I don't see color
December 1, 2016 1:54 AM Subscribe
Watching Trevor Noah on The Daily Show cover the last month or so of the election, one could feel he was beginning to find his footing. But Trevor shows he has claws (and uses them playfully, like a cat batting around a mouse) during his interview with Tomi Lahren. (SLYT)
"I don't see color" should always be followed with "People tell me I'm white and I believe them, because...".
posted by pseudocode at 2:36 AM on December 1, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by pseudocode at 2:36 AM on December 1, 2016 [13 favorites]
Trevor Noah is actually extremely smart, I hope he gets less cautious about using that and just cutting people to shreds.
posted by jaduncan at 3:10 AM on December 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by jaduncan at 3:10 AM on December 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
So how big is the crossover audience between her show on The Blaze and that of The Daily Show? I'm guessing it's not huge, and even if it was bigger than I imagine, giving people like Lahren further attention seems counterproductive to anything other than maybe Noah's ego and for some lols for the right thinking liberals who watch the show.
I should stop there since my feelings on these comedy news shows clearly don't match those of many or maybe even most other people's here.
posted by gusottertrout at 3:13 AM on December 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
I should stop there since my feelings on these comedy news shows clearly don't match those of many or maybe even most other people's here.
posted by gusottertrout at 3:13 AM on December 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
So how big is the crossover audience between her show on The Blaze and that of The Daily Show?
Millennials are a large demographic. Really big. O'Reilly, I'm guessing, has five years remaining of obscene deals and information/news/comedy is a gargantuan market. How will its partisan language/conceits/references/dog whistles divide and divide again?
I didn't see a cat and mouse dynamic. I saw a shrewd, competent interplay and wager dollars to donuts "traffic lights" was scripted/negotiated: a staged cheap shot and disappointing.
And I love show business. Absolutely adore it.
posted by lazycomputerkids at 3:27 AM on December 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Millennials are a large demographic. Really big. O'Reilly, I'm guessing, has five years remaining of obscene deals and information/news/comedy is a gargantuan market. How will its partisan language/conceits/references/dog whistles divide and divide again?
I didn't see a cat and mouse dynamic. I saw a shrewd, competent interplay and wager dollars to donuts "traffic lights" was scripted/negotiated: a staged cheap shot and disappointing.
And I love show business. Absolutely adore it.
posted by lazycomputerkids at 3:27 AM on December 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
T No No (as Jessica Williams calls him) acquitted himself well there, but to be honest, never having seen her speak before, I came out of watching the full interview more impressed with Lahren. Her positions are deplorable bullshit of course, but she showed more command of and versatility with them in the back-and-forth; there were too many points where Noah demurred with "let's move on".
I wouldn't mind seeing a rematch—her responses, while artfully delivered, seemed quite predictable, and I think if Noah prepared better and had his ripostes planned out several steps further he could have put up a better fight. The "BLM is like the KKK" thing is in her Wikipedia entry, but it seemed to take him by surprise.
posted by XMLicious at 3:51 AM on December 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
I wouldn't mind seeing a rematch—her responses, while artfully delivered, seemed quite predictable, and I think if Noah prepared better and had his ripostes planned out several steps further he could have put up a better fight. The "BLM is like the KKK" thing is in her Wikipedia entry, but it seemed to take him by surprise.
posted by XMLicious at 3:51 AM on December 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
I wonder how many of these assholes understand that the US Flag is right on the arm, chest or badge of people who actually go out to harm them or their family and friends. It's not a symbol of freedom, it's a symbol of oppression. When some douche dressed in the flag goes all "go back to Africa/Iraq", or a cop with a flag on the shoulder beats the shit out of them, do they actually think the meaning of flag for those on the other side doesn't change?
Heck, I hate my national flag. For half the 20th century it was used to send people who thought like to a prison cell or roast under a tin roof in the colonies, and it should have been changed in 1974, eight years before I was born. The only reason I'm mostly alone in this is because the flag here is mostly just a piece of cloth. 95% of the time, someone dressed in red and green means there's a national team football game on.
giving people like Lahren further attention seems counterproductive to anything other than maybe Noah's ego and for some lols for the right thinking liberals who watch the show.
I don't think there's any point on having these sort of guests because in these settings they talk at people, not to them. Like lazycomputerkids, it feelt to me more of a well coordinated PR move for both sides. Comedy Central hopes that will go viral and become Noah's Crossfire moment, and for Lahren it's also a win because she "killed" at being crossexamined by "liberal media". Everyone gets a pat on the back, gets a lil' more famous and established.
posted by lmfsilva at 4:32 AM on December 1, 2016 [14 favorites]
Heck, I hate my national flag. For half the 20th century it was used to send people who thought like to a prison cell or roast under a tin roof in the colonies, and it should have been changed in 1974, eight years before I was born. The only reason I'm mostly alone in this is because the flag here is mostly just a piece of cloth. 95% of the time, someone dressed in red and green means there's a national team football game on.
giving people like Lahren further attention seems counterproductive to anything other than maybe Noah's ego and for some lols for the right thinking liberals who watch the show.
I don't think there's any point on having these sort of guests because in these settings they talk at people, not to them. Like lazycomputerkids, it feelt to me more of a well coordinated PR move for both sides. Comedy Central hopes that will go viral and become Noah's Crossfire moment, and for Lahren it's also a win because she "killed" at being crossexamined by "liberal media". Everyone gets a pat on the back, gets a lil' more famous and established.
posted by lmfsilva at 4:32 AM on December 1, 2016 [14 favorites]
Like GWB's disastrous reign inspired Stewart and Colbert to great heights, Trump is to Noah. There was a long opening segment on dealing with Trump is like dealing with a toddler that was great and really should be watched by those who wish to oppose Orange World Leader Pretend.
posted by Ber at 4:40 AM on December 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Ber at 4:40 AM on December 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
ok is this gonna be another furry thread
I don't see species.
posted by pracowity at 4:49 AM on December 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
I don't see species.
posted by pracowity at 4:49 AM on December 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
Millennials are a large demographic. Really big. O'Reilly, I'm guessing, has five years remaining of obscene deals and information/news/comedy is a gargantuan market. How will its partisan language/conceits/references/dog whistles divide and divide again?
I didn't see a cat and mouse dynamic. I saw a shrewd, competent interplay and wager dollars to donuts "traffic lights" was scripted/negotiated: a staged cheap shot and disappointing.
Yeah, it's exactly that dynamic that irks me about these things. During the run up to the election there were dozens and dozens of links out there to someone being absolutely destroyed or eviscerated by some clever comic type, yet amid all that destruction, the next president of the US, Donald Trump, was able to hold his poor battered feelings together along with those of his closest allies and continue the transition into the White House.
It's funny how, for all those claims of humiliation, right wing pundits still go on these kinds of shows, get noticed, and continue with their work even though they've "clearly" been bested. It's almost as if the attention itself is the whole point since they know it won't hurt their ratings or importance.
posted by gusottertrout at 5:21 AM on December 1, 2016 [25 favorites]
I didn't see a cat and mouse dynamic. I saw a shrewd, competent interplay and wager dollars to donuts "traffic lights" was scripted/negotiated: a staged cheap shot and disappointing.
Yeah, it's exactly that dynamic that irks me about these things. During the run up to the election there were dozens and dozens of links out there to someone being absolutely destroyed or eviscerated by some clever comic type, yet amid all that destruction, the next president of the US, Donald Trump, was able to hold his poor battered feelings together along with those of his closest allies and continue the transition into the White House.
It's funny how, for all those claims of humiliation, right wing pundits still go on these kinds of shows, get noticed, and continue with their work even though they've "clearly" been bested. It's almost as if the attention itself is the whole point since they know it won't hurt their ratings or importance.
posted by gusottertrout at 5:21 AM on December 1, 2016 [25 favorites]
I mean sure, O'reilly etc. and Noah etc are more or less preaching to the choir aren't thy?
So when Bill O'Reilly would go on the Daily Show he knows that his hardcore base are not going to see that. They won't even seek it out.
