MudMan

The game has changed because Republicans will stick with the coup party. That’s my whole point.

If your political rival is willing to violently disrupt the process when they lose you’re not having a fair and free election, and “valid criticism” becomes a distant second priority to… you know, going back to a situation where you get to have a democracy with fair and free elections.

That’s the shift the Stewart approach refuses to acknowledge. And when I say “stubbornly naive” I mean that acting under the fiction that the rules are followed and things will behave how they’re supposed to can be an inspiring, powerful thing. It can shame those who would flip-flop or gloss over procedure or principle to stick to the norms and conventions that keep society afloat.

But there’s no shaming Trump and no shaming the trumpists. And if you’re still hoping to inspire them into reasonableness when the death cult of the rapist orange fascist is actively telling you… what is it this week? That he will fund a completely unaccountable Gestapo? Well, you’re being idealist right into democracy’s collapse.

And to be clear, I’m not worried about your vote. I’m worried about the vote of the people who haven’t gotten the memo, or are in the process of sliding down the spiral of fascism but aren’t there yet. And I’m sure worried about the Rashida Tlaibs and the Berniebros and the leftists who will gladly butcher anything short of ideological purity and stay at home because “nobody has earned their trust”.

If you or Stewart think voting for Biden exempts you from being part of that issue… well, it doesn’t. It doesn’t under normal circumstances, arguably, but right now we’re very far from that point. It’s not like this hasn’t happened before. That’s why I keep going back to “but her emails”. Was it valid criticism? Yes. Did it kill thousands of people during the pandemic? Also yes.

Is the tradeoff worth it? What will the “it’s reasonable to ask if Biden is too old” body count be?

To be clear, I think being part of the problem isn’t the same as being malicious, hostile or stupid. I think being stubbornly naive about the system working the way it’s supposed to has its uses. It’s a powerful tool to get the corrupt to shy away from breaking the rules if enough people assume the rules will be followed.

But I also think we punched through that wall like a bunker buster dropping from orbit years ago and a lot of the US is a toad that has been simmered to being full-on al dente by this point. Well meaning people hoping to get through this as if it’s… you know, an actual democratic election are part of the problem despite themselves.

Stewart wasn’t retired, mind you. He’s had a show for the past two years. He only recently got cancelled for speaking of subjects Apple didn’t like.

Also, please don’t rehash our conversation. It’s still written up there. The only possible purpose of that exercise is to put together a straw man. I remember what I said.

You could have skipped to the last line, which is where we disagree and where I think democrats and their larger sphere of influence are repeating a catastrophic mistake.

He’s a campaign staffer. You’re a campaign staffer. Everybody is a campaign staffer until such time as the opposing force isn’t a fascist cult of personality.

If you don’t see that, you’re part of the problem. If Stewart is back to pretending that he can “restore sanity” by acting as if the other side had legitimate concerns that should be heard, he’s part of the problem. That’s not the game we’re playing anymore. If you didn’t realize the rules had changed when Trump won the first time, surely you must have noticed after January 6th, or when the poll numbers of the, again, actual rapist refused to climb down.

So no, his honest statements aren’t irrelevant. They’re a drop in a pond of, once again, information warfare. The wilful blind spots and bothsideism may be naivete or disingenuous misinformation, but my entire point is at this stage it doesn’t mater. They don’t belong. We’re past those. You either play the game we’re all playing or you’re playing for the other guys.

Yes. I don’t care about his mind.

He can speak his mind at home. He’s been doing that for years.

Can we at least agree that Stewart’s mind has many things in it, and choosing to turn a specific one into a TV show is a conscious decision? I’m not gonna convince you that we should be treating this entire election as an act of information warfare at all times, that much is clear, but man, for the sake of a shared reality, at least let me shake off the blindfold where framing is a random event and the most notorious political voice in a generation lacks any sort of influence.

If Jon Stewart doesn’t shape the political viewpoint of at least some liberals, then what the hell is he doing on TV? He can’t possibly be “injecting sanity into the discussion” and also be a completely harmless, neutral event in the political conversation.

Trump is just as old. Ask a Republican, a conservative pundit or a vaguely conservative voter and Trump is the peak of the human form, strong as an oak and in full posession of superhuman intellectual prowess.

You want to complain that a candidate is old? That’s the one you are supposed to be focusing on.

