Colbert is Rude

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

I don't mean this in typical me/you argument fashion, but show me where I did that?

Honestly, Typhoid, I could pull up multiple threads where you chastized me for criticizing the fact that your opinion is validated by the fact that you have an opinion. You have said as much yourself and I won't bother to search for the examples. Of course you've never openly said "I don't need to back up my opinions with facts!", you just tend not to back them up with facts. What you don't say is sometimes as telling as what you do say.

And if you don't want to be "lumped in" with Dyflon, then don't jump right in as soon as Dyflon in taken to task. You lumped yourself in to this. Overall my issue is not with you in this argument, so I apologize if it came off that way.

[manasecret]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Manasecret, we (at least I do, I can't speak for them) do get "it".
Assuming a little too much?

No, I don't think I'm assuming too much. I'm only saying what I see. What I think I see may be wrong, but I still don't think it is despite your words. Just like if I say, "I understand the theory of relativity" since I read a book about it, when in fact I probably still don't.

I'll speak personally, because I can't for them.

I want nothing from him. Considering me and him were having a civilized conversation. To be lumped into this escalation between Dylan and Strangler makes it seem like you didn't even read the thread and just felt now would be a good time to jump in and see what comes of it.

A quick look back shows I'm not the one that changed the direction of the thread, and also that you joined in the new direction well before I did. As for jumping in and seeing what comes of it -- well, duh. This is a forum after all. And if you think I "didn't even read the thread", you might be "assuming a little too much." I was the first to reply to the thread, not the first or second or third to take it in this new direction.

You may not understand why all of us argue on the boards. It's because we're all strongly opinionated. Just because we go post our opinions in different ways, doesn't mean we believe any "less strongly" than who we happen to be talking to.

I never said that and I never meant that you feel less strongly. I'm sorry if it came off that way. In fact I would guess you do feel very strongly about your opinions if you post them here, as most people probably do.

The thing about logic and reason, is that they're clearly subjective. The classic fallback to explain that is God vs Science. Each side won't really ever understand the other side's without being patronizing. As for facts, we're most of the time jabbering back and forth about personal opinions on politics. Like why someone believes what they do, why someone acts some way they do. And there's no "fact" for that.

In the case of this thread, yes. It's really just opinions. In fact, I disagree with Prof. S about Jon Stewart and Colbert. I think it's just comedy and they shouldn't be taken seriously. Some people do get their news from them, but I think that's a sign of the sad state of the real news channels and not Stewart and Co. that some people feel the need to turn to Comedy Central to get a real look at the news.

In other cases, facts are very useful. The sky is blue is a fact. Fred Thompson said "blah blah blah" or whatever quote is a fact. On June 11, 2007, Sen. Larry Craig was arrested at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport on suspicion of lewd conduct is a fact. Using these facts and other facts to arrive at a logical conclusion to support your argument is a very very strong form of persuasion. I prefer this form of argument, because as far as I know it's the strongest form. Prof. S is very good at this, you are very poor. So am I, but when I'm not willing to take the time to make a logical argument, I usually just stop talking instead of repeating my opinion over and over without any useful form of argument.

What bugs me so much about the posters in this forum, is that while they (not directed at anyone in particular) take everything with a grain of salt, they think whoever their arguing with is taking the words to heart.

I may argue back with Strangler a lot, but that doesn't mean I'm letting the words get to me. It just means I'm debating back. Just as he is.

I recall someone calling Prof. S "just a shit stirrer" at one time and vowed never to argue with him again. Do those sound like the words of someone not letting the words get to them?

How about Dylflon coming in in the middle of a discussion and writing a long monologue about his harbored feelings about Prof. S for the last several years, and then telling him in the end to "eat a dick". Does that sound like someone not letting the words get to them?

That's what bugs me about you. You sure sound like you're taking words to heart, but because all we see is text, we can't gauge your emotions and so you can always fall back on the "I'm just joking" or "I'm just being sarcastic" to many times weasel out of anything you just said.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Honestly, Typhoid, I could pull up multiple threads where you chastized me for criticizing the fact that your opinion is validated by the fact that you have an opinion.

I meant in this thread.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by manasecret

How about Dylflon coming in in the middle of a discussion and writing a long monologue about his harbored feelings about Prof. S for the last several years, and then telling him in the end to "eat a dick". Does that sound like someone not letting the words get to them?

if you read - like you said you did, you'd know that Dylan said he was just saying that to get a rise out of Strangler. He was just fucking with him.
That is a fact.
I'm not agreeing with what Dylan said, nor do I really care - to be honest with you.

And yes, I did say I wouldn't argue with him anymore.
But if you look back, me and Strangler were'nt arguing.
We were agreeing, and then talking about the different sides of the situation.

Do those sound like the words of someone not letting the words get to them?

And no, those sound like the words of a-probably- 18-year-old kid posting on a small community forum.

PS. Holy fuck. Double post. I haven't done that in about 4 years. I need to go bathe.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

I meant in this thread.

In this thread, no, but the discussion in this thread quickly became about arguments tactics overall in the political topics of this forum. My comments were never specifically targeted at this thread alone.

And Mana brings it up that he disagrees with me, yet did not tell me to "eat a dick". This was a topic where there are no real facts to cite, just analysis of a show's content. Hence how civil it was until some decided to be a "shit stirrer", and it definitely wasn't.