Equally, each is arguing differently to their audiences. The O'Reilly style arguments don't work on TDS audience and vice versa.
So there's no cost to them going on TDS. Their audience won't respect them less.
We need to learn to build a solid platform of coherent views and learn how to sell that to all sides.
Decrying the right as "racist" and calling them deplorable isn't going to have any impact.
Oh and we have to be very very careful to ensure that out views apply consistently, even to people we find deplorable.
The reason I keep using O'Reilly as shorthand for one group is because I saw him in TDS a few times.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 5:32 AM on December 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
So when Bill O'Reilly would go on the Daily Show he knows that his hardcore base are not going to see that. They won't even seek it out.
Equally, each is arguing differently to their audiences. The O'Reilly style arguments don't work on TDS audience and vice versa.
So there's no cost to them going on TDS. Their audience won't respect them less.
We need to learn to build a solid platform of coherent views and learn how to sell that to all sides.
Decrying the right as "racist" and calling them deplorable isn't going to have any impact.
Oh and we have to be very very careful to ensure that out views apply consistently, even to people we find deplorable.
The reason I keep using O'Reilly as shorthand for one group is because I saw him in TDS a few times.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 5:32 AM on December 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Noah speaks English, Afrikaans, Zulu, Xhosa, Tswana, Tsonga, and some German.
posted by pracowity at 5:35 AM on December 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by pracowity at 5:35 AM on December 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
If 2016 has taught us nothing else, it's that just giving a platform to these statements, regardless of whether they're refuted, regardless of whether they're obvious lies, amplifies them, gives power to the idea that they're valid, gives them weight and import, ensures that they'll be repeated as truth.
The racist, authoritarian vomit isn't aimed at the people in the studio audience, isn't aimed at the people watching at home. It's aimed at creating the eight-second clip the True Believers will see on Twitter, or as an animated GIF with captions, or shit, just as a single frame where the smirking white face looks poised and composed while Noah froths or pulls a mug at some egregious lie she's just told.
This sort of exchange is a net negative for truth and civility. I don't have an answer, I'm not that smart, but in a world where actual truth doesn't matter anymore, engaging these ideas as if they're well-formed, as if they're even possible to attack, is a losing proposition.
posted by uncleozzy at 5:42 AM on December 1, 2016 [38 favorites]
The racist, authoritarian vomit isn't aimed at the people in the studio audience, isn't aimed at the people watching at home. It's aimed at creating the eight-second clip the True Believers will see on Twitter, or as an animated GIF with captions, or shit, just as a single frame where the smirking white face looks poised and composed while Noah froths or pulls a mug at some egregious lie she's just told.
This sort of exchange is a net negative for truth and civility. I don't have an answer, I'm not that smart, but in a world where actual truth doesn't matter anymore, engaging these ideas as if they're well-formed, as if they're even possible to attack, is a losing proposition.
posted by uncleozzy at 5:42 AM on December 1, 2016 [38 favorites]
Listen to the longer version - different, more interesting conversation.
posted by From Bklyn at 5:45 AM on December 1, 2016
posted by From Bklyn at 5:45 AM on December 1, 2016
All publicity is good publicity, or pretty much. The right knows this, and has since Reagan.
The right isn't interested in reasoned argument. George Lakoff has made a career out of trying to get this through to the left, but there's a strong resistance to the idea that repeating slogans ad infinitum works, while presenting people with the truth demonstrably hasn't.
posted by pipeski at 5:45 AM on December 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
The right isn't interested in reasoned argument. George Lakoff has made a career out of trying to get this through to the left, but there's a strong resistance to the idea that repeating slogans ad infinitum works, while presenting people with the truth demonstrably hasn't.
posted by pipeski at 5:45 AM on December 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Ugh! Everything about Tomi said and did from the twisty bullshit about "black people are 18.5% more likely to kill cops", to completely not able to answer Trevor's simple question of how African Americans are supposed to protest, to the huge shit-eating grin that spread across her face as he told her "you won" the election - made me disgusted.
posted by P.o.B. at 5:48 AM on December 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by P.o.B. at 5:48 AM on December 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
We need to learn to build a solid platform of coherent views...
Who's we? In all sincerity...
If 2016 has taught us nothing else, it's that just giving a platform...
Who gave anyone a platform-- it's commerce.
...while presenting people with the truth demonstrably hasn't.
These absolutes are disturbing. Truth according to whom? What accounting of people? Not enough I guess?
Watching a collaborative enterprise and conjecturing about agenda, speculating about what these people ?really think?
And let me be clear: Nothing Noah's guest said makes a lick of sense other than it reflects perceptions of ignorance and fear...exploited for neither the first or last time.
An audience is marvelously diverse...that's what's so hard about it. And why agents, managers, writers, publicists, they all work within parameters and sweat ratings. It's an artifice and concealing it is the craft.
Ok.../rant
posted by lazycomputerkids at 6:03 AM on December 1, 2016
Who's we? In all sincerity...
If 2016 has taught us nothing else, it's that just giving a platform...
Who gave anyone a platform-- it's commerce.
...while presenting people with the truth demonstrably hasn't.
These absolutes are disturbing. Truth according to whom? What accounting of people? Not enough I guess?
Watching a collaborative enterprise and conjecturing about agenda, speculating about what these people ?really think?
And let me be clear: Nothing Noah's guest said makes a lick of sense other than it reflects perceptions of ignorance and fear...exploited for neither the first or last time.
An audience is marvelously diverse...that's what's so hard about it. And why agents, managers, writers, publicists, they all work within parameters and sweat ratings. It's an artifice and concealing it is the craft.
Ok.../rant
posted by lazycomputerkids at 6:03 AM on December 1, 2016
The aryan pinup won.
posted by mondo dentro at 6:04 AM on December 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by mondo dentro at 6:04 AM on December 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Trevor Noah is actually extremely smart, I hope he gets less cautious about using that and just cutting people to shreds.
If there's one thing the last election should show liberals, it's that preaching to the converted isn't sufficient. I think Noah was trying to have an actual discussion instead of cutting her down. By doing that, he showed Lahren (at least in the broadcast-length interview) to be another talking-point robot, unable to engage when the adversarial interview model wasn't followed.
It won't work on everyone (see Lahren's Twitter feed), but to me, it's a refreshing change in approach from the balanced but contentless bickering that you get on news programs these days.
posted by cardboard at 6:13 AM on December 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
If there's one thing the last election should show liberals, it's that preaching to the converted isn't sufficient. I think Noah was trying to have an actual discussion instead of cutting her down. By doing that, he showed Lahren (at least in the broadcast-length interview) to be another talking-point robot, unable to engage when the adversarial interview model wasn't followed.
It won't work on everyone (see Lahren's Twitter feed), but to me, it's a refreshing change in approach from the balanced but contentless bickering that you get on news programs these days.
posted by cardboard at 6:13 AM on December 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
Everyone knew Trump is a dope, but he was entertaining, so he captured the narrative, so here we are. Everyone knew Clinton was the actual competent one, but she wasn't entertaining, and there was a concerted effort to take her down as many pegs as possible...so here we are.
The truth is, you can't win based on competency alone. You have to have charisma. As, sadly enough, demonstrated on the Simpsons episode where Homer the entertaining doof won an election for running the city's trash management against a very competent but dull man.
It's wrong, it makes me despair for my species, but it's still the reality we have.
The reason the Republicans learned this before the Democrats is that they had to; because their policies are terrible. They can't win on their policies. But they have nearly perfected the art of winning on their ability to appeal to the id, or in Trump's case, to the "ooh shiny" part of the brain. The media, our supposed watchdogs, are largely as helpless against this as we are.
So yes, I oppose giving any hateful assbag any more airtime than necessary, because if they have any charisma, it's going to be a net win for them.
And our next presidential candidate has to be competent but also, charismatic; that is not an optional thing.
posted by emjaybee at 7:02 AM on December 1, 2016 [20 favorites]
The truth is, you can't win based on competency alone. You have to have charisma. As, sadly enough, demonstrated on the Simpsons episode where Homer the entertaining doof won an election for running the city's trash management against a very competent but dull man.
