Loading Notifications...

Colbert on the US riots.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Darron 07 Jan 2021

Stephen Colbert’s finest hour? Well worth 15 mins of anyone’s time.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpUxQyLCBbk&

1
 Offwidth 07 Jan 2021
In reply to Darron:

Cheers, some righteous anger on behalf of truth is very welcome right now.

 Big Bruva 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Darron:

In Trump's speech before the riot he told protesters to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" at the Capitol building. Colbert chose to edit out that part of the speech. I think Trump is a lunatic and the worst US president in my lifetime (at least!), but I'm just as concerned about biased reporting.

13
 Darron 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Big Bruva:

It’s not reporting it’s opinion/comedy.

Re Trumps quote in your post. You don’t think Trumps years of incitement  did not play a significant part in the violence? I would suggest many of those people were primed before they got on the plane. I wonder if some of the demonstrators decision to physically attack the MSM at the demo was merely  coincidence or as a result of something Trump said.

2
In reply to Big Bruva:

And on the same platform his partner in crime Giuliani called for “trial by combat”. Trump did not reject this. Five people died. His supporters at the event include groups whose openly stated goal is to wage a civil war on the US government. He will have been appraised of multiple intelligence sources over the last 4 years which should leave him in no doubt that the domestic terrorism threat from these groups is real and severe. I really don’t think biased reporting is an issue here. Don’t whip up armed mobs, because whatever fig leaf you think you’ve made for yourself, when people start dying, the analysis will look at more that one line of your hour long speech, and at what else you said and did, and what the people you gave a platform to said too, and judge you for it. 

 Roadrunner6 08 Jan 2021
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I'm not even addressing BB over that. Trump, his kids, Rudy constantly threatened violence.

Absolutely nailed it by Colbert.

 Big Bruva 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Roadrunner6:

> I'm not even addressing BB over that.

You could always thank me for giving you a piece of information you would probably wouldn't have had otherwise. Would be a shame if your opinion were based on anything but a full disclosure of the facts... wouldn't it?!  

19
 jkarran 08 Jan 2021
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> ...when people start dying, the analysis will look at more that one line of your hour long speech, and at what else you said and did, and what the people you gave a platform to said too, and judge you for it. 

Except sadly we/they won't, nobody that matters anyway.

DT will not be held accountable in any meaningful way for fostering white-supremacist terrorism, he'll be sidelined, left to rail aimlessly at twitter as those who've abused his position desert him for the next pliant, corrupt, electable mouthpiece.

jk

 Blanche DuBois 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Big Bruva:

Shame you removed the comment you just made as it was classic deflection - Trump would be proud.

 Big Bruva 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Darron:

> It’s not reporting it’s opinion/comedy.

It's both. The video of Trump's speech is purely reporting what happened.

> You don’t think Trumps years of incitement  did not play a significant part in the violence? 

Er, yes I do. I was just disappointed in the way Colbert edited Trump's speech to mislead viewers. I'm surprised people who are anti-Trump are not more in favour of facts. Don't think you can challenge a liar with anything other than the whole truth, because the other side uses those omissions to shore up their own beliefs. Of course it's much, much easier to give viewers a bit of confirmation bias.

7
 Big Bruva 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Blanche DuBois:

> Shame you removed the comment you just made as it was classic deflection - Trump would be proud.

I only deleted it so I could expand on my point! Where is the deflection?

 Roadrunner6 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Big Bruva:

> You could always thank me for giving you a piece of information you would probably wouldn't have had otherwise. Would be a shame if your opinion were based on anything but a full disclosure of the facts... wouldn't it?!  

I live here, I heard his speeches. I heard Rudi ask for Trial by Combat. He should be in prison.

"Trial by combat (also wager of battle, trial by battle or judicial duel) was a method of Germanic law to settle accusations in the absence of witnesses or a confession in which two parties in dispute fought in single combat; the winner of the fight was proclaimed to be right."

Post edited at 14:40
 stp 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Big Bruva:

I agree I think the reporting has been pretty biased. The clip of the guy running up the stairs is meant to be really bad apparently. But he is totally unarmed and is not violent at all. (There is a much longer clip of this on Twitter.)

The thing missing I see with this and other reporting is that those at the rally and on Capitol Hill feel genuinely and passionately that the election has been fraudulently stolen. and that they are the one's upholding democracy. Additionally they've come to believe that all the media is lying and not to be trusted. In this instance I see them as victims. They've been manipulated by Trump and his lies about the election.

Also from the footage I've seen the whole thing does not look very organized at all. I suspect most of what happened was spontaneous. The weapons and explosives were probably brought there by one very small group, unbeknownst to the vast majority of people taking part.

