|
Alhazred posted:You are very wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Oliver#Influence_and_the_%22John_Oliver_effect%22 Snowglobe of Doom posted:What the heck are you talking about, he proposes solutions pretty darn frequently. This episode he was pushing for "first right of refusal" laws in more states to give resident groups the chance to buy their parks if they come up for sale, last episode he was asking fans to pressure the WWE to take care of their performers because that's the only kind of pressure that's ever made the WWE change anything ever, in previous episodes he's informed people about important but relatively unknown polls on important issues and urged them to turn up and cast their vote, he's raised money for specific charities, he bought his own mobile clinic truck, etc etc.. A few weeks ago you would have been preaching to the choir but I've come around. So should you. If you think I'm just saying these things out of the blue and am totally alone, try going into CSPAM and saying what you just did and see how well it goes over. I did, this month, and look at the aftermath: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3884874 Seriously, read it. The posters ITT fancy themselves representative of the left, but there is *vitriol* on the left about John Oliver. It's not just a matter of them not knowing about the show or only having heard "Drumpf". People really disrespect him for the list of ways he's hung the left out to try, in spite of the good he's done. I notice you left that part (the most damning part) out of your quote, and I can see why, because there are no excuses to be made for: Dumb Lowtax posted:1. Bernie Sanders is not to be mentioned as a serious candidate (due to an organized media blackout), or that While LWT is better than any other show on television for current issues, the point the left is making is that *no* televised news show is doing what would really be morally right, which is to admit that our institutions are beyond redemption, will never allow themselves to be fixed, and need to be thrown out. HBO also put The Wire on which does have this message, but it is not a news show and is therefore "allowed" to say that. Snowglobe of Doom posted:The true onus DOES lie on voters, and learning more and being better informed (which is what this show is all about) is an essential element of that. That's how democracy is supposed to work, and that's the only way that actual solutions have any chance of being enacted. Our system is functionally not a democracy and most votes do not count. What you're expressing is a belief that the system works, which is central to the thesis of this show (that voting better can make everything better) and antithetical to leftist revolution. If people vote differently, the people at the top of our institutions will just go to farther and farther lengths to protect their hegemony, and their actions alone can keep things the way they are; economic and political power are currently monopolized in the hands of the few, which is the whole problem. Blaming the voters is exactly what keeps attention off of the policy-based manipulations of the ruling class that holds the voters down. Happy Thread fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Apr 8, 2019 |
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 19:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 13:35 |
|
|
Sereri posted:I'm a bit disappointed they didn't point out that "mobile home" doesn't come from the homes being mobile You should probably click the additional information link at the bottom of that article 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 19:55
|
|
|
Stuff like "there's an organized media blackout to not mention Bernie Sanders as a serious candidate" sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory (that doesn't super reflect my experienced reality) and maybe doesn't belong in this thread? I dunno. Maybe it does? It just stood out to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 20:11
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Stuff like "there's an organized media blackout to not mention Bernie Sanders as a serious candidate" sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory (that doesn't super reflect my experienced reality) and maybe doesn't belong in this thread? How much did you hear about Kamala Harris's campaign right when she announced? Biden's? Now can you remember which day it was exactly that Bernie announced? edit: Would you guess from current TV coverage that Sanders is ahead, or not ahead, of the other candidates in fundraising? Happy Thread fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Apr 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 20:18
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:You should probably click the additional information link at the bottom of that article  Just I feel ... betrayed?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 20:19
|
|
|
Dumb Lowtax posted:How much did you hear about Kamala Harris's campaign right when she announced? Biden's? Now can you remember which day it was exactly that Bernie announced? How much have you heard about anyone's campaign past that they announced they were going to run? The election isn't for roughly another 2 years; there's not going to be a lot of news coverage nationally going on for a while yet for anyone, because it's just not a sustainable interest for most people regardless of candidate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 20:23
|
|
|
Dumb Lowtax posted:Our system is functionally not a democracy and most votes do not count. What you're expressing is a belief that the system works, which is central to the thesis of this show (that voting better can make everything better) and antithetical to leftist revolution. If people vote differently, the people at the top of our institutions will just go to farther and farther lengths to protect their hegemony, and their actions alone can keep things the way they are; economic and political power are currently monopolized in the hands of the few, which is the whole problem. Blaming the voters is exactly what keeps attention off of the policy-based manipulations of the ruling class that holds the voters down. Those of us in the Nothing Matters party have known this for decades