It's wrong, it makes me despair for my species, but it's still the reality we have.
The reason the Republicans learned this before the Democrats is that they had to; because their policies are terrible. They can't win on their policies. But they have nearly perfected the art of winning on their ability to appeal to the id, or in Trump's case, to the "ooh shiny" part of the brain. The media, our supposed watchdogs, are largely as helpless against this as we are.
So yes, I oppose giving any hateful assbag any more airtime than necessary, because if they have any charisma, it's going to be a net win for them.
And our next presidential candidate has to be competent but also, charismatic; that is not an optional thing.
posted by emjaybee at 7:02 AM on December 1, 2016 [20 favorites]
She had some snappy lines. Every time she got one off I worried that the audience would applaud.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 7:09 AM on December 1, 2016
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 7:09 AM on December 1, 2016
Apparently the new definition of "owns" or "tears x to shreds" is to have a reasonable debate. If this show had only quiet, but passionate debates such as this one, I feel like I'd actually want to watch it. So like, amazing work Mr. Noah. Please do more of this and fewer "jokes".
posted by sixohsix at 7:23 AM on December 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by sixohsix at 7:23 AM on December 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
I would love to have seen the Jon Stewart or Steven Colbert version of this interview.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 7:28 AM on December 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 7:28 AM on December 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
It was frustrating to watch because I think in the interest of time - and being an interview, and not a debate - Noah had to to "move on" from topics as she was broaching things that could take an hour+ to go back and forth on. For Trump fans, that gets framed as "CLIP: WATCH THIS 24 YEAR OLD OBLITERATE THE DAILY SHOW HOST ABOUT BLM". Full stop.
I mentioned this in another thread but who has time to give someone a straight up history lesson every. single. fucking. argument. I'd pay good money to see a legitimate, moderated Oxford-style debate between Lahren and Ta-Nehisi Coates, or John Oliver. Those things are kooky liberal academic exercises though, so what good are they.
Kudos to Noah though for taking on a truly difficult task.
posted by windbox at 7:30 AM on December 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
I mentioned this in another thread but who has time to give someone a straight up history lesson every. single. fucking. argument. I'd pay good money to see a legitimate, moderated Oxford-style debate between Lahren and Ta-Nehisi Coates, or John Oliver. Those things are kooky liberal academic exercises though, so what good are they.
Kudos to Noah though for taking on a truly difficult task.
posted by windbox at 7:30 AM on December 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
I'll say here the same thing I said in our last Tomi Lahren thread: Why are we adding to this woman's Q rating? She gets to crow about her media exposure, and any attempt to rationally critique what she says just makes her look like a charismatic renegade when she claims "Oh those liberals edited the footage".
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 7:55 AM on December 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 7:55 AM on December 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
Youtube vid is gone.
Full interview (for the US anyway) at http://www.cc.com/video-clips/m9ds7s/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-exclusive---tomi-lahren-extended-interview
posted by Frayed Knot at 8:04 AM on December 1, 2016
Full interview (for the US anyway) at http://www.cc.com/video-clips/m9ds7s/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-exclusive---tomi-lahren-extended-interview
posted by Frayed Knot at 8:04 AM on December 1, 2016
That's the Gish Gallup, walking.
posted by NiteMayr at 8:05 AM on December 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by NiteMayr at 8:05 AM on December 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I'll be honest, I don't think that mainstream media has anything to lose by refusing to play this stupid game anymore, by refusing to give a voice to the lies and deliberate obfuscations. My gut tells me that anybody who would be further radicalized by muting these voices -- and some people would, certainly, when their shitty ideas are suddenly less visible on the big stage -- are already lost to reason.
Of course, that's a long game to play, when ad revenue depends on eyeballs, depends on controversy. But it's pretty evident that engaging these ideas doesn't work, and that continuing to treat them as valid is ultimately a threat to a free press as authoritarian sentiment spreads.
posted by uncleozzy at 8:08 AM on December 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
Of course, that's a long game to play, when ad revenue depends on eyeballs, depends on controversy. But it's pretty evident that engaging these ideas doesn't work, and that continuing to treat them as valid is ultimately a threat to a free press as authoritarian sentiment spreads.
posted by uncleozzy at 8:08 AM on December 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
Yeah I just saw this on Twitter. I think I've reached my saturation point with these kind of TV Moments™.
For the reasons others have stated more eloquently above, I've just become exhausted by them. It's a few minutes of people talking at each other, nobody was "owned" or "torn to shreds." It's all over Twitter in short little snack bites and then someone says "racist" and someone says "libtard" and everyone goes away thinking exactly the same way.
posted by chococat at 8:09 AM on December 1, 2016 [14 favorites]
For the reasons others have stated more eloquently above, I've just become exhausted by them. It's a few minutes of people talking at each other, nobody was "owned" or "torn to shreds." It's all over Twitter in short little snack bites and then someone says "racist" and someone says "libtard" and everyone goes away thinking exactly the same way.
posted by chococat at 8:09 AM on December 1, 2016 [14 favorites]
3 times in a row he asked her a straight question "what is the appropriate way to protest" and three times she just said "there is no reason to protest"
Which is a roundabout way of saying "shut up, be happy"
posted by NiteMayr at 8:13 AM on December 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Which is a roundabout way of saying "shut up, be happy"
posted by NiteMayr at 8:13 AM on December 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
3 times in a row he asked her a straight question "what is the appropriate way to protest" and three times she just said "there is no reason to protest"
I think this is, really, the only answer to 'these kinds of statements.' Is examine them, closely, to the end. "There is no reason to protest" "But he is protesting." And then she falls back on emotionally stirring evocations of Flag and Anthem and other entirely abstract points. I think the only way out is in and through. I think I'm right, follow me and let's see if I am.
This split in the culture - basically people who seem to think whites only is preferable to all people - is worrying. With the way social media isolates/quarantines people to remain with like-minded people they never get the patient, sit down, let's work this out that is necessary. This is also, of course, what Jon Stewart was saying when he went on Crossfire that time. It's just arguing for the sake of advertising dollars, with neither side ever actually putting skin in the game.
Also what's with the fast talking? I've noticed that on a bunch of these opinion exchange shows - one side talks really fast, as though the weight of lots and lots of words will carry their argument where logic fails.
posted by From Bklyn at 8:31 AM on December 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think this is, really, the only answer to 'these kinds of statements.' Is examine them, closely, to the end. "There is no reason to protest" "But he is protesting." And then she falls back on emotionally stirring evocations of Flag and Anthem and other entirely abstract points. I think the only way out is in and through. I think I'm right, follow me and let's see if I am.
This split in the culture - basically people who seem to think whites only is preferable to all people - is worrying. With the way social media isolates/quarantines people to remain with like-minded people they never get the patient, sit down, let's work this out that is necessary. This is also, of course, what Jon Stewart was saying when he went on Crossfire that time. It's just arguing for the sake of advertising dollars, with neither side ever actually putting skin in the game.
Also what's with the fast talking? I've noticed that on a bunch of these opinion exchange shows - one side talks really fast, as though the weight of lots and lots of words will carry their argument where logic fails.
posted by From Bklyn at 8:31 AM on December 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
I wonder whether the fact that Noah comes from a culture that managed to at least try to address a vicious colonial past with Truth and Reconciliation (as opposed to confrontation and punishment) influences his approach to these issues. It's certainly worth a try, and resonates much more with Jon Stewart's approach than other late-night hosts. The alternative point-and-laugh approach is certainly cathartic, but to be honest is likely to have zero or negative impact on people who aren't already on board. Which is, y'know, fine, but it's good to have alternatives.
posted by Grangousier at 8:34 AM on December 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Grangousier at 8:34 AM on December 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
She's the face of casual racism. Welcome to the new America.
posted by Sphinx at 8:59 AM on December 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Sphinx at 8:59 AM on December 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
Perhaps I've just gotten more cynical as I've hit middle age, but I question if these types of segments serve any purpose other than partisan masturbation. I highly doubt anyone comes out of watching this type of interaction saying to themselves, "You know, I came into this segment thinking one way, but that person on the other side of the aisle from me really made some excellent points that made me rethink my views on this subject", or even, "I may not agree with that person, but I really feel like I understand their viewpoint and respect it more than I did before now that I've heard him/her articulate their view". Nope, based at least on the twitter reaction to this segment that I've seen, it's all pretty much split down the middle between, "Ooh, Trevor Noah totally owned her!" and "Tomi did great even though the host was rude and the audience was hostile!".
