Jon Stewart hasn’t changed, and that’s the problem. As far as his comedy, no notes. He’s undeniably funny. But his politics just leave a sour taste. His enlightened centrist voice of reason shtick hits different now.
He’s defended people like Rogan and Chapelle. And I get it, they’re his buddies. He doesn’t see them as public figures, but as flawed individuals. And that’s a valid perspective, just a rarefied one.
His first guest upon his return was the editor of The Economist magazine who gushed about Reaganomics and Thatcherism. She framed the rise of right-wing politics in the West as first and foremost a threat to the neoliberal world order as Jon nodded along. And we all know that progressiveism is just the other side of the horseshoe to people who think this way.
I’ll be watching Stewart, and I really do admire him. But never meet your heroes I guess.
I think in the age of one-liners (Twitter, tik tok, etc) people have gotten so fucking stupid that they have lost their ability to digest a nuanced take. If it takes more than two sentences for a fox news host to say any liberal position is 100% and perfectly undeniably the worst thing in the world, they’re “going woke” (the brain-dead MAGA catch-all for any position they don’t like but can’t actually articulate why). If a liberal merely explains in good faith a right wing position that they’re going to argue against, they’re “enlightened centerists” (the brain dead left wing catch-all for any discussion that isn’t ** immediately** a shrill cry of fascism)
To be extremely clear, Jon is still the smartest guy in the room, and it’s just that you’ve gotten a lot dumber in the last 10 years on your diet of twitter.
If a liberal merely explains in good faith a right wing position that they’re going to argue against, they’re “enlightened centerists”
I think the problem isn’t so much nuance but that there is now a small(!) but very angry group of progressives. Reddit used to be, and lemmy still is mostly composed of these. I mean, those slightly to the left of the event horizon of tankianism.
The central fundamental outlook of open minded intelligent people today is that climate change is going to ruin or snuff out billions of lives, and our institutions are structurally incapable to address this, and shit is continuing to trend downwards, any political revolution will be a lie(obama) followed by a counter revolution (trump) and any new technology will be enshittified. There is a quiet voice saying this in the back of our minds: we are in collapse.
This explains why the temperature in all camps is raised so insanely, because we can’t stand to look at the abyss in front of us we double down or become hysterical. The old sticks just don’t work any more.
So the anger is about the systems that led us here, the 70 year of lies and propaganda and framing of issues. Like your example, explaining a right wing position - there ARE no right wing positions relevant in politics any more than CAN be discussed in good faith. Continuing to debate if people deserve basic human rights and dignity with people who constantly lie is worse than stupid. The masks are off now.
So well anyway, yeah you can’t invite someone from “The Economist” on the show and think you’re anything but enlightened centristic.
I agree with pretty much everything you’ve said.
I think where we deviate is on why we examine right wing talking points in good faith: not because they might secretly be right, but so we can genuinely understand what what people believe so that any counter-position that we form can be formed against the version of the argument that they believe.
There is no point in constructing a counter argument against our version of an understanding of a position if it isn’t what thiers is, from their perspective we’re skewing a strawman that doesn’t align with their perception anyways. It’s simply a masterbatory exercise at that point, with no persuasive value.
The responsibility, unfortunately, is on the informed to persuade the ignorant that there are systemic issues that have to be resolved to address the in-progress cataclysm. There, unfortunately, isn’t an alternative in which the world as we’ve come to understand it isn’t destroyed.
In short: we can’t afford to silo ourselves and dunk on the right for the purposes of getting mad props from the people who already know the score. It might be self gratifying, but it doesn’t do anything to resolve the societal issues that are allowing this train wreck to unfold.
His first guest upon his return was the editor of The Economist magazine who gushed about Reaganomics and Thatcherism. She framed the rise of right-wing politics in the West as first and foremost a threat to the neoliberal world order as Jon nodded along.
It skirted the line of praising the neoliberal days, to be sure. But it really seemed to me be not just them waxing nostalgic about the neoliberal golden years. I read it more as they were talking about how perspectives have changed and that that neoliberal approach is now out of touch with modern liberals and the public in general. They seem to realize that the time of the neoliberal isn’t coming back so we need our leaders to move on from it. I think the point in talking about it was that his perspectives have changed, or at least he sees that it is no longer the popular perspective it once was.
Also believe me, the writers at the Daily Show are well aware of modern progressive viewpoints and I’m sure they would be challenging Jon on that at every turn if that was the viewpoint he was coming to the table with. He’s also not fresh back to doing leftist political commentary on television. He will have had feedback from The Problem With Jon Stewart as well. I really doubt he’d trying to push an outdated neoliberal message, nor would the Daily Show producers be likely to support that.
He’s not a hard left, progressive, socialist messiah and he never was. He’s a sensible and honest voice of reason that calls out the hypocrisy and absurdity in our government and political media. I don’t need him to be a champion of modern progressivism to have a deep respect and admiration for him and what he does.
Is this cuz he talked about Biden being old?
Or is this really about Jon Stewart?
Be careful, I heard there is a new rule change in c/PoliticalMemes where questioning the establishment’s narrative about Biden abilities is encouraging people to not vote, and could be considered hate speech. source
Could it be more that you’ve changed over the years? And the more you get to know Stewart’s politics, the less you agree with them; because you are now in a different place politically?
So it’s not that Stewart is out of touch or a centrist, or whatever; it’s that you’ve grown up and learned new things that make you think differently than he does. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It’s life. People go in different directions all the time.
His first guest upon his return was the editor of The Economist magazine who gushed about Reaganomics and Thatcherism
This was my only problem with that episode.
Biden is old, and he is a shit candidate. He’s the less shit candidate of the two options, but he absolutely shows how cowardly and short sighted the DNC is. Still gonna vote for him of course - I’m not crazy.
But to then bring on someone who champions economic ‘theories’ that are objectively false and exist only to justify enriching the powerful and emiserating the poor is an insult.
Your long awaited return, millions excited to watch, and you’re boosting a right wing class warrior who already has an internationally circulating magazine to spew that rubbish? Come on.