3
In reply to Big Bruva:

This is how he works. 4 years, and on the day a couple of hours, convincing people that the government is corrupt and contemptible, that the only way to the truth is through him, and various exhortations, both coded and explicit, to violence. 
 

then one line where he says, oh, but don’t break stuff- so that afterwards he can disclaim responsibility, and apologists can get out on social media and create a bizarre narrative that he’s the victim of selective reporting. 
 

keep it up, BB, he needs it. It’s clear from his back pedalling today that he’s been told by his cabinet that is 25th amendment removal from office territory unless he plays nice from now, so he needs all the friends he can’t get. 
 

though when you find yourself coming to the defense of someone even Mike Pence and Lindsey Graham have cut loose, you might want to ask yourself what your doing there. It’s a pretty odd hill to pick to die on.

Post edited at 14:43
2
 Big Bruva 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Roadrunner6:

> I live here, I heard his speeches. I heard Rudi ask for Trial by Combat. He should be in prison.

If anyone is worse than Trump it's Rudy Giuliani!

 Big Bruva 08 Jan 2021
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> though when you find yourself coming to the defense of someone even Mike Pence and Lindsey Graham have cut loose, you might want to ask yourself what your doing there. 

Read through my posts. I've only come to the defense of unbiased reporting. I'm surprised so many on here are objecting to that. It's almost like people would prefer not to know the truth. 

5
 The Lemming 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Darron:

I saw this clip before I went to bed after a night on the town

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAMMiCe35-Y&

 stp 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Roadrunner6:

The full rally is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvJVZAxJE8Y&

The whole thing is over 4 hours. Trump comes on about 2hrs 50m.

In reply to Big Bruva:

As others have said, this wasn’t on the news. There is no requirement for comedians to adhere to unbiased reporting.

and: Trump is engaged in bad faith. The context of his comment made it clear it was for PR purpose only, as it was nested in 2 hours of venom and explicit exhortations to violence. 

Whipping up an armed angry mob, directing them at the target of their anger, then chipping in ‘oh, and behave nicely’ as an afterthought has been seen for what it is by even far right Republicans. 
 

Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham aren’t on social media bleating that the Orange Mussolini wannabe is being selectively quoted by comedians. Why are you? 

Post edited at 14:58
1
 Big Bruva 08 Jan 2021
In reply to stp:

> The whole thing is over 4 hours. Trump comes on about 2hrs 50m.

The line I referred to comes in just after 3:09:40

A lot of the speech is Trump playing to his base with his usual mix of lies and deceit, but I don't think he ever directly calls for violence like Giuliani does.

2
 Big Bruva 08 Jan 2021
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham aren’t on social media bleating that the Orange Mussolini wannabe is being selectively quoted by comedians. Why are you? 

I have a Masters degree in journalism and am concerned about establishing facts. Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham have their political careers to think about!

10
 wintertree 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Big Bruva:

>  have a Masters degree in journalism and am concerned about establishing facts. 

On the subject of facts and balance, did you see my reply to you elsewhere? [1]

You were suggesting that there were valid lessons from the country you recently returned from about continuing a more normal life during the Covid crisis.

I pointed out that the place you were has about 1/4th of the population (per-capita) that the UK does over 65 years of age, and not unsurprisingly therefore has more like 1/20th of the death rate, and will have a much lower hospitalisation rate as well.

These facts appear to make a material difference to the point you were trying to put across, and its validity - or lack thereof.

I am sure with your passionate defence of facts and balance you will revisit your comments that we could learn from Egypt, as it seems you were unaware of the significant demographic differences between us and them, and/or you were unaware of the near exponential relationship between age and the consequences of Covid.

[1] https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/off_belay/vaccine_passports-729248?v=1#x9369440

 Roadrunner6 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Big Bruva:

"He told a crowd rallying south of the White House to “walk down to the Capitol,” adding, “You will never take back our country with weakness.”"

I can't see how that isn't inciting violence.

1
In reply to Big Bruva:

No, he’s cleverer than that. It’s the usual dog whistle stuff though- signalling what he wants, without leaving him compromised by spelling it out explicitly. He made no attempt to disavow Giuliani’s clear cut incitement to violence though- and his intelligence briefings will have left him in no illusion that crowd had dangerous people in it. 
 

it’s backfired on him- I don’t think he expected that it would go that far; but he knowingly stoked them up, and is responsible for what happened next, including 5 dead people.

 NBR 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Darron:

This has to be laid at Trump's feet.