I always wonder with professional yellers like Lahren if there isn't some secret side to her that really wishes Clinton had won. I have to imagine it is better career-wise to be someone who rails against the establishment rather than someone who is a constant defender of it.
posted by The Gooch at 9:17 AM on December 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
I always wonder with professional yellers like Lahren if there isn't some secret side to her that really wishes Clinton had won. I have to imagine it is better career-wise to be someone who rails against the establishment rather than someone who is a constant defender of it.
posted by The Gooch at 9:17 AM on December 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
IMMORALITY ACT, 1927
To prohibit illicit carnal intercourse between Europeans and natives and other acts in relation thereto.
BE IT ENACTED by the King’s Most Excellent Majesty, the Senate and the House of Assembly of the Union of South Africa, as follows:—
1. Any European male who has illicit carnal intercourse with a native female, and any native male who has illicit carnal intercourse with a European female…shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years.
2. Any native female who permits any European male to have illicit carnal intercourse with her and any European female who permits any native male to have illicit carnal intercourse with her shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to imprisonment for a period not exceeding four years….
That's from the preface of Noah's autobiography, Born a Crime. He has an interesting story of growing up in apartheid South Africa and how messed up that was being half Swiss and half Tsonga. Very enlightening, I recommend it.
Go read his back story, he's really come a long way.
posted by adept256 at 9:39 AM on December 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
To prohibit illicit carnal intercourse between Europeans and natives and other acts in relation thereto.
BE IT ENACTED by the King’s Most Excellent Majesty, the Senate and the House of Assembly of the Union of South Africa, as follows:—
1. Any European male who has illicit carnal intercourse with a native female, and any native male who has illicit carnal intercourse with a European female…shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years.
2. Any native female who permits any European male to have illicit carnal intercourse with her and any European female who permits any native male to have illicit carnal intercourse with her shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to imprisonment for a period not exceeding four years….
That's from the preface of Noah's autobiography, Born a Crime. He has an interesting story of growing up in apartheid South Africa and how messed up that was being half Swiss and half Tsonga. Very enlightening, I recommend it.
Go read his back story, he's really come a long way.
posted by adept256 at 9:39 AM on December 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Extended interview (for Canadians)
posted by howling fantods at 9:45 AM on December 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by howling fantods at 9:45 AM on December 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
NiteMayr: "3 times in a row he asked her a straight question "what is the appropriate way to protest" and three times she just said "there is no reason to protest"
Which is a roundabout way of saying "shut up, be happy""
I think it's a way of saying, "Look, if you have an objection, you should just get yourself a show on cable TV."
posted by RobotHero at 9:53 AM on December 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Which is a roundabout way of saying "shut up, be happy""
I think it's a way of saying, "Look, if you have an objection, you should just get yourself a show on cable TV."
posted by RobotHero at 9:53 AM on December 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
"I don't see color..."
"I'm not angry, I have a voice and it needs to be heard..."
"What I want to see is no more hatred between people with differing opinions" as she slagged all demonstraters for being pointless...
"Black Lives Matter is a false narrative and they're turning it into a Trump protest..."
I mean, come on, really? I agree with everyone up thread who posted that this was a jack-up-the-ratings maneuver, rather than an enlightening discourse between opposing viewpoints. To give that woman any legit air time seems to inject even more poison into the current political atmosphere and I wish they hadn't booked her onto the Daily Show, or any other mainstream t.v. show for that matter. Let her fester on twitter with all the other trolls....
posted by Lynsey at 10:49 AM on December 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
"I'm not angry, I have a voice and it needs to be heard..."
"What I want to see is no more hatred between people with differing opinions" as she slagged all demonstraters for being pointless...
"Black Lives Matter is a false narrative and they're turning it into a Trump protest..."
I mean, come on, really? I agree with everyone up thread who posted that this was a jack-up-the-ratings maneuver, rather than an enlightening discourse between opposing viewpoints. To give that woman any legit air time seems to inject even more poison into the current political atmosphere and I wish they hadn't booked her onto the Daily Show, or any other mainstream t.v. show for that matter. Let her fester on twitter with all the other trolls....
posted by Lynsey at 10:49 AM on December 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
I had never heard of this woman before today when by chance I clicked a BBC News article about how she's all the rage or something. They had a couple of her clips, or rants, and it was like watching the terrible angry damaged comic who's the warmup for the warmup in a failing club. I just can't ... it's like a snideness celebration. Terrible. Like Bill Maher went through a transporter but a Barbie doll, some peach Schnapps, and a copy of Atlas Shrugged were in there and there was a terrible accident and now I'm watching it talk.
posted by freecellwizard at 11:33 AM on December 1, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by freecellwizard at 11:33 AM on December 1, 2016 [14 favorites]
Watching that Noah clip--he uses the same talking points, Tomi Lahren uses the same talking points. The clip will be passed around by Noah's people; Lahren will pass around. Both will tweet and both will use their edit to gain followers...Here is what fascinates me, the grammar of the web, in the ability to cut and edit digitally, in Lahren's career without the need for main stream media, but also in the distribution of forms is new. The bubble's aren't new, but the ability to control the means and distribution of information is new. By linking to Lahren talking to Noah, without context is really fascinating--because Lahren and Noah need each other, the game is in order to perserve this cycle of content creation. The rhetoric is real--it's why we have Trump as president--but I am not sure that there is no reason that Lahren or Noah's construction of their informational self needs to be real...this might esp. be true of Lahren, who tells stories of being taught by her father to read visual media, they would sit together, and he would give her a line by line refutation of argument. There is no discourse there, no argument, it's a trading of forms, in video or through visuals afterwards, in order to reify the base...i have obviously worked thru discourse on social media, but it's work, i don't know how to process this, because 4 or 500 years of how to discuss to reach a middle has kind of been moved away into this mess of what looks good...re-reading Occam or Botheius, and knowing their is a system, and having that system perptuate itself towards a mutually agreeable solution, seems to be less and less of a thing that can be done in the world...No one will sit down with Lahren and connect the dots to her use of american tropes as explicitly fascist, and that's the question that Noah didn't ask--that becomes a kind of third rail. (The question he keeps asking is interesting--how do we protest, but the follow up questions--what does it mean to protest when you think nothing should be protested, or what are the implications of universal sufferage in an american context, when america is viewed as a gift and not a kind of project of mutability) , a point that Lahren brings up, but Noah does not attack with any vigour. I don't think we need to argue like Occam, I think that there are lots of ways of getting information out, and oral discourses as returned to us by video are fascinating, i think thus accessibility is impt, and i think that satire, or personal narratives, or identity or the visual or new net are all how we go about the world, but this way, it makes me feel uncomfortable.
posted by PinkMoose at 12:10 PM on December 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by PinkMoose at 12:10 PM on December 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is depressing as fuck.
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 1:15 PM on December 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 1:15 PM on December 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
If there's one thing the last election should show liberals, it's that preaching to the converted isn't sufficient.
Yes. We also have to dismantle an antiquated system designed to protect the interests of slave holders that dovetailed perfectly with the unconscious white nationalism of the 20 percent of this country that voted for Trump, because without that the candidate who won all three debates, was endorsed by every major publication, and won the popular vote by the population of the states of Wyoming, Vermont, DC, and Alaska combines would now be president elect.
