Yes it’s frustrating when people try to paint any disagreement as implying you’re some kind of maniac hyper-partisan.
I’d rather Biden hadn’t stood for a second term. I appreciate how poorly he sometimes comes across.
But I am also critical of how Jon covered the age thing. It did veer into ageism. And if he’s going to criticize some of Biden’s gaffes, well Trump’s gaffes are ten times more numerous and a hundred times worse.
The fact that “A lot of Americans feel this way” doesn’t mean much in itself…frankly, a lot of Americans believe in horse poopy right now.
All this said, I think he broadly did a good job in the second episode, even if he didn’t fairly address the criticism (to do so in a comedy show would have been a tall order).
I agree with this. I just think he’d been better off making some self-deprecating joke and move on. Make the joke about no one disagreeing, then say soemthing like, “but one thing we can all agree on is…”
It bugged me enough that I missed the Tucker Carlson part, which was apparently really good. But I see that sort of response so much online and got so frustrated that it bugged me.
I do think he did the right thing in not making it some big segment, though. And I am willing to think that Jon just needs to get back in the groove.
I do have one hopeful possibility. That Jon did this on purpose. That he made the Biden thing first to show he’s not partisan and get more moderates to listen in. If he does actually address an issue I have with the Dems, I would be happy.
The Dems just don’t crow enough about their accomplishments. Biden particularly. That’s part of why I dislike the “old grandpa” paradigm.
Jon’s way more involved than me. In the Culture thread here, someone linked the video where he explodes about Chicago style pizza. I’d gross him out since I eat any kind of pizza. To use Pit language, I eat shit and like it too.
To the thread, I like Jon’s humor whether absurd, blue, caustic et al. To me it’s like listening to a sermon or something: fine to listen to but I don’t bet on it.
I wish we lived in that world. It’s entirely possible to say things which are honest and make people think, but which, due to the context of the times, can be incredibly damaging.
If you were a newspaper editor shortly before the last free elections in Weimar Germany, and you dug up a story of a real but basically minor scandal concerning one of the non-Nazi candidates, what should you do? Beats me, but I think it’s incredibly irresponsible to ignore the larger context and just say “well, it’s an important story, it’s information people should have, and it’s definitely true”. And in particular, I’m talking about somewhat intangible issues like headline-size, above-the-fold-ness, etc. You can choose to run it as a massive headline. Or you can choose to put it on page 5. It’s up to you. But your overall responsibility to a functioning society overrides some pure and idealistic responsibility to “the truth”.
I get your concern, but the JS issue is very different from your hypotheticals. JS is not revealing any secret info, he’s speaking honestly about his thoughts on a topic.
I don’t see why you think that makes a difference.
Is “Biden is very old, appears to be suffering some amount of cognitive slowdown/decline” a legitimate news story, an issue that, by any “reasonable” standard of journalism, ought to be discussed? Something that would be absolutely worth devoting brain cells and hamster cycles and clicks to if the times were normal? Something that would lead to further discussions of the flaws of the two party system, incumbent advantage, and so forth?
Sure.
But the calculus for the extent to which one should foreground that story HAS to involve the context of the existential threat that Trump poses. To ignore that context, to blithely just say “well, it’s important news that people deserve to hear” is the rankest of journalistic malpractice.
I find this curious. As a Chicago kid of the 60s-70s with a last name ending in “ski”, I knew every Polish joke (and Italian, Irish, Jewish, black, gay…) I never found Polish jokes offensive at all. Instead, I found JS’s references almost nostalgic, reminding me that he is of my age and from a big city. And it struck me basically as just amusingly juvenile.
I kinda find it odd that I am not offended by jokes about my ethnicity, whereas many other folk profess offense over perceived slights to groups they identify with.
Mundane Super Hero - are you a Polack? Or are you offended on behalf of Polacks?
Just want to point out that one doesn’t need to be Pole to Google Polack joke and read that a lot of Poles find them offensive. It to have otherwise interacted with Polish people and learned the general consensus.
Your way of thinking on a lot of things is often different than the mainstream. And there are always the exceptions in am ethnicty who are not bothered by negative stereotypical jokes. In general, people avoid this sort of thing even if it’s just a significant minority.
Besides, Polish jokes are lame and suggest a lack of creativity. Unless you’re putting some new spin on them, they’re just not very funny. We know Jon can do better. He’s not that lame uncle who only has old 1970s jokes.
Yeah. That’s one thing I appreciate about these boards, that it makes clear how different my way of thinking is from many others - including many others I ostensibly share a lot with.
Like I said, this mainly struck me as curious. Not saying I’m right and anyone else is wrong. Just I often muse about peoples’ claims to be personally offended by various statements/actions. And here were clear statements that directly concerned my ethnicity/lastname - and to which someone took offense. Whereas instead of being offended, I found it amusing and nostalgic.
Perhaps I’ve never been offended by Polack jokes because I’ve always been confident in my own intelligence and competence. So the jokes never affected my self image.
Heck, JS has always practiced some amount of puerile humor. Heck, if he could “do better” than Polack jokes, maybe he oughta “do better” than dick jokes?
Ha, I just remembered my dad’s co-workers giving him the nickname “Polack”, because he was of Bohemian descent. Polish, Bohemian, what’s the difference?
Did you watch the show, or read a transcript? Based on his delivery, I’m quite certain Jon was fully aware of how lame this joke was. The lameness of the joke was the joke.
No, but I married one & have children with her. Yes, I remember the Morons and their ‘Polish American Joke Book’. Before I gave them up, I only had one Polish joke:
“What do you call a pretty Polish girl?”
“What…?”
“Not A Fucking Thing when her BF is around…”
Maybe if JS was Polish, he wouldn’t be such an Ahole.
Wow! I usually think I have a pretty negative attitude about a lot of things. It is kinda refreshing to see someone who is more ready to take offense over something (IMO) so mild.
Wait - but if JS were Polish, would he still be a Jew?
