school's area you have to register.
When you register, your state cancels your old registration, precisely so that you cant vote in two places, student or not.
It's incredibly easy to do because a) computers, and b) the overwhelming majority of people go to school in their home state.
Even for out of state students would have difficulty with this trick, because states talk to each other.
And a fair share of states don't all out of state individuals (student or not) to vote locally.
Unless of course the individual has or is becoming a local resident....in which the individual gives up his right to vote in his old state/district.
So again: you got nothing. You don't know what youre talking about. It's a made up issue.
And thus do you prove your own ignorance and denial of reality.
Oh please.
That study has been debunked so many times. You should try reading that "study". Even calling it a "study" is being extremely generous, and disservice to actual studies. That study was nothing but garbage and that article is from a writer for the National Review, hardly an unbiased individual or unsurprising person to be saying "they must be biased, they told us we were wrong". The methodology of the study was literally to see who was rated False more often, and then proclaim that that is obviously "bias", the implied assumption being that both lie equally. That assumption is in no way a given.
My current state doesn't allow write-ins. In fact they'll toss out your entire ballot over it.
Heck, they don't even allow third parties, neither candidates not voters.
In order for a party to be recognized it must have received 10% or more of the popular vote in a previous election.
Now I ask ya, aint that some happy horse manure. The way the states going pretty soon the elections here will be predetermined one-party one-candidate affairs thanks to that law. though honestly it already is like that, as the Primary in the summer is already pretty much THE election, and the one in November is just for show.
Human memory is one of the most unreliable things in the world.
Give it a try. The Nightly Show has a different format, more along Bill Maher's type. He monologues for only about 5 minutes, then goes right to a panel discussion. Each show is built around a single topic though, instead of touching on all current events. It's decent, I like it
Like most fraud claims that's pretty much a completely made up thing.
So there is that.
And Fox doesn't ? I present to you the News media scorecards:
http://www.politifact.com/pund...
Right now, you can look at the NBC/MSNBC file and see how that network’s pundits and on-air talent stand. For instance, 46 percent of the claims made by NBC and MSNBC pundits and on-air personalities have been rated Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire.
At FOX and Fox News Channel, that same number is 60 percent.
At CNN, it’s 18 percent.
You may wish to reconsider who actually is having a harder time with reality. (Though my theory is CNN's number is so good because they have people like Don Lemon who essentially only say things so bad they aren't even wrong....like the black holes and aliens comments about the missing airliner). After all, MSNBC doesn't have 5 different websites able to generate an entire day's content just off correcting the things they got wrong that day.
So anyway.
Our only problem with reality, is sometimes its depressing.
But at least we still live in it, unlike the majority Fox and its viewership.
(and actually I don't watch MSNBC (dont have cable) so your entire point is a misfire)
I know. But I can dream.
Realistically the democratic party is still controlled by the "new democrats", aka, conservative-lite.
Probably wont see an election cycle go from Moderate Democrat (Obama/Hillary) to Liberal Democrat (Warren) without a Republican in between them.
And I figure that's one reason she's holding off, if she's even actually interested in running.
Colbert being on that ticket would confuse so many people.
"Why is this conservative running with that libtard?"
Heck, could split the GOP vote just from those who don't get the joke.
Who is the local act there in Oz?
I've become more interested in these foreign shows that do TDS bit with their local regional issues.
It's a great way to get people to acknowledge, address, and even just think differently about their issues, and thus get a better understanding of them.
none of my nerdy senses picked up on a WOT tv pilot.
this sounds like something was pumped out to use a contract option before it expired.
The Daily Shows bits with the correspondents are great cause they point out the BS in our own world, and especially our own country.
But being a nightly show production time is more limited, as well as air time.
That's why Last Week Tonight is so great.
They get to the same thing, but because they are weekly and an hour long, it's no longer a bit, but actually in the realm of actual long form investigative journalism. This is good, we actually benefit by having both shows. We get a taste of things with the TDS bits, and LWT is then like an entrée that gets deep into one thing every week. This way we get even more informed than better, creating even more people to terrify Faux.
Yes, the idea that well informed young voters who care about issues and are aware of the .....shenanigans... of the Right should be terrifying to the Right.
Which is why they keep trying to make it harder for them to vote.
Cause Lord knows, they can't win on the issues.
At least Maddow's show, along with most the others, is unabashedly presented as an opinion show that talks about news.
Whereas everything on fox is an opinion show that pretends to just be about the news. Even their actual "just news" segments editorialize constantly.
Take a scale of 1 to 10, 5 being dead neutral.
MSNBC is roughly a 7 on average (Joe Scar is essentially a 3-6 depending on topic, Maddow a 7, and so on).
In comparison, Fox is a 0.
Or as someone once said, the difference between The Daily Show and Fox news is that TDS admits to being a fake news show.
I really like the new guy, Trevor Noah.
I'd also go with Aasif Mandvi.
I love Oliver. But I think his spot at HBO may be the best place for him, because instead of nightly digs at current events, he gets to do real long form journalism, which is truly rare these days. And he gets to combine it with the usual BS/hypocrisy-pointing out. Combing the Daily Show with long form journalism and/or investigative reporting is as useful and important, and possibly more so even, as the informational value of TDS.
As Colbert said, part of their success came from Stewarts asking them to have an opinion,
instead of going for softball jokes not being afraid to skewer someone.
Part of the appeal of the show, is its willingness to throw the BS flag.
And in so doing, it engages viewers and makes them think deeper than most folks do.
From that standpoint, pretty much any of the correspondents could do it:
Samantha Bee, though her humor isn't always to my taste
Jason Jones, may be the most similar in style, if more abrasive
Jessica Williams, funny but sometimes not as biting as the others
Trevor Noah, I really like the newest member. He really seems not afraid to "go there".
But personally if I had to choose, I'd go with Aasif Mandvi.
He just as funny and qualified as the rest.
But most importantly, he's Muslim, which would provide for years of entertainment from the resulting apoplectic RWNJ's.
Count me in.
Could even go Warren / Stewart 2016 (or Stewart / Warren, w/e).
Scientist: Global warming is happening.
Newspaper: The scientist is a liar in it for money! And he eats puppies!
That's a pretty clear cut case of defamation.
The scientist is well within his rights to sue.