We also have to look at voter suppression, and not in the blatant, striking-from-voter-roles way, but in the subtle ways in which forcing people to wait in line during a work day is going to guarantee excluding a huge percent of our working poor, who are more likely to vote Democrat.
posted by maxsparber at 1:53 PM on December 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
Yes. We also have to dismantle an antiquated system designed to protect the interests of slave holders that dovetailed perfectly with the unconscious white nationalism of the 20 percent of this country that voted for Trump, because without that the candidate who won all three debates, was endorsed by every major publication, and won the popular vote by the population of the states of Wyoming, Vermont, DC, and Alaska combines would now be president elect.
We also have to look at voter suppression, and not in the blatant, striking-from-voter-roles way, but in the subtle ways in which forcing people to wait in line during a work day is going to guarantee excluding a huge percent of our working poor, who are more likely to vote Democrat.
posted by maxsparber at 1:53 PM on December 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
Just because we're in a bubble doesn't mean everyone is ... there are teenagers watching Trevor Noah. There are people who don't hold a strong set of political beliefs, but just like to laugh. These people are eminently persuadable. There are people (like most of John Oliver's audience) who like the backbiting snark on one level but also respond to thoughtful discussion.
Tomi Lahren was, before this, limited to the conservative bubble. But the Daily Show is national news. I mean, it gets talked about in national news. I think this raises her profile in a dangerous and irresponsible way. I don't know if there was anything for Trevor to gain, from this, and quite a lot for Tomi to gain.
There is a very good point to be made about informational bubbles - which Trevor already made, a couple months ago. (I'll find a link when I'm not on mobile. Takeaway: Lahren is like a famous movie star from a foreign country, but the foreign country in this case is Texas, and that's a big fucking problem.) Actually having her on his show gives a whole different set of takeaways.
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 1:57 PM on December 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Tomi Lahren was, before this, limited to the conservative bubble. But the Daily Show is national news. I mean, it gets talked about in national news. I think this raises her profile in a dangerous and irresponsible way. I don't know if there was anything for Trevor to gain, from this, and quite a lot for Tomi to gain.
There is a very good point to be made about informational bubbles - which Trevor already made, a couple months ago. (I'll find a link when I'm not on mobile. Takeaway: Lahren is like a famous movie star from a foreign country, but the foreign country in this case is Texas, and that's a big fucking problem.) Actually having her on his show gives a whole different set of takeaways.
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 1:57 PM on December 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's more of a reaction than a response, wouldn't you say?
posted by Grangousier at 4:19 PM on December 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Grangousier at 4:19 PM on December 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
She has more thoughts in the thread
Ijeoma Oluo Y'all. Yes. I saw the interview and he asked some ok questions. But what he did with the interview & with his horrific tweet today was legitimize hate as a "differing opinion" and offered a platform "any time" to a woman who is literally fueling oppression and bigotry. Every moment of airtime she gets helps her, especially when you try to legitimize it by framing it as "destroying bubbles not each other" while her hate is actually destroying people.
Like · Reply · 133 · 1 hr · Edited
Danielle Radford She came across confident and he didn't press as hard as he should have for people to say he "destroyed her", honestly.
I think a lot of us want a win right now so we're pretending this was it. This was not it.
Like · Reply · 6 · 17 mins · Edited
Ijeoma Oluo We can challenge people without giving them a platform. He'd actually done that before. But putting a friendly bow of "differing opinions" on it negates all that. "Differing opinions" elected Trump. "Differing opinions" are taking away my abortion rights. "Differing opinions" are trying to bring back stop and frisk and are arguing that black men deserve to die in the street
Anthony Robinson The only problem I'm having now is that these people still have platforms. Sure, maybe WE don't have to empower their arguments on our platforms (I don't), but this mayo saxon Tomi for instance has a big platform for her ideas already. I mean shit, these people have the WHITE HOUSE now as a platform. We're not gonna be able to just limit their hate speech. :(
Like · Reply · 4 mins · Edited
Ijeoma Oluo And we can't add to it. We can't. That margin - where people who kinda give a fuck about hurting people but not enough to deny their self-interests in the name of equality can slide thru under the guise of a differing opinion - is wide enough to endanger a lot of people
Like · Reply · 2 · 6 mins
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 4:54 PM on December 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
Ijeoma Oluo Y'all. Yes. I saw the interview and he asked some ok questions. But what he did with the interview & with his horrific tweet today was legitimize hate as a "differing opinion" and offered a platform "any time" to a woman who is literally fueling oppression and bigotry. Every moment of airtime she gets helps her, especially when you try to legitimize it by framing it as "destroying bubbles not each other" while her hate is actually destroying people.
Like · Reply · 133 · 1 hr · Edited
Danielle Radford She came across confident and he didn't press as hard as he should have for people to say he "destroyed her", honestly.
I think a lot of us want a win right now so we're pretending this was it. This was not it.
Like · Reply · 6 · 17 mins · Edited
Ijeoma Oluo We can challenge people without giving them a platform. He'd actually done that before. But putting a friendly bow of "differing opinions" on it negates all that. "Differing opinions" elected Trump. "Differing opinions" are taking away my abortion rights. "Differing opinions" are trying to bring back stop and frisk and are arguing that black men deserve to die in the street
Anthony Robinson The only problem I'm having now is that these people still have platforms. Sure, maybe WE don't have to empower their arguments on our platforms (I don't), but this mayo saxon Tomi for instance has a big platform for her ideas already. I mean shit, these people have the WHITE HOUSE now as a platform. We're not gonna be able to just limit their hate speech. :(
Like · Reply · 4 mins · Edited
Ijeoma Oluo And we can't add to it. We can't. That margin - where people who kinda give a fuck about hurting people but not enough to deny their self-interests in the name of equality can slide thru under the guise of a differing opinion - is wide enough to endanger a lot of people
Like · Reply · 2 · 6 mins
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 4:54 PM on December 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
I was thinking—what Lahren is showing skill with here is wielding a sort of Swiss Army knife of facile statements and responses. One that she didn't even put together herself for the most part, but has been developed and honed in right-wing media and political messaging operations, funded by the wealthiest echelons of society, over decades.
Beyond the misinformation and cultivation of racism, xenophobia, and other deplorable stuff, there's also this interconnected meme-complex (in the original viral-thought-structure meaning of "meme") that the right-wing machine has honed, one that's probably all the sharper, more polished, and more versatile because of the superficiality of the underlying dogma and philosophy. That's one of the few areas in which Trump is genuinely a clever innovator: in welding some populist and more centrist ideas in and systematizing it into the call-and-response act at his rallies.
So maybe one thing the left needs is a similar standardization and polishing of the more front-end superficial part of its message. During the interview, Noah was clearly spending much more effort concentrating on and thinking through his initial statements and responses, whereas Lahren was only needing to pull things ready-made out of a bag of tricks and minimally tailor them to the conversation.
posted by XMLicious at 5:30 PM on December 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Beyond the misinformation and cultivation of racism, xenophobia, and other deplorable stuff, there's also this interconnected meme-complex (in the original viral-thought-structure meaning of "meme") that the right-wing machine has honed, one that's probably all the sharper, more polished, and more versatile because of the superficiality of the underlying dogma and philosophy. That's one of the few areas in which Trump is genuinely a clever innovator: in welding some populist and more centrist ideas in and systematizing it into the call-and-response act at his rallies.
So maybe one thing the left needs is a similar standardization and polishing of the more front-end superficial part of its message. During the interview, Noah was clearly spending much more effort concentrating on and thinking through his initial statements and responses, whereas Lahren was only needing to pull things ready-made out of a bag of tricks and minimally tailor them to the conversation.
posted by XMLicious at 5:30 PM on December 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
You're .... hurting ... America.
posted by benzenedream at 6:24 PM on December 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by benzenedream at 6:24 PM on December 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
I guess I can just echo Noah's question in this context: how should he have handled this?
If he doesn't invite her on the show, he's perpetuating the liberal bubble.
If he invites her on and then yells at her, he fuels the rage behind her media machine.
If he invites her on and tries to converse reasonably with her, he's strengthening her popularity while also preaching to his choir.