He is the President of the United States of America he directly and unambiguously told the citizens of his country that the election was fradulent and that there was a conspiracy to illegitimatly seize power.

In this context the storming the Capitol would be the 'right' thing to do, if of course his whole narrative wasn't a total pack of lies, which to be clear it was.

After years of building this false narative he shouldn't get to throw in a few phrases to give himself 'deniability' and get away with it.

Post edited at 15:21
In reply to Big Bruva:

> I have a Masters degree in journalism and am concerned about establishing facts. Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham have their political careers to think about!

then you’ll be aware that comedy isn’t journalism and there is no obligation to report every comment and angle.

Notwithstanding this, I think Colbert nailed an accurate account of events. Not giving the bad-faith fig leaf comment Trump made the time of day is fair enough. His supporters certainly didn’t.

 Roadrunner6 08 Jan 2021
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

And after they stormed the house "remain peaceful" whilst they caved in a police officers head with a fire extinguisher. Then 'we love you'. 

I'm sick of this 'lets unite' talk. These idiots had nazi tattoos, camp auschwitz tops on. When the guy next to you and supports your stance is a nazi you really need to take a good hard look at yourself.

Post edited at 15:24
In reply to Roadrunner6:

Yup. Like I say, an odd, and lonely, hill for BB to pick to die on.

Post edited at 15:25
In reply to Big Bruva:

I think it is you that is coming over as being very selective with the truth. (I think you need to study in more detail all the recent speeches of Trump and his entourage that incited this violence.) Whilst we all accept that peaceful demonstration is fine, and even healthy in a democracy, do you really think that a mob breaking and entering a top government building, forcing back the security forces and leading to the deaths of five people, can be regarded as a legitimate peaceful demonstration?

I suggest you teste your views by forcing back the security services and breaking and entering any top government building in the world, and see if this is regarded as legitimate. You might try the government buildings in say Austin Texas, or the Bundestag, or the White House in Moscow, or even our own Houses of Parliament. You would probably stand quite a high chance of being shot.

 Big Bruva 08 Jan 2021
In reply to wintertree:

I gave up in despair wintertree! If you think Egypt's health service is better able to deal with a Covid epidemic than the NHS, you obviously know very little about the world. I can't be the one who explains it to you!

23
 Big Bruva 08 Jan 2021
In reply to John Stainforth:

> do you really think that a mob breaking and entering a top government building, forcing back the security forces and leading to the deaths of five people, can be regarded as a legitimate peaceful demonstration?

No. But then again I never said that.

4
 geode 08 Jan 2021
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

seems difficult to tell far right from left these days eg horn guy who was accused of being an antifa infiltrator: https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/01/07/21/37696380-9122495-In_one_photo_posted_on_his_Facebook_account_in_November_where_he-a-57_1610056507338.jpg

and other beardy with work badge-lol

5
 Bilberry 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Big Bruva:

> I have a Masters degree in journalism

.

.

.

1
 wintertree 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Big Bruva:

> I gave up in despair wintertree! If you think Egypt's health service is better able to deal with a Covid epidemic than the NHS, you obviously know very little about the world. I can't be the one who explains it to you!

The despair is mine at your inability to acknowledge simple facts and bias, compounded by  your protestations up thread.

The UK has about 80% more hospital beds per-capita than Egypt. Here are some estimates from [1] of hospital beds per 1,000 people.  

  • Egypt  - 1.4
  • United Kingdom - 2.5

The UK has about 400% more people aged over 65 per-capita than Egypt.  The health consequences of Covid increase in prevalence exponentially with age it seems.  The demographic is skewed to even younger ages yet in Egypt compared to the UK.  

Egypt has been estimated to have sufficient ventilation capabilities for its needs [2].  The UK is close to running out of its medical capacity nationwide.  Yet you advocate for a more relaxed approach here because it's okay in Egypt, whilst ignoring the present situation in the UK and the massive demographic factors (population differences, age vs consequence).

If you can't understand from that data why Eqypt's health service is far less severely challenged than the NHS to deal with Covid, you are in no place to patronise me that I know very little about the world.

> I can't be the one who explains it to you!

That sounds like a cheap cop-out given that you don't apparently have a factual approach to justify the bias you displayed on the other thread.

[1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.MED.BEDS.ZS

[2] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.02.20120147v1.full.pdf

Post edited at 15:42
1
 Big Bruva 08 Jan 2021
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> Yup. Like I say, an odd, and lonely, hill for BB to pick to die on.

The hill is called Mount Truth. It may be lonely but it's definitely not odd. I certainly won't be the first to die there!