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 20:26
|
|
|
Dumb Lowtax posted:How much did you hear about Kamala Harris's campaign right when she announced? Biden's? Now can you remember which day it was exactly that Bernie announced? Literally the only reason I can remember the day Kamala Harris announced was because she did it on MLK Day. I think. I'm not even sure of that because who the gently caress remembers what day a candidate announced? And Biden hasn't announced so... That seems like a really oddly specific metric to prove some organized media blackout. I don't think he's getting media blacked out and I feel like I could present clips to support that idea, but I'm also not really sure that would accomplish anything except getting us lost in a longer, more intractable argument that I don't really think has much to do with this show. Oliver mocks politicians. Do we think he should mock Bernie more? Does he champion earnestly for Biden or Harris? Some people hate Oliver's show because they don't find him funny and think he should devote his resources and journalistic skills to serious championing of more leftists causes. That's an opinion they're entitled to but like, its also not what the show is. Dumb Lowtax posted:
Oddly enough I actually heard CNN mention that Bernie was one of front runners in fundraising just like an hour ago in comparison to Booker's numbers. But that doesn't prove anything because this stuff is all people reacting to selective viewing through the prism of their biases. I don't think the media is conspiring against Bernie so I'm not gonna "see" that as easily as someone who does. I also don't watch CNN 24/7 so I can't really speak to how they divide their coverage from my own personal viewings (and no one could unless they're keeping track for Media Matters or something). But again... a topic of CSPAM, not the Last Week Tonight thread. No? STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Apr 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 20:30
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:But again... a topic of CSPAM, not the Last Week Tonight thread. No? I think it's relevant to the thread, not because of this discussion of current coverage of 2020 candidates, but because of the show's coverage of the 2016 election. It is not too early to talk about that, we saw how it played it to the end and it was lacking. For John Oliver to be the leftmost cable news show and still have almost entirely omitted Bernie Sanders back as the 2016 primary unfolded is pretty revealing of something. There are some lines this show mysteriously does not cross and others it is fine with crossing. We should explore why. And think of Oliver as a transient ally, not as a perfect spokesman for the left because HBO will never call for burning down all current institutions including HBO quite like the left would prefer. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 20:50
|
|
|
Meanwhile the Bernie thread had this to say about calling it a conspiracy theory:basic hitler posted:bernie erasure is absolutely happening and unfortunately the kind of person who refuses to see it, probably wont even when you point out flagrant examples Soap Scum posted:Do either of these help? Still looking for more btw Shear Modulus posted:this lovely horserace article's headline says bernie and biden slipped in this weekly poll despite the actual text of the article saying his percentage stayed even at 25% while biden's fell 2 percentage points to 33% (also says harris and butt "surged" when in actuality harris stayed flat at 8% and butt went up 1 point from 2 to 3) John Oliver is absolutely a part of this, and was in 2016 as well
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 20:57
|
|
|
What did Oliver do against Bernie in 2016 primary? You speak that like a truism that I'm at best ignorant of. I feel like if Oliver starts championing Harris or Biden or Beto then, yeah, maybe it will be worth discussing why he's not giving Bernie and others equal time. But is he doing that? Does he do that? Isn't the key criticism of the guy that he just makes jokes about problems and doesn't advocate political solutions? Again, there's people who want him to stop telling jokes and advocate their personal politics more. But there's always been and that's always not been his show, for better or worse. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Apr 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 20:58
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:I feel like if Oliver starts championing Harris or Biden or Beto then, yeah, maybe it will be worth discussing why he's not giving Bernie and others equal time. But is he doing that? Does he do that? Isn't the key criticism of the guy that he just makes jokes about problems and doesn't advocate political solutions? Is it not a solution he could call for, for any of the myraid of issues he highlights, to propose voting in the one single presidential candidate offering to enact policy far left enough to redistribute sufficient resources to address those issues? Seems like not just "a" solution, seems like "the" solution Instead he frequently mentioned Hillary throughout the primaries and only mentioned Sanders' name once or twice edit: Christ, he just did a whole episode on Monica Lewenski, frequently mentioning the Clintons.... while failing to even mention that Bill is caught up in #metoo with tons of accusers and how that should have taken the focus off of Monica, yet here we are in the modern day where Bill's legacy is mostly intact. Happy Thread fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Apr 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 21:04
|
|
|
You know what, I don't want to get in a protracted argument with people you're cross posting to. I'm sorry. I'm blind and the sort of person who can't see the truth just as that wonderful CSPAM poster said. I'm wrong, you're right. We good?
STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Apr 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 21:05
|
|
|
Then don’t watch it, I dunno. I don’t really agree with that assessment. Sure he could be doing more but so could a lot of people at least he’s putting the information out to a lot more people than would normally see it. I get it, he’s not funny. Stick to CSPAM then, thing to keep in mind is even these well informed forums still have a bunch a loving loonies in it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 21:07
|
|
|
I didn't say he's not funny, or that he's not a net good. I'm pointing out that he's part of the problem when it comes to a few different problems. That is fair. I will not "stick to CSPAM", you cannot discuss this show there. edit: STAC Goat posted:You know what, I don't want to get in a protracted argument with people you're cross posting to. I'm sorry. I'm blind and the sort of person who can't see the truth just as that wonderful CSPAM poster said. I'm wrong, you're right. We good? What a graceful way to react to being brought compelling numerical evidence that you explicitly asked to see in order to change your mind Happy Thread fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Apr 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 21:12
|
|
|
I guess but there plenty of better things to rail against than a HBO show that’s pretty informative for a lot of people. Just sayin.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 21:15
|
|
|
Dumb Lowtax posted:
I'm sorry I offended you, I just don't feel like arguing with a dozen different people in another forum I didn't actually go into. A forum that you say this debate can't be had in. For what its worth of the three things you posted: 1) The first shows that Bernie got less of a boost from his announcement but doesn't draw any evidence tying that to coverage and it seems reasonable to argue that he had SUCH an advantage over Harris and others that he simply had less to gain. Perhaps the link provides some more context but I haven't searched for it. 2) The second is bad but it also doesn't have a ton of context and appears to be a sponsored ad from the DCCC. It would still be a bad thing the DCCC did, though. 3) The third thing is about the Washington Post in 2016. I didn't read it. I'll try and find the time later. But it seems only tangentially connected to the topic at hand. But... quote:bernie erasure is absolutely happening and unfortunately the kind of person who refuses to see it, probably wont even when you point out flagrant examples So I might be hopeless. edit: And to be clear, I absolutely without question think there ARE instances, people, and organizations that were biased against Bernie. I rejected the idea that Oliver was part of some grand conspiracy to ignore him. But we clearly aren't going to find mutual ground on that. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Apr 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 21:24
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:But... I included that guy's quote just to show you what the reaction to that idea is among leftists. Don't read too much into it. The myriad of numerical examples that thread is currently digging up are the point. The point is that the problem is real, it is one of many problems that pretty much all centrist-produced media (read: all televised media) shares (such as watering down class-based issues), and that shows like John Oliver's are not exempt from it as much as we like the show and its campaigns. And the complaint from the other poster, which was that LWT is lacking in calling for political solutions (such as last week with the lost opportunity to call for a clearly identifiable WWE boycott/protest). Highlighting institutions' problems without directly calling the institution irredeemable and promoting drastic political action is a centrist thing to do and a weakness of the show. And standing above all in this otherwise good show is his omission of this potential solution right here: Dumb Lowtax posted:Is it not a solution he could call for, for any of the myraid of issues he highlights, to propose voting in the one single presidential candidate offering to enact policy far left enough to redistribute sufficient resources to address those issues? Seems like not just "a" solution, seems like "the" solution Happy Thread fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Apr 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 21:33
|
|
|
Oh my god, can't we just enjoy some informative British accent jokes on HBO for once? Give this CSPAM bullshit a break, it's known what they and you think about John Oliver and what he does or doesn't do, you made that clear. Stac goat even said that he doesn't want to have this discussion and I kinda doubt many other posters here do, so please don't try to force change someone else's opinion in a TV forum with quotes from other people from another subforum, just to feel that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 22:34
|
|
|