So what the hell should he do? With the tools available to him, in these trying and terrifying times, what counts as the appropriate way to fight ignorance and racism and hate?
posted by meese at 9:12 PM on December 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
If he doesn't invite her on the show, he's perpetuating the liberal bubble.
If he invites her on and then yells at her, he fuels the rage behind her media machine.
If he invites her on and tries to converse reasonably with her, he's strengthening her popularity while also preaching to his choir.
So what the hell should he do? With the tools available to him, in these trying and terrifying times, what counts as the appropriate way to fight ignorance and racism and hate?
posted by meese at 9:12 PM on December 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
I think what the left suffers from is the delusion that if we simply explain enough, if we simply show the truth, if we build a reasonable enough case, if we cite Snopes, etc., that surely the other side is reasonable people and will come around once the evidence is against them. But I think what the election shows, and what the last 20 some year of conservative politics has shown, is that they do. not. care.
It's been 12 years since "the reality-based community" became an idiom. But just today, we heard the same thing. There's no such thing as facts.
Where the right excels, and where the left trips over its own feet, is creating its own reality and then, through sheer force of will, imposing it on the rest of us. Which is to say, by simply acknowledging the viewpoint and granting it existence, it forces its way into the door and, suddenly, we're debating if Jews are people like that's a real debate.
But the facts don't matter. What matters is the reality, that if you just believe hard enough, you can make something true. It's an emotional argument, an argument from the gut, and not from the head, and a million Snopes links aren't going to change that. In fact, they are going to reinforce it, because now "those liberals" we can't trust anyway are arguing against it, which just PROVES that it's real.
It's like if arguing and showing proof that ghosts don't exist caused your house to be haunted.
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 9:47 PM on December 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
It's been 12 years since "the reality-based community" became an idiom. But just today, we heard the same thing. There's no such thing as facts.
Where the right excels, and where the left trips over its own feet, is creating its own reality and then, through sheer force of will, imposing it on the rest of us. Which is to say, by simply acknowledging the viewpoint and granting it existence, it forces its way into the door and, suddenly, we're debating if Jews are people like that's a real debate.
But the facts don't matter. What matters is the reality, that if you just believe hard enough, you can make something true. It's an emotional argument, an argument from the gut, and not from the head, and a million Snopes links aren't going to change that. In fact, they are going to reinforce it, because now "those liberals" we can't trust anyway are arguing against it, which just PROVES that it's real.
It's like if arguing and showing proof that ghosts don't exist caused your house to be haunted.
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 9:47 PM on December 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
Everything about Tomi said and did from the twisty bullshit about "black people are 18.5% more likely to kill cops"
She actually said a black man is 18.5 times more likely to shoot a police officer than the reverse. So Charles Kinsey and Terence Crutcher are counterbalanced by thirty-seven instances of police officers shot by black men.
Doubtless these occasions are all covered up by the liberal lamestream media.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 10:24 PM on December 1, 2016
She actually said a black man is 18.5 times more likely to shoot a police officer than the reverse. So Charles Kinsey and Terence Crutcher are counterbalanced by thirty-seven instances of police officers shot by black men.
Doubtless these occasions are all covered up by the liberal lamestream media.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 10:24 PM on December 1, 2016
Times... percent... I don't remember, I just moved it into "lies" part of my brain. I watched all 26 minutes of her spinning that bullshit that ended with her grinning so hard in Trevor's face. Because she knew it was going to play just fine with her peoples and it didn't matter to any of them what she said as long as it sounded like she was saying the right things.
Before the recent past, the oppressed had to get loud to be seen and heard above the easily maintained status quo. That kind of sometimes worked. Now, that is extremely hard because of the easy access to preferred outlets that have user generated output and it makes it very easy to have a "crowd" of like minded individuals agree that they are "right" and that the status quo is a-okay AND easier to maintain because they have their own volume knob.
So, here's Trump! Fear and Hate! Which is = Power and control! And that's why you have asshole Lewandoski getting frothy shouting "We win!", and not in a happy way, but angrily yelling it in Van Jones face.
As was said above, I'm conflicted about this also. Engage or don't engage? I think at this point the left needs to understand the form in which their serving up their rhetoric before deciding that what they're doing is correct. Lahren gets massive amounts of views on her videos, that is why Noah was saying she is mainstream. Like McDonald's, it doesn't matter what you think about the menu if lots of people are eating up what she's serving.
posted by P.o.B. at 11:17 PM on December 1, 2016
Before the recent past, the oppressed had to get loud to be seen and heard above the easily maintained status quo. That kind of sometimes worked. Now, that is extremely hard because of the easy access to preferred outlets that have user generated output and it makes it very easy to have a "crowd" of like minded individuals agree that they are "right" and that the status quo is a-okay AND easier to maintain because they have their own volume knob.
So, here's Trump! Fear and Hate! Which is = Power and control! And that's why you have asshole Lewandoski getting frothy shouting "We win!", and not in a happy way, but angrily yelling it in Van Jones face.
As was said above, I'm conflicted about this also. Engage or don't engage? I think at this point the left needs to understand the form in which their serving up their rhetoric before deciding that what they're doing is correct. Lahren gets massive amounts of views on her videos, that is why Noah was saying she is mainstream. Like McDonald's, it doesn't matter what you think about the menu if lots of people are eating up what she's serving.
posted by P.o.B. at 11:17 PM on December 1, 2016
There's also a difference between saying a black man is more likely to shoot a cop and saying a cop is more likely to be shot by a black man, considering there are a lot more black men than cops.
But I guess that's me being all liberal and trying to say things that are accurate, rather than shotgunning a bunch of things out of my mouth.
posted by RobotHero at 11:26 PM on December 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
But I guess that's me being all liberal and trying to say things that are accurate, rather than shotgunning a bunch of things out of my mouth.
posted by RobotHero at 11:26 PM on December 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
If he doesn't invite her on the show, he's perpetuating the liberal bubble.
You can't make me believe that there aren't right-of-US-center pundits who would be perfectly capable of making a point without making a mockery out of truth. The problem might be TDS is no longer/not a space where more serious pundits or politicians not on the trail for the demographic are interested, and the ones willing to go are the ones in the clown car. So Noah and TDS production team went out to get someone from the deep end. Someone both could talk at and claim a win. Someone who could be a "villain" to the audience in the studio and at home. It's like a big old cold war dick-waving of soviet and US fighters over Norway. Neither side was going to engage, but postured enough to get a commendation back home.
This shit is exactly what normalizing is. And it's not defensible.
posted by lmfsilva at 2:54 AM on December 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
You can't make me believe that there aren't right-of-US-center pundits who would be perfectly capable of making a point without making a mockery out of truth. The problem might be TDS is no longer/not a space where more serious pundits or politicians not on the trail for the demographic are interested, and the ones willing to go are the ones in the clown car. So Noah and TDS production team went out to get someone from the deep end. Someone both could talk at and claim a win. Someone who could be a "villain" to the audience in the studio and at home. It's like a big old cold war dick-waving of soviet and US fighters over Norway. Neither side was going to engage, but postured enough to get a commendation back home.
This shit is exactly what normalizing is. And it's not defensible.
posted by lmfsilva at 2:54 AM on December 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
If he doesn't invite her on the show, he's perpetuating the liberal bubble.
I really wish people would drop the bubble analogy. It isn't a good one. Liberals, in general, are well aware of the racism and sexism on the right. People may not know every individual member of the right's media contingent or every one of their constantly shifting talking points, but the basic agenda is pretty well known and visible to all. If anyone feels like they aren't aware enough, they can go to The Blaze, FOX, Breitbart, or any of hundreds of other sites or networks to get caught up. All those sources are easily accessible and, to varying extents, well known.
The same would be roughly true of the right, with plenty of sources available for them to check if they wanted and the basics of what is supported fairly well known. They purposefully distort the reasoning behind the values in many cases and choose to ignore arguments and view points contrary to their own interests, but that isn't because they can't see them as if in a bubble, it's because they choose not to engage with them or trust them. That's a different thing than a bubble where the analogy is suggesting both sides are blind to what the other side is saying and hearing and can't get that information.
