# Trevor Noah leaving the Daily Show **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Tags:** talk-variety-show\ **Created:** [September 30, 2022, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trevor-noah-leaving-the-daily-show/972486 "2022-09-30T02:49:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2022, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trevor-noah-leaving-the-daily-show/972486/263 "2022-10-06T10:50:14Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > > > I don’t see how your comments are relevant to my points. Do you think that choosing people (or not) based on their sex, sexuality or ethnicity is a bad thing? I certainly do. > > If your “choose the best for the job” rubric pretty much always results in a straight, white man, then we cannot trust you when you say you’re just going to choose the best for the job. You need to start intentionally seeking out non-straight, non-white, non-men. Why not? You’re assuming that any criteria that predominantly result in the selection of a historically privileged majority must be discriminatory, no question about it, no evidence required. That is, at best, debatable, because there are many perfectly valid reasons why that might happen. You know what is NOT debatable, but is a perfectly self-evident truism? That when you introduce extraneous factors into your selection criteria, such as gender, sexuality, or ethnicity, then you are _ **explicitly abandoning** _ the “best person for the job” principle. Reverse discrimination – however well-intentioned it may be – is not at all the same thing as the absence of discrimination. As soon as you introduce any kind of quota or pre-determined diversity outcome, you’re no longer doing an objective evaluation. And maybe you shouldn’t be – it may well be that the goals of diversity are sufficiently important that it’s worth the compromise. But let’s keep our arguments coherent. The whole concept of “affirmative action” as an inherently discriminatory policy arose from a distortion of an executive order issued by JFK back in 1961, which required federal contractors to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed … without regard to their race, creed, color or national origin.” Nixon’s Philadelphia Plan eight years later marked the beginning of the first efforts to re-interpret that sentiment of non-discrimination into one of quota-based reverse discrimination, which has been contentious ever since. This is not to say that diversity isn’t important. It absolutely is. But recognize that you’re making trade-offs, and basically saying that the sort of person you pick for the job should be balanced by broader societal interests and not just a narrow evaluation of skills and value. Just don’t try to pretend that you’re still picking the best person for the job in a totally objective and non-discriminatory fashion. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2022, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trevor-noah-leaving-the-daily-show/972486/264 "2022-10-06T11:08:14Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I don’t think that. I think that _removing_ and ignoring identity factors during hiring practices prevents them being taken into consideration during that process. But it doesn’t. Which is entirely my point. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > By what metric do you decide that it doesn’t work? That’s in direct contradiction to my experience of the last 15 years. I’ve seen it work first hand. Perhaps you just aren’t very good or diligent at removing those factors? Or perhaps you are personally motivated to keep those factors as part of your hiring practices? Or perhaps you’re motivated to pretend that your approach is working, despite the rather substantial evidence that racial bias exists even when race isn’t explicitly stated, as has already been shown in this thread. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I dispute that identity criteria are intrinsic to such a job. Any ethnicity, sex, gender, age or sexuality is capable of making a good job of it and is capable of putting forward a position that is relevant to any identity group at all. If that were not the case then Trevor Noah would be incapable of being relevant to white, homosexual female Americans. That is not the case. You can dispute all you want and keep repeating the “colorblind” argument over and over again. It won’t make it true. One can, for example, point to [Ketanji Brown Jackson’s first major foray](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/justice-jackson-makes-waves-first-supreme-court-arguments-rcna50707) into her SCOTUS role, in which her viewpoint was undeniably influenced by her own personal experiences as a black woman in America. There are many areas where varied representation and cultural experience are incredibly valuable, and being blind to that isn’t a virtue. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I’m criticising anyone that uses prejudice to fight prejudice. That is a useless approach, a moral stain and fundamental dead-end if your actual goal is equality. Reducing the issue to an overly simplistic form in order to justify an overly simplistic solution won’t do a damn thing for equality either. > [@JRDelirious](#): > > TDS was all about how news media were failing to tell the real stories and fulfill the social function of producing an informed public. Now, our media are no longer even pretending. > > Heck, the audience loss is probably first from the general decay of cable scripted shows, and immediately following by folks from both ends of the spectrum no longer watching anything that’s not 100% on their “good” side. It’s probably also driven by all the TDS-inspired spinoffs - most notably _Last Week Tonight With John Oliver_ and Jon Stewart’s new show on Apple, but also shows by various other TDS former correspondents and writers. The main players in this niche used to be TDS and, arguably, Bill Maher’s show. Now there are several, spread across different streaming platforms. That’s going to dilute viewer numbers. Conversely, Gutfeld’s audience are glued to a very narrow band of media that appeal to their particular worldview, so naturally he will get more viewers, as Stewart did when TDS was pretty much the only show of its kind for its demographic. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2022, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trevor-noah-leaving-the-daily-show/972486/265 "2022-10-06T11:24:13Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > But it doesn’t. Which is entirely my point. I disagree. By definition, the more identity factors are removed from consideration, the less effect they can have on the decisions being made. I assume from your position that you are opposed to completely blind orchestra auditions? > [@Gyrate](#): > > Or perhaps you’re motivated to pretend that your approach is working, despite the rather substantial evidence that racial bias exists even when race isn’t explicitly stated, as has already been shown in this thread. That it is not perfect (no process can be) is no reason to backtrack or ignore the clear benefits it brings > [@Gyrate](#): > > Reducing the issue to an overly simplistic form in order to justify an overly simplistic solution won’t do a damn thing for equality either. Which solution is actually more simplistic? 1)Completely revamp and monitor our hiring practices to ensure that they are and continue to be made as fair as possible and provide equality of opportunity for everyone 2)Exclude identity (a) and preferentially hire identity (b) until we are happy with the outcome ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2022, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trevor-noah-leaving-the-daily-show/972486/266 "2022-10-06T14:56:56Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > That when you introduce extraneous factors into your selection criteria, such as gender, sexuality, or ethnicity, then you are _ **explicitly abandoning** _ the “best person for the job” principle. But that assumes that there is truly a “best person for the job”. That we can tally all their jokes and the laughs they got, or any other rubric for that matter, to determine inherently who will be the best. And there isn’t. There is a pool of qualified individuals, each of whom will meet whatever criteria you may have in the “be funny” department, and then you make your choice from there. I would say that diversity, giving the audience something different, can and should be a significant part of that selection process. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2022, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trevor-noah-leaving-the-daily-show/972486/267 "2022-10-06T17:37:52Z")
Yeah that is a fair point. For something like this IMO there is no way to do an undisputable evaluation of who is “best” for the job _before_ you see results. The final choice will be a judgement call. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2022, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trevor-noah-leaving-the-daily-show/972486/268 "2022-10-06T17:43:15Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > a) I’m not in America Ah, I certainly don’t want to tar you with the epithet American, given what this country has become and given that Tucker Carlson is in it. But that also disqualifies you from full participation in this thread. Just as a white straight man can never have the lifetime experiences of being the non-default, the life that non-straight non-white non-men must live every minute of their days, a non-American cannot viscerally understand the roiling cauldron of culture, race, diversity, oppression, bigotry, hatred, intolerance, and political stupidity that lies beneath the welcoming surface of the American land of opportunity. Other countries have their own unique set of evils as well, of course, but their entirety translates equally poorly. Americans try to see them through their custom lenses and fail miserably. I just want to emphasize that in the United States at this moment in time “colorblindness” is a right-wing code word for white supremacy and active racism. Just watch Tucker. Whatever it codes for in your country, it will taken by American non-Fox cultists in the worst possible way. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2022, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trevor-noah-leaving-the-daily-show/972486/269 "2022-10-06T18:32:32Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Nope, I certainly couldn’t. Without clothing cues could you? Nope. That’s my point. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > But you would you think that they could tell the difference between an Inuit and an Australian Aborigine wouldn’t you? And I can tell the difference between an Inuit and a Comanche. Noting that end-members of continuous series differ a lot isn’t exactly particularly noteworthy. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > If the word “races” bothers anyone, feel free to insert “ethnicities” Goalpost-move noted > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > And please do note the terms I’ve boldened, they are there for a reason. Yes. I believe the term is ferret phrasing…no, wait, polecat prevarication? No, that’s not it - it’ll come to me any second now. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2022, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trevor-noah-leaving-the-daily-show/972486/270 "2022-10-06T19:36:55Z")
---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2022, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trevor-noah-leaving-the-daily-show/972486/271 "2022-10-06T19:38:38Z")
If anyone has anything else to say about Trevor or the new host without reviving the debate that ate the thread, feel free to start a new Café thread. As to the massive hijack, if you wish to continue it, do it in a new thread and not in Café Society. This mess is closed and will remain so. * * * * * * _Reminder we reserve the right to close any threads that are more trouble than their worth. This qualifies._ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trevor-noah-leaving-the-daily-show/972486.md?page=13)