It's sorta a dumb and lazy thing to feel like the comedy show owes you the exact solution to the complicated problem they spent almost half a hour explaining and trying to help you absorb, you've been given the information and sources for further info and charities but you just want to be told what to do, come up with a solution yourself instead of feeling like you need someone else to tell you how to get to one, donate, start awareness groups, organize people, do something if it bothers you enough that someone isn't telling you what to do to fix the topic of the week, don't wait for your hand to be held. On the Bernie erasure, knowing it's a thing does make me feel a little less crazy about how odd I found the coverage of Bernie on the daily show and the spinoffs like Sam bee and others, ranging from none-existent to "he has crazy hair and a bird landed on his hand" or "his ideas are impossible and should never be treated as serious" And most of the Cspam posters are barely above shitposters from fyad or byob or gbs, without heavy moderation and mods with fingers on the ban button every single reply in every thread to anyone who typed up anything longer then one sentence would be one sentence shitposts in response. Ra Ra Rasputin fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Apr 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 23:59
|
|
|
edit... nope. Sorry. This won't stop until someone stops it. I'm sorry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2019 00:09
|
|
|
Dumb Lowtax posted:A few weeks ago you would have been preaching to the choir but I've come around. So should you. If you think I'm just saying these things out of the blue and am totally alone, try going into CSPAM and saying what you just did and see how well it goes over. I did, this month, and look at the aftermath: Like many subforums on here, CSPAM is a left wing subforum full of "lefter than thou" types, so therefore every media personality is bad. I even recall posts about how Chapo Trap House was lovely. John Oliver is by no means perfect, but he's arguably the best mainstream personality and is at least in the realm of "somewhat reasonable", which is more than I can say with Bill "Islamophobe and Get Those Kids off My Lawn!" Maher, as well as Rachel "Conspiracy Nut" Maddow, and of course Samantha "My Husband and I Don't Support School Integration" Bee. punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Apr 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2019 00:54
|
|
|
Considering one of the primary facets of leftism is solidarity among the working class, online leftists sure do seem quick to denounce people as enemies of the revolution for not being leftist enough.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2019 01:00
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Considering one of the primary facets of leftism is solidarity among the working class, online leftists sure do seem quick to denounce people as enemies of the revolution for not being leftist enough. No one wants to admit that while the left has history of its origins in the working class and unions through Marx a century of change to ideas of progressivism means that working class views on immigration, foreigners, and no longer palatable work (mining) due to environmentalism means that the left is simultaneously presented as the party for the working class while also that they find the views of the working class unpalatable so they end up eating each other through trying to maintain purity in a contradiction. Thats not even getting into the hand wringing over that the support of the rise of populism and nationalism on a world wide scale has far and away its base in the working class (being disenfranchised by globalisation, exploitation and capitalism) so you have people trying to explain away the rise of authoritarianism from its supporters as if they are two separate entities.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2019 01:38
|
|
|
Stop rehashing the 2016 election.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2019 01:53
|
|
|
I think it's very important to keep Herman Cain away from any position of power, especially if it has anything to do with finances. He should remain a relic of a time when sexual harassment could tank your political career and the insane candidate that the news loves to give airtime to because he's so crazy didn't win. Nein, nein, nein. tarlibone posted:Truth be told, manufactured homes can be better in build quality, because they're made in a factory by people whose job is making that home. Traditionally built houses depend on local contractors who may or may not give any number of fucks about quality control. I think you can get prefab homes that aren't legally classified as mobile homes? I might be wrong though. It sounds like this is a ridiculous carved-out category of housing that's just renting an apartment but with less protections or benefits.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2019 04:02