For the record, Sanders didn’t criticise Clinton. His followers did. Ruthlessly. Constantly. With this exact playbook. He tried to stop them and we all realized in horror he couldn’t. The berniebros didn’t lose the 2016 election, because they didn’t really influence much either way, but they sure as hell didn’t help.

Dragged out by whom?

Because we all watched and nobody did anything meaningful. The trumpies didn’t even win the last election and were willing to overrun the Capitol to complain about it being stolen. At some point all the violent fantasies have to either trigger some action or get realistic.

For now with “everybody shut up about Biden’s age and go vote when the time comes” I’d be just fine. Because, in case we forget in all the fervor, that stuff would also not have been a problem had Cinton won.

It’s not a problem of disinformation. Campaigns have been weaponizing image since TV entered the conversation, and have weaponized narratives since day one. None of the things Stewart or this article say are false.

Stewart chooses what to talk about. Focus is message. If you focus on Biden being old as opposed to, say, Trump being an actual rapist, you’re choosing how the narratives are selected and framed. And if you think you’re dodging that by also talking about Trump being old then you’re either being naive or disingenuous.

He’s not “speaking his mind”, he’s making an insanely hyped comeback to the limelight specifically targeted towards the liberals who became politicized watching him act as an arbiter of common sense on-screen during the 2000s.

And he went “but her emails”.

I’m not worried about the people watching the Daily Show.

I’m worried about people reading the article above reminding them that even Stewart thinks Biden is too old.

Is that what he said? It doesn’t matter, it’s something you can say out loud now. And repeat endlessly in campaign rallies and propaganda disguised as news.

I think I may be more frustrated by this pretense of normality than by activism of any political sign. What are reasonable criticisms for? What goal could they possibly achieve? What action can the political class take to address them that is even remotely viable in the next eight months?

More to the point, what do people think is happening right now? Do they think this is business as usual, the populace making up their minds about the future of the country (planet!) based on policy proposals? We left that behind a while ago. At least the trumpist weirdos have a sense of urgency. This beige normcore approach to politics seems baffling to me, and I was disappointed to see Stewart jump right back into it with both feet after the sense of dejected futility he left behind during his last Daily Show run. At least John Oliver (and even Stewart’s own Apple TV show) had the honestly of highlighting very specific things that need practical, attainable fixes urgently.

That’s why she should have stepped down much sooner. Had she done it on the first year of Obama it wouldn’t have been feasible to delay for that long. And yet you heard the mildest possible suggestion that this was the case before she died and barely anything at all after.

So why go so hard with Biden when the other guy isn’t even four years younger and was already in a questionable mental state before he ran?

Because her emails.

You know what pisses me off the most? When all is said and done and democracy is a vague memory among the cave-dwellers, we’ll all have to admit that the stupid combover and the orange spray actually worked. Dumb orangutan guy managed to hold the fiction that he’s not decrepit by spray painting himself and shouting past his brainfarts, and it’s actually gonna get him the election, with the cooperation of tons of well meaning “just asking valid questions”.

Well, they can be concerned all they want, but ultimately things work how they work. So no, that scenario is complete fiction and there is no valid equivalence between a Supreme Court Justice and a President in terms of succession.

It’s not about if, it’s about when.

People had three years to convince Biden that he shouldn’t run. They didn’t. Now you get Biden, and until he’s elected again criticism equals promoting the Trump campaign.

I mean, Stewart isn’t a complete idiot, he did make a case for both candidates being too old, which is a smarter counter than most of the Democratic campaign, let alone the Dem left, is using to push back. You’re not gonna successfully deny Biden is old, but you can convince people that Trump is also, maaaaybe.

But that doesn’t change the fact that any statement right now is a campaign statement. People think they can ignore politics for years and then act all surprised when they’re told to postpone “valid criticism”. Nah. The one thing Stewart said that I agree with wholeheartedly is that this is life now. Forever. And in this life you don’t mess with your candidate’s campaign even a little bit until after the votes are counted.

Yeah, I’m confused about this take. RBG should have stepped down because by not doing it she created the opportunity for Trump to tilt the majorities in the Supreme Court. Notably, nobody had the balls to criticise her for it, even after she died and made that exact thing happen.

If Biden dies in office Trump doesn’t get to pick the vice president. And somehow he still gets constant crap despite the other guy being just as old.