I choose not to watch FOX because I know what they are, not because I'm blind or deaf to them. I'm sure there are plenty of specific celebrities or talking points I'm not up on, but those things aren't important. They are a distraction from the more important larger concerns. Trump's tweets and rallies are likewise intended to distract, what he says as president is important simply due to the office he will hold, but the specific things he says are as much noise as policy and like many of the pundits, are meant to obfuscate and misdirect attention rather than engage with larger values or policies.
The problem isn't a bubble but the devaluation of words and meaning. That isn't due to a bubble, but works because there isn't one. Trump and his cadets rely on their messages being heard, but their words being interpreted differently depending on who hears them. They twist language and truth to get the words of the Democrats to be heard in the same manner.
As a nation and a world, we are better connected now than we have ever been. The problem isn't bubbles keeping us from hearing each other, it's that some purposefully choose not to listen, to think critically or carefully, and will not empathize with those not like them. There is simply no possible way one can make a case that anybody is more cut off from others now than they were or would have been 20 years ago or more. It's far more likely that it is the sheer volume of information that is the problem, where the lack of common values is coming from too much noise, not too little discussion.
posted by gusottertrout at 6:16 AM on December 2, 2016 [14 favorites]
I really wish people would drop the bubble analogy. It isn't a good one. Liberals, in general, are well aware of the racism and sexism on the right. People may not know every individual member of the right's media contingent or every one of their constantly shifting talking points, but the basic agenda is pretty well known and visible to all. If anyone feels like they aren't aware enough, they can go to The Blaze, FOX, Breitbart, or any of hundreds of other sites or networks to get caught up. All those sources are easily accessible and, to varying extents, well known.
The same would be roughly true of the right, with plenty of sources available for them to check if they wanted and the basics of what is supported fairly well known. They purposefully distort the reasoning behind the values in many cases and choose to ignore arguments and view points contrary to their own interests, but that isn't because they can't see them as if in a bubble, it's because they choose not to engage with them or trust them. That's a different thing than a bubble where the analogy is suggesting both sides are blind to what the other side is saying and hearing and can't get that information.
I choose not to watch FOX because I know what they are, not because I'm blind or deaf to them. I'm sure there are plenty of specific celebrities or talking points I'm not up on, but those things aren't important. They are a distraction from the more important larger concerns. Trump's tweets and rallies are likewise intended to distract, what he says as president is important simply due to the office he will hold, but the specific things he says are as much noise as policy and like many of the pundits, are meant to obfuscate and misdirect attention rather than engage with larger values or policies.
The problem isn't a bubble but the devaluation of words and meaning. That isn't due to a bubble, but works because there isn't one. Trump and his cadets rely on their messages being heard, but their words being interpreted differently depending on who hears them. They twist language and truth to get the words of the Democrats to be heard in the same manner.
As a nation and a world, we are better connected now than we have ever been. The problem isn't bubbles keeping us from hearing each other, it's that some purposefully choose not to listen, to think critically or carefully, and will not empathize with those not like them. There is simply no possible way one can make a case that anybody is more cut off from others now than they were or would have been 20 years ago or more. It's far more likely that it is the sheer volume of information that is the problem, where the lack of common values is coming from too much noise, not too little discussion.
posted by gusottertrout at 6:16 AM on December 2, 2016 [14 favorites]
The problem isn't a bubble but the devaluation of words and meaning.
This is why I haven't left my bubble. Mutually agreed upon things, like the literal definitions of words, matters to me. My ability to discuss things with those people is gone.
posted by DigDoug at 7:25 AM on December 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
This is why I haven't left my bubble. Mutually agreed upon things, like the literal definitions of words, matters to me. My ability to discuss things with those people is gone.
posted by DigDoug at 7:25 AM on December 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
There's also a difference between saying a black man is more likely to shoot a cop and saying a cop is more likely to be shot by a black man, considering there are a lot more black men than cops.
According to the WaPo the real difference is between armed and unarmed. It's the spin that counts for her.
posted by P.o.B. at 7:59 AM on December 2, 2016
According to the WaPo the real difference is between armed and unarmed. It's the spin that counts for her.
posted by P.o.B. at 7:59 AM on December 2, 2016
Well that's not really a fair comparison then. What are the odds of an unarmed police officer getting killed?
Regarding bubble vs. noise: If this is the case, then the Daily Show doesn't need to bring on right wing pundits, it needs to bring on right wing pundit translators.
posted by RobotHero at 8:16 AM on December 2, 2016
Regarding bubble vs. noise: If this is the case, then the Daily Show doesn't need to bring on right wing pundits, it needs to bring on right wing pundit translators.
posted by RobotHero at 8:16 AM on December 2, 2016
Regarding bubble vs. noise: If this is the case, then the Daily Show doesn't need to bring on right wing pundits, it needs to bring on right wing pundit translators.
Yes, there is no need to further the agendas of any right wing media types. The same issues can be talked about without having to deal with a barrage of lies, bad analogies, and other misinformation out of some perverse belief that provides balance to an argument. Even the framing these exchanges as arguments is misguided and that too goes for the way elections are run. People need in depth, considered information and nuanced discussion over possibilities, good and bad, not battles over talking points with the intent to win rather than inform. How information is distributed should have almost nothing to do with who is delivering the info, how famous they are or how "talked about" some point might be, but whether a idea is based in fact, what values it promotes, and/or what possibilities it may point to.
posted by gusottertrout at 8:32 AM on December 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yes, there is no need to further the agendas of any right wing media types. The same issues can be talked about without having to deal with a barrage of lies, bad analogies, and other misinformation out of some perverse belief that provides balance to an argument. Even the framing these exchanges as arguments is misguided and that too goes for the way elections are run. People need in depth, considered information and nuanced discussion over possibilities, good and bad, not battles over talking points with the intent to win rather than inform. How information is distributed should have almost nothing to do with who is delivering the info, how famous they are or how "talked about" some point might be, but whether a idea is based in fact, what values it promotes, and/or what possibilities it may point to.
posted by gusottertrout at 8:32 AM on December 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
What are the odds of an unarmed police officer getting killed?
Are we including K9s?
posted by P.o.B. at 8:34 AM on December 2, 2016
Are we including K9s?
posted by P.o.B. at 8:34 AM on December 2, 2016
Trevor Noah on Tomi Lahren, previously
also the body language in Trevor's interview with Bill Clinton is super weird and entertaining tbh
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 9:07 AM on December 2, 2016
also the body language in Trevor's interview with Bill Clinton is super weird and entertaining tbh
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 9:07 AM on December 2, 2016
One thing I've started to think is liberals are more concerned about rules, while conservatives are more concerned with allegiances.
I know It's Okay If You're A Republican is a running gag here, but that's basically what it is, they'll criticize a democrat for violating a rule, and ignore it when a republican violates the same rule, because they don't really care about the rule, they were only using the rule to reinforce their allegiance.
If you criticize the police, they'll be all, "Oh, but if you get robbed, I bet you call them, then." That's what they think of as real hypocrisy, that you're not being consistent with your allegiances.
I mention all this as a preface to an interesting bit, where Noah was asking her about a tweet she wrote saying "I'm with Pence" when Pence had voiced objection to the "grabbed her by the pussy" stuff. Note that it is literally a statement of allegiance. Even Pence's criticism he framed in terms of "as a husband and father" so that it can be a matter of allegiance to his wife and daughter. Noah tries to go for the question of whether Lahren has any actual principle against non-consensually grabbing someone by the genitals, but she never addresses that. Because addressing that would be talking about rules, which is politically incorrect to her conservative audience. She goes on about whether she's comparing Trump to Clinton or the pope or God, because then it's not about the action, it's about the person.
posted by RobotHero at 2:11 PM on December 2, 2016 [9 favorites]
I know It's Okay If You're A Republican is a running gag here, but that's basically what it is, they'll criticize a democrat for violating a rule, and ignore it when a republican violates the same rule, because they don't really care about the rule, they were only using the rule to reinforce their allegiance.