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I think you can get prefab homes that aren't legally classified as mobile homes? I might be wrong though. Most modern prefab homes are of this type now. They're often, if not usually, at least double-wide. My cousin bought some land in Florida several years ago, cleared it, had a slab poured, and had one of these homes moved in. If I didn't know that it was prefab, I probably wouldn't have known that it was anything but a regular single-story house on a slab. Due to local regulations, it can't remain mobile; the axles were removed and it was permanently strapped down to supports embedded in the slab so that it wouldn't blow away in a hurricane. Even the "single wide" prefab homes are nothing like the ones that were around when I was a kid. In my hometown, about 3 blocks from my house was the local trailer park. And like most trailers in town, these were the classic metal-clad "mobile homes." Now, they look a lot more like regular houses (especially since so many houses have vinyl siding), and only the exterior dimensions give them away. Moving them would undoubtedly destroy them. They really aren't meant to be moved around like a semi-permanent RV; the idea is that they're moved to your site, and then never again. My grandma's house looked like a regular house from the outside, but my grandpa built it by moving in two trailers side-by-side about 6 feet apart, building a house shell around them, and turning the space between into a hallway and long-rear end pantry. Enclosed porches on the front and back completed the illusion. You could really only tell that it was two old trailers when you were in the mostly unfinished hallway pantry and could see the metal exterior walls.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2019 05:53
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I think it's very important to keep Herman Cain away from any position of power, especially if it has anything to do with finances. He should remain a relic of a time when sexual harassment could tank your political career and the insane candidate that the news loves to give airtime to because he's so crazy didn't win. Stephen Moore, the other guy Trump announced he will nominate, the one with the awful porn star joke, that guy. Well guess what: quote:Moore advised Herman Cain, a former presidential candidate and business executive, on his 9-9-9 Tax Plan for his 2012 presidential campaign
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2019 09:53
|
|
|
tarlibone posted:Most modern prefab homes are of this type now. They're often, if not usually, at least double-wide. My cousin bought some land in Florida several years ago, cleared it, had a slab poured, and had one of these homes moved in. If I didn't know that it was prefab, I probably wouldn't have known that it was anything but a regular single-story house on a slab. Due to local regulations, it can't remain mobile; the axles were removed and it was permanently strapped down to supports embedded in the slab so that it wouldn't blow away in a hurricane. Yeah, that's the reason it took a bit for me to realize "manufactured homes" were just mobile homes. When I was a kid, I had a couple friends that lived in one that actually looked like a trailer, with metal sides and I think there were even wheels. When you see the new ones IN a trailer park surrounded by other trailers in tiny little lots, it's a lot more obvious. But in this image all by itself, it just kinda looks like a tiny house.  Surrounded by tons of land, I wouldn't think to attach the stigma of "mobile home" because well, the homes themselves are fine, it's just the ridiculous permanent land-rental that comes along with them, and the poorer neighborhoods that they become. Come to think of it, when I was in school I looked up a couple trailer parks when we were looking for a new apartment, and the prices WERE deceptively cheap, to the point where I was thinking "why would we ever bother renting a place instead of just buying a trailer?" Except the rates left out the actual lot rental fees (or possibly the trailer cost, it's been a long time) and just advertised their prices at 2/3 the actual cost. It took some hunting to figure out it would be quite a bit more than some of the apartments we were looking at for the privilege of acquiring some dubious equity in a mobile home and a promise to keep paying lot rental fees forever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2019 13:55
|
|
|
I wonder if the shift from trailer-style to house-style mobile homes was driven specifically by the desire to gouge tenants more effectively. The former were quite a bit more “mobile” so if rent became unreasonable then people could pretty easily just leave. The “move once then settle” style meanwhile seems deliberately designed to create a captive market. The house-like designs probably are nicer to live in, but “let’s make this low income housing nicer to improve living conditions for the poor” is not a motivation you’re likely to find among landlords.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2019 15:56
|
|
|