And please stop saying he was just trying to get a rise out of me. He expounded upon how much he dislikes me in more than one post. He was venting because he had nothing else to say.

[Dylflon]

I'm going to throw in my actual opinion of Colbert/Stewart and intellectual dishonesty just for fun.


I don't think what they do is as the professor said, "intellectually dishonest". The beginning of the Bush administration was a time of heavy censorship and many artists were put in a lot of trouble with the media for speaking out against the government (a good example being the Dixie Chicks). What Colbert does is make his jokes ambiguous.

He portrays himself as an ultra-right wing conservaChristian causing most of his humour to come from satire. Nobody could rightfully prove though that what Colbert does is in fact satire though. This ambiguous nature of Colbert's comedy cushions Colbert from getting in trouble. I don't think this is so much out of dishonesty as it is Colbert protecting his own ass.

Stewart just likes to poke fun at news events and will in fact take things out of context. But as Typhoid mentioned earlier, he is not the first to do this. Canadian programs like This Hour Has 22 Minutes, Royal Canadian Air Farce, and the Rick Mercer Report have been doing this for years. In fact, they've been doing it in a much more extreme manner than their American coutnerparts. But as a Canadian I have never felt it to be 'dishonest'.

These shows while making some pointed attacks are more there to make fun of the twisted and crazy world we live in rather than to misinform and indoctrinate. Also, Canadians in general are okay with making fun of the government, because criticism of the government is actually a very important thing.

I believe the case to be the same for Colbert and Stewart. They are there to make light of a scary and stressful world. But also in doing so, they point out relevant issues and contradictions in the government system. One of the things I've noticed as a difference between Canadians and Americans is that a lot of Americans have adopted the notion that it's not okay to question their government. And a lot of programs won't openyl criticize the government out of this sentimentality and also probably out of fear of being cancelled.

Colbert and Stewart fill an important niche. While they may be left-leaning, they actually do make fun of left-wing politicians whenever they can. They are two programs out there that have the guts to make fun of the stupid stuff that goes on in the government. And it actually is an important thing to do.

But if they're going to make fun of the government all the time, they do really have to protect themselves. That's why they perform their comedy the way they do.

I think callingg them intellectually dishonest is unfair. I think they are intelligent human beings who in many circumstances ask the right questions at the right times. They push the correct boundaries and get a lot of people to think and almost as importantly to laugh.

Some people may see them as leftist propagandists who are out to fulfill some sort of personal anti-government agenda, but think of who they are. They are comedians and entertainers who are telling jokes. Not the news.

If you're calling them intellectually dishonest, you may as well accuse every satirist who ever lived of the same thing.

[Dylflon]

Originally Posted by manasecret

How about Dylflon coming in in the middle of a discussion and writing a long monologue about his harbored feelings about Prof. S for the last several years, and then telling him in the end to "eat a dick". Does that sound like someone not letting the words get to them?

Whoa whoa whoa. You've made a few posts here that make it sound like you know me or something.

You want to know something funny? I told the good ol' Prof to munch a Bratwurst simply because I was bored and tired and wanted to take a cheap shot at him for fun.

The joke being that I have a giant long build up with the simple message of requesting him to gargle a dong. I could have just told to to gargle dongs up front. But I made a big long article out of it. In all honesty I was just fucking around. Was it immature? Yes. Really immature in fact.

But don't mistake me for some inarticulate mouth breather who gets all huffy when other people have opinions that differ from mine. And more importantly don't think me someone of such low standing that I have to resort to childishness because I can't express my own views in a clear, reasonable, and well thought out manner.


You've actually annoyed me more than the Prof has in a few short sentences that make it sound like you know anything about me.

Granted, my actions in this thread aren't the best indicator of how I really am.

But anyways, ramble, ramble, chortle a trouser snake.

[Bond]

I'm only a timid observer here, but isn't the issue just the fact that everyone should be serious during a serious discussion of an issue? This is an internet forum, so seriousness is always an issue, but you can't insult the other person you're discussing with and then try to have an informed discussion.

[manasecret]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

You've actually annoyed me more than the Prof has in a few short sentences that make it sound like you know anything about me.

Yeah I can understand how annoying it is when someone reiterates exactly what you said in your post but cuts it down to the core to show how ridiculous it really was. Because that's all I did. Somehow that equates into you thinking I think I know all about you.

Plus as I recall it's you who thinks he knows Prof. S so well.

Granted, my actions in this thread aren't the best indicator of how I really am.

Exactly. What's that joke about girls dressing like sluts, and then getting mad when someone calls them a slut? Like someone wearing an officer's uniform, and then getting upset when someone comes up to them thinking they're an officer. If you don't want people to think you're taking it to heart, then don't wear the uniform.

[Dylflon]

Originally Posted by manasecret

Yeah I can understand how annoying it is when someone reiterates exactly what you said in your post but cuts it down to the core to show how ridiculous it really was. Because that's all I did. Somehow that equates into you thinking I think I know all about you.

Plus as I recall it's you who thinks he knows Prof. S so well.



Exactly. What's that joke about girls dressing like sluts, and then getting mad when someone calls them a slut? Like someone wearing an officer's uniform, and then getting upset when someone comes up to them thinking they're an officer. If you don't want people to think you're taking it to heart, then don't wear the uniform.

I realized that too and I won't say you're wrong on that point.