Jon Stewart tells it like it is.

[LMNO]

But I though we were better than they were...

[Phox]

But I though we were better than they were...

Better in some ways, worse in others. We are only monkeys.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

So um I watched this clip yesterday, and isn't he also referring to stuff like we're doing with GabbyGASM?

Collecting all those out of context images and teabaggers with signs and such in order to pin the shooting of that woman on the teabaggers while in reality most probably their admittedly aggressive and violent rhetoric didn't have much to do with the event because it was a deranged maniac that might not even have had a teabagger-related motive?

Cause I was wondering about that myself, when the thread was started, I didn't comment because obviously people are having fun doing it, and I'm not going to stand in the way of a Discordian activity over politics that aren't my own in the first place

I did indeed point that out in the second post of GabbyGASM, Trip. But fuck them. We aren't here to play nice, be fair, or give them the same benefit of the doubt we complain that they deny others.

Satirizing isn't about playing fair, it's about making a point in an extremely unfair way.

MY point behind GabbyGASM isn't to play fair, it's to shame the Tea Partiers into drawing a line in the sand between themselves and the fringe lunatics, instead of embracing the fringe lunatics as they have been up until now in some sort of revolutionary role-playing fantasy.

[LMNO]

Great point, Nigel.

[Phox]

So um I watched this clip yesterday, and isn't he also referring to stuff like we're doing with GabbyGASM?

Collecting all those out of context images and teabaggers with signs and such in order to pin the shooting of that woman on the teabaggers while in reality most probably their admittedly aggressive and violent rhetoric didn't have much to do with the event because it was a deranged maniac that might not even have had a teabagger-related motive?

Cause I was wondering about that myself, when the thread was started, I didn't comment because obviously people are having fun doing it, and I'm not going to stand in the way of a Discordian activity over politics that aren't my own in the first place

I did indeed point that out in the second post of GabbyGASM, Trip. But fuck them. We aren't here to play nice, be fair, or give them the same benefit of the doubt we complain that they deny others.

Satirizing isn't about playing fair, it's about making a point in an extremely unfair way.

MY point behind GabbyGASM isn't to play fair, it's to shame the Tea Partiers into drawing a line in the sand between themselves and the fringe lunatics, instead of embracing the fringe lunatics as they have been up until now in some sort of revolutionary role-playing fantasy.

Exactly what we need to be doing, Nigel.

[Cain]

It's called political warfare, people, not "political debate where we all stick our pinkie fingers out and calmly discuss with lunatics what is bothering them so much."  Suck it up.

[Triple Zero]

MY point behind GabbyGASM isn't to play fair, it's to shame the Tea Partiers into drawing a line in the sand between themselves and the fringe lunatics, instead of embracing the fringe lunatics as they have been up until now in some sort of revolutionary role-playing fantasy.

Okay well that's a good reason.

The way Phox explained it, "fuck them, don't give them the benefit of the doubt they deny others" is exactly the same thing they do, and well, you can see how much the other side cares about what Teapartiers shout.

It's just that "they're doing it to us/others as well" on its own is a bit of a shoddy reason to do something.

So I'm glad Nigel explained this, because getting Teapartiers to distance themselves from the fringe lunatics is a useful reason to do it.

It's called political warfare, people, not "political debate where we all stick our pinkie fingers out and calmly discuss with lunatics what is bothering them so much."  Suck it up.

Even in political warfare it's good if your actions have a reason. I thought at first it was done in order to discredit the Teapartiers, but the thing is, it doesn't actually discredit anyone, because all sides already believe they are 100% right anyway, so nobody's listening anymore on this hyperpolarised playing field.

Seemed I was wrong,

Then Nigel explained there's another reason besides discrediting them, and that's to try and get them to say, "we're not that crazy", which is going to cost them, cause as she said, right now they got the entire spectrum, from the slightly retarded all the way down the complete wonky nutter that does in fact want to shoot everyone. By pushing it, they might be forced to denounce the crazies, which is going to cost them a lot of crazies, and that could be a lot of their base.

[Phox]

MY point behind GabbyGASM isn't to play fair, it's to shame the Tea Partiers into drawing a line in the sand between themselves and the fringe lunatics, instead of embracing the fringe lunatics as they have been up until now in some sort of revolutionary role-playing fantasy.

Okay well that's a good reason.

The way Phox explained it, "fuck them, don't give them the benefit of the doubt they deny others" is exactly the same thing they do, and well, you can see how much the other side cares about what Teapartiers shout.

It's just that "they're doing it to us/others as well" on its own is a bit of a shoddy reason to do something.

So I'm glad Nigel explained this, because getting Teapartiers to distance themselves from the fringe lunatics is a useful reason to do it.

It's called political warfare, people, not "political debate where we all stick our pinkie fingers out and calmly discuss with lunatics what is bothering them so much."  Suck it up.

Even in political warfare it's good if your actions have a reason. I thought at first it was done in order to discredit the Teapartiers, but the thing is, it doesn't actually discredit anyone, because all sides already believe they are 100% right anyway, so nobody's listening anymore on this hyperpolarised playing field.

Seemed I was wrong,

Then Nigel explained there's another reason besides discrediting them, and that's to try and get them to say, "we're not that crazy", which is going to cost them, cause as she said, right now they got the entire spectrum, from the slightly retarded all the way down the complete wonky nutter that does in fact want to shoot everyone. By pushing it, they might be forced to denounce the crazies, which is going to cost them a lot of crazies, and that could be a lot of their base.

Now, now Trip. Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that was my (or anyone else's) reason for participating.

[Triple Zero]

Yeah, it's all good. I missed the point at first, and now I see it

[Phox]

Yeah, it's all good. I missed the point at first, and now I see it

Yeah, no worries. 

[the last yatto]

So basicly if Obama can't be a weatherman secret muslim
then Karl Rove can't be Thomas Jefferson?

[Luna]

http://www.newshounds.us/2011/06/28/jon_stewart_destroys_chris_wallaces_rebuttal_of_fox_news_fairness_and_balance.php

I love that man.

[Jenne]

Oh yeah, that was HI-larious.  

I'm wondering what they'll choose to pick on him about next.

Oh and last night's rebuttal?  Even better.

[Cramulus]

I hadn't seen the original interview on wallace's show, watching it now -------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwyUdBp-cck

[Jenne]

His rebuttal last night:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-28-2011/oh--for-fox-sake---who-s-the-biggest-a--hole-?xrs=share_copy