Dumb Lowtax posted:A few weeks ago you would have been preaching to the choir but I've come around. So should you. If you think I'm just saying these things out of the blue and am totally alone, try going into CSPAM and saying what you just did and see how well it goes over. I did, this month, and look at the aftermath: Your takes are dumb as poo poo. The voters are the people watching the show. They’re the ones who can be inspired to take action. But instead, you propose that since everything’s the system’s fault, we’re not responsible for anything. It’s the corporations that are responsible for climate change. No need to think about your own environmental impact! Capitalism is responsible for worldwide poverty. Giving what you can isn’t going to fix that! Elections are rigged. Isn’t NOT voting the responsible choice? Isn’t it convenient that internet leftism lets us off the hook so easily? A philosophy that says it’s not your fault, you have no power, nothing you do matters etc. It’s such a good excuse for moral laziness, and it’s not hard to see why it’s so attractive. Nihilism in a socialist suit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2019 16:03
|
|
|
Dumb Lowtax posted:A few weeks ago you would have been preaching to the choir but I've come around. So should you. If you think I'm just saying these things out of the blue and am totally alone, try going into CSPAM and saying what you just did and see how well it goes over. I did, this month, and look at the aftermath: No. I have zero interest in going to CSPAM for any reason. If you have something to say about the show then say it, drop this stupid "The other forum yelled at me therefore I changed my opinion and you would too if you did [internet research]" bullshit. I don't give a poo poo what they're saying in CSPAM. Dumb Lowtax posted:I notice you left that part (the most damning part) out of your quote, and I can see why, because there are no excuses to be made for: I left it out because none of that stuff is loving relevant. There's a million things that the show doesn't mention and half the stuff they do mention is dumb fluff like news readers making lame Saint Patrick's Day jokes or whatever. If the show doesn't cover the topics that you personally want them to that's not a conspiracy. Dumb Lowtax posted:Our system is functionally not a democracy and most votes do not count. What you're expressing is a belief that the system works, which is central to the thesis of this show (that voting better can make everything better) and antithetical to leftist revolution. If people vote differently, the people at the top of our institutions will just go to farther and farther lengths to protect their hegemony, and their actions alone can keep things the way they are; economic and political power are currently monopolized in the hands of the few, which is the whole problem. Blaming the voters is exactly what keeps attention off of the policy-based manipulations of the ruling class that holds the voters down. If any of that is true then John Oliver couldn't make a difference whatever he said so he might as well talk about whatever the hell he wants. Edit: also I noticed that you just ignored most of my post and handwaved it away by going "Well try posting that in CSPAM!" which was weak as hell Snowglobe of Doom fucked around with this message at 14:05 on Apr 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2019 14:00
|
|
|
Is op cross posting posts in this thread to cspam too? That'd actually be kind of funny
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2019 17:36
|
|
|
ninjewtsu posted:Is op cross posting posts in this thread to cspam too? That'd actually be kind of funny
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2019 20:24
|
|
|
But yes, the OP cross posted my original "conspiracy theory" post which is why I just didn't want to continue because it seemed like a recipe to get sucked into a whole thing over in CSPAM. The irony is I actually do read CSPAM sometimes and perused through that Oliver thread when it was happening.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2019 20:35
|
|
|
When is Bryan Cranston gonna win an Oscar
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 04:28
|
|
|
"Then we remembered 'This is HBO'". Yup. ------e------- Can you guys now draw and quarter the Sacklers? Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 10:42
|
|
|
Xarn posted:"Then we remembered 'This is HBO'". They will never be held accountable for anything and in a thousand years the only part of their legacy that will survive history will be the endowments... 
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 22:09
|
|
|
Still, everything else aside, who else but John Oliver straight up targets oligarchs with his platform? Like I strongly felt like the audience was reacting rather inappropriately to some of the absolutely heinous poo poo in that deposition but at the same time John is not wrong that people simply won't care if they are required to read this poo poo for themselves or listen to a dude reading it out on TV. So what the gently caress is anyone to do to call attention to this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2019 21:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 13:35 |
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Still, everything else aside, who else but John Oliver straight up targets oligarchs with his platform? After 100 years of being trained to be consumers and not think critically, you can lead a populace to information but if it isn’t interesting enough they get distracted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2019 22:22
|
|