We’re doing “but her emails” again. I thought we weren’t gonna do “but her emails” again.

Yeah, well, welcome to why you don’t talk shit about your candidate during a campaign. Your nuanced point is going to get flattened down to “even his allies are criticising him”. Weirdly, this exact quote dismantles his entire monologue there.

The best joke in that entire thing was Klepper accusing him of bothsiderism and asking whether he had saved democracy yet. Because it was poignant. Lampshading it is funny, but it doesn’t change the outcome.

Well, second best joke, the best was Ronnie Chieng going to town on potato skins, but that’s neither here not there.

To be clear about what I’m saying, the setup is subtitles in the same language as the audio. So if you’re learning French you set French audio with French subtitles.

That REALLY helps bind the pronuntiation to the writing and it actually makes it far easier to understand the speech. Assuming you’re reading the subtitles at the same time, of course.

You won’t understand a lot of it, and you’ll have to put up with the frustration of losing the plot often for a while, but it does help, in my experience.

Subtitles in your own native language just make you tune out the audio and read the dialogue. That’s not helpful.

This is the answer. The answer is Netflix and Youtube. Anything with media using both audio and subtitles in the language you’re trying to learn.

You still need a teacher to get you past learning enough basics of vocabulary and grammar to get started (and no, language learning apps are probably not an effective way past that) but once you have enough basic words and you understand how a sentence is put together the answer is to watch media even if you don’t fully understand what’s being said, paying attention and stopping sometimes to use dictionaries and translators to get you there on sentences you almost get.

I know people who spent years spinning their wheels on learning apps while refusing to sit through media in the target language because they get frustrated or tired by the effort of trying to keep up. It’s a bit annoying, but it really works.

Yep, that was my point. There’s nothing fundamentally alien to using desktop Linux for most tasks when it’s standardized and preinstalled, you see that with the Raspberry Pi and Steam OS and so on. The problem is that people like to point at that (and less viable examples like ChromeOS or Android) as examples that desktop Linux is already great and intuitive and novice-friendly, and that’s just not realistic. I’ve run Linux on multiple platforms on and off since the 90s, and to this day the notion of getting it up and running on a desktop PC with mainstream hardware feels like a hassle and the idea of getting it going in a bunch of more arcane hardware, like tablet hybrids or laptops with first party drivers just doesn’t feel reasonable unless it’s as a hobbyist project.

Those things aren’t comparable.

No, I’m not talking past it. I just have less an issue with it. The Android thing is disingenuous, though.

But I did explicitly address it above, when I said once you have to pick a distro at all the OP has a point because that’s already past the level of insight casual users have or care about. It’s literally right there in my first response to you.

I’m not splitting hairs, I’m calling out a fallacious argument. If your take is that Desktop Linux is super accessible and mainstream because Android is a thing that’s a bad take.

Here’s how I know it’s a bad take: if I come over to any of the “what Distro should I use first” threads here and I tell you to try Samsung Dex you’re probably not going to be as willing to conflate those two things anymore.

But hey, yeah, no, Android is super accessible. So is ChromeOS. If that’s your bar for what Linux has become for home users, then yeah, for sure. Linux is on par with Windows in terms of accessibility. May as well call it quits on the desktop distros muddying the waters, then. I mean, if all that is Linux what are those? 1% of the Linux userbase? 0.1%? Why bother at that point?

I gotta say, the frequency with which you hear that Android/ChromeOS is actually Linux and it totally counts, or how successful Linux is on other applications is REALLY much less flattering to desktop Linux than people claiming that seem to think.

I’d argue the moment you have to pick a distro in the first place you’ve made the guy’s point. That’s already way past the level of interest, engagement or decision-making capacity most baseline users have. Preinstalled, tightly bound versions like Android or SteamOS are a different question, maybe. Maaaaybe.

Oh, but we haven’t talked about the opposite thing, which is when tech-savvy user X thinks they know better than whichever IT person or team set up a process and decide to ignore it or bypass it and then they break something and nobody’s happy.

I see your point, though. I mean, even if you know what you’re doing there are many times where you just need to get a thing done and you just want somebody to make it so the computer does the thing, rather than understand how the thing-doing is done. We forget, but computers are actually super hard and software is overcomplicated and it’s honestly a miracle most of it works at all most of the time.