If you criticize the police, they'll be all, "Oh, but if you get robbed, I bet you call them, then." That's what they think of as real hypocrisy, that you're not being consistent with your allegiances.
I mention all this as a preface to an interesting bit, where Noah was asking her about a tweet she wrote saying "I'm with Pence" when Pence had voiced objection to the "grabbed her by the pussy" stuff. Note that it is literally a statement of allegiance. Even Pence's criticism he framed in terms of "as a husband and father" so that it can be a matter of allegiance to his wife and daughter. Noah tries to go for the question of whether Lahren has any actual principle against non-consensually grabbing someone by the genitals, but she never addresses that. Because addressing that would be talking about rules, which is politically incorrect to her conservative audience. She goes on about whether she's comparing Trump to Clinton or the pope or God, because then it's not about the action, it's about the person.
posted by RobotHero at 2:11 PM on December 2, 2016 [9 favorites]
Do you mean a line between what is permitted and forbidden, or a line between conservative and liberal?
posted by RobotHero at 5:33 AM on December 3, 2016
posted by RobotHero at 5:33 AM on December 3, 2016
"What should Trevor have done?" - don't have her on the damn show. "Perpetuating the liberal bubble" is not a person-tied-to-the-train-tracks scenario. Inaction, here, is just inaction.
Alternately, he could have been better prepared for the discussion. I thought he was fumbling more than playful.
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 11:16 AM on December 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Alternately, he could have been better prepared for the discussion. I thought he was fumbling more than playful.
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 11:16 AM on December 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trevor Noah has a new op-ed in the NYT today: "Let’s Not Be Divided. Divided People Are Easier to Rule."
posted by koeselitz at 1:23 PM on December 5, 2016
posted by koeselitz at 1:23 PM on December 5, 2016
America, I’ve found, doesn’t like nuance. Either black people are criminals, or cops are racist — pick one. It’s us versus them. You’re with us, or you’re against us.
...
the vast majority of Americans, both Republican and Democrat, wanted many of the same things: good jobs, decent homes, access to opportunity and, above all, respect.
"So, I went out to find someone who unrepentantly holds values opposite to those, because... ratings?"
I'm done with TDS. While I mostly agree with what he wrote, inviting Lahren was the equivalent of going back in time and wipe his ass on the op-ed. She is not one of those people "in the middle" that you can reach, she's one of those on the edge trying to push the fabric of society until it rips.
posted by lmfsilva at 2:41 PM on December 5, 2016
...
the vast majority of Americans, both Republican and Democrat, wanted many of the same things: good jobs, decent homes, access to opportunity and, above all, respect.
"So, I went out to find someone who unrepentantly holds values opposite to those, because... ratings?"
I'm done with TDS. While I mostly agree with what he wrote, inviting Lahren was the equivalent of going back in time and wipe his ass on the op-ed. She is not one of those people "in the middle" that you can reach, she's one of those on the edge trying to push the fabric of society until it rips.
posted by lmfsilva at 2:41 PM on December 5, 2016
Trevor Noah didn't "destroy" Tomi Lahren on The Daily Show. What he did was much better.
posted by P.o.B. at 3:41 PM on December 5, 2016
posted by P.o.B. at 3:41 PM on December 5, 2016
Tomi isn't a toddler, though, and she doesn't talk like one. Unfortunately I think she came off really well.
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 5:28 PM on December 5, 2016
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 5:28 PM on December 5, 2016
He didn't call her a toddler. He said you use the same rhetoric as you would with a toddler by using basic logic questions with people like her until they either can't answer because their reasoning doesn't work, or they have to acquiesce because again their reasoning doesn't work. I think she came off well enough because she was able to dodge the questions so well and Trevor only had so much time. But like they brought up in that article the bit where he asked her three different times to answer how a black person is supposed to demonstrate showed exactly what it was supposed to: that she really didn't have an answer to what she and others so vociferously object over. It showed that her objections are nothing but privileged whining. I think Noah really could have nailed her a bit better on these things but I think he's smart enough to know that he still would like to keep these conversations open. Better ratings for him? Sure, he hosts a tv show. I just can't get on board with people just completely eschewing any discussion at all. I get why people are saying that it can be problematic, but I think Noah is headed in the right direction.
posted by P.o.B. at 6:19 PM on December 5, 2016
posted by P.o.B. at 6:19 PM on December 5, 2016
Trevor only had so much time
Is this actually true? I feel like I remember John Stewart extended interviews that went way, way longer than 26 minutes.
If indeed he only had that long, I feel like constantly moving on to the next question, even when his interlocutor has demonstrated that running out the clock with pre-rehearsed crap is child's play, is intentionally ceding ground in a way that guarantees the maximum variety of footage for the editor's convenience, whereas holding the line on one particular question runs the risk of not providing as much good raw material.
(I should also say though: we're positioning this as criticism of Noah himself as though he's the captain and mastermind of the whole operation the same way Stewart was, but I'm not clear that's the case? Could it be that other people are making the strategic-level decisions, or that Noah is making them in cooperation with others? I haven't read up on it, in any case.)
posted by XMLicious at 7:08 PM on December 5, 2016
... Unfortunately I think she came off really well.
You know, I can understand this on the most superficial level - she held herself upright, spoke directly to and with the host and she's young and attractive and white.
Also, the things that came out of her mouth weren't the immediately dismissible crazy-talk I have come to expect from so many 'right wing pundits.'
But. Nothing she said, with even a moment's reflection held up. The absolute perfect example of this is when she said, "I'm a millennial, I don't like labels."
In retrospect, I think the only way Trevor could have done this any better - and if it didn't make it on air, I wish it had been in the longer interview - would have been to convince her of the way one of the many wrong things she said, is wrong. She has/had a rhetorical style that relied on intelligent sounding phrases that did not actually hold up. It made me think of this best-seller novel from the 90's The Bridges of Madison County. It's well neigh unreadable. It just doesn't make sense. Unless you want it to badly enough that you're willing to ignore its nonsensical-ness. Or she's a young blonde woman telling you some approximation of what you want to hear.
posted by From Bklyn at 12:49 AM on December 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
You know, I can understand this on the most superficial level - she held herself upright, spoke directly to and with the host and she's young and attractive and white.
Also, the things that came out of her mouth weren't the immediately dismissible crazy-talk I have come to expect from so many 'right wing pundits.'
But. Nothing she said, with even a moment's reflection held up. The absolute perfect example of this is when she said, "I'm a millennial, I don't like labels."
In retrospect, I think the only way Trevor could have done this any better - and if it didn't make it on air, I wish it had been in the longer interview - would have been to convince her of the way one of the many wrong things she said, is wrong. She has/had a rhetorical style that relied on intelligent sounding phrases that did not actually hold up. It made me think of this best-seller novel from the 90's The Bridges of Madison County. It's well neigh unreadable. It just doesn't make sense. Unless you want it to badly enough that you're willing to ignore its nonsensical-ness. Or she's a young blonde woman telling you some approximation of what you want to hear.
posted by From Bklyn at 12:49 AM on December 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
"I think she came off well" and "I think she did well" are two completely different things. She didn't have to convince someone who listened to her critically, she only had to throw out conservative talking points to sound like she made good for her followers to be happy. I mean, you don't have to convince me that she was speaking nonsense.
Is this actually true?
Noah paused at one point and actually said that. I don't think he planned out the interview to make her look good or make himself look bad. But I don't think he planned well enough.
posted by P.o.B. at 1:53 AM on December 6, 2016
Is this actually true?
Noah paused at one point and actually said that. I don't think he planned out the interview to make her look good or make himself look bad. But I don't think he planned well enough.
posted by P.o.B. at 1:53 AM on December 6, 2016
« Older a garden city for the future | SLNYT Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
If you want to see the full 26 minute interview which was edited down for airing, you can see that via Comedy Central (probably not available outside of the US).
posted by hippybear at 2:05 AM on December 1, 2016 [2 favorites]