20
In reply to geode:

I’m sure all sorts of false flag FUD will be doing the rounds. Unsurprising to see the Mail give it prominence. Look- a squirrel. Let’s all talk about that, and how “they’re all as bad as each other”, rather that that the sitting president enabled a mob to storm the seat of government, leading to 5 deaths. 

In reply to Big Bruva:

It’s not though. The truth is he encouraged a riot in which people died, and you are complaining that a comedian didn’t give airtime to his weasel worded get out of jail clause. And you are here, pushing a narrative that he is a victim, rather than an attempted autocrat with the blood of a dead police officer on his hands. 
 

I’m not getting what’s in it for you, but carry on....

 Graeme G 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Big Bruva:

>  I'm just as concerned about biased reporting.

Unfortunately it just helps feed the conspiracy theorists. Give me all the facts, all the time. I’ll make my own mind up.

 mbh 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Darron:

For those who haven't, it is well worth also watching Colbert's follow-up interview with Senator Amy Klobuchar. She minces no words in calling it an attempted coup. She is so impressive.

Trump will be gone in a few days, but she won't. I wouldn't like to be him or one of his followers given that people of this calibre are on their tail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PiA9mJommE&

 Darron 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Darron:

Schotastic terrorism.

A phrase I’ve not come across before but neatly describes what Trump has been doing:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/stochastic-terrorism

 Big Bruva 08 Jan 2021
In reply to wintertree:

Interesting data, but very selective. My understanding of the Covid crisis is that the limiting factor for care is the number of staff, not ventilators. The UK has around 150 nurses/midwives per 10,000 people, Egypt has just 15. The UK has 29 doctors per 10,000 people, Egypt has 8. 

8
 wintertree 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Big Bruva:

> The UK has around 150 nurses/midwives per 10,000 people, Egypt has just 15. The UK has 29 doctors per 10,000 people, Egypt has 8. 

Thank you for taking the time to look for more figures.  That is relevant, although the ratio of doctors - and even of nurses - is less significant than the ratio of effects from the demographic differences.  Unless you really understand the consequences of an exponential relationship on age, it may not make intuitive sense, but it makes a hell of a difference.

I am curious about the different nursing compared to doctors considering the cost of training and salaries etc, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me - any local insight in to that from your time there?

 Roadrunner6 08 Jan 2021
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Remember the GOP outrage that Clinton didn't react quick enough to the Benghazi siege? and now their hero has incited a riot which led to a police officer being murdered.

 geode 08 Jan 2021
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

maybe there are other news sources which show horn guy shaking hands with Giuliani but haven't searched. picture says it all..

In reply to geode:

I see what you mean now- thought the Mail was running the ‘he was an infiltrator’ angle- now I have to apologise to the Mail for impugning its journalism...! 
 

😖

Post edited at 16:40
 Big Bruva 08 Jan 2021
In reply to wintertree:

According to Oxford Business Group:

The WHO has cited a variety of reasons for this low figure [nurses], including minimal pay and a lack of social respect for nurses, as well as high turnover at the Ministry of Health preventing the passage of reforms to improve working conditions.

Sourcing international talent has been made more more challenging by the November 2016 devaluation of the Egyptian pound.

 jkarran 08 Jan 2021
In reply to stp:

> I agree I think the reporting has been pretty biased. The clip of the guy running up the stairs is meant to be really bad apparently. But he is totally unarmed and is not violent at all. (There is a much longer clip of this on Twitter.)

Can a rampaging mob ever really be considered 'unarmed'? It's certainly a credible threat to the lives of those in its way, mobs don't behave like individuals.

> The thing missing I see with this and other reporting is that those at the rally and on Capitol Hill feel genuinely and passionately that the election has been fraudulently stolen. and that they are the one's upholding democracy. Additionally they've come to believe that all the media is lying and not to be trusted.

Yes. I'm not sure it's missing from the reporting though, it's the root of most people's outrage, the irresponsibility of President Trump and those riding his coat tails.

> In this instance I see them as victims. They've been manipulated by Trump and his lies about the election.

You could equally say that about those who chop heads for IS, I doubt you'd garner much sympathy for them. Plenty of heinous criminals are or have themselves been victims.

> Also from the footage I've seen the whole thing does not look very organized at all...

Not least the security. Incredible really given the events unfolding inside being a blindingly obvious flash-point after weeks of inflammatory rhetoric from the White house.

jk

1
 Big Bruva 08 Jan 2021
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> And you are here, pushing a narrative that he is a victim

I've called him a lunatic, a liar and the worst US president in my lifetime. Haven't even remotely suggested he was a victim!

> I’m not getting what’s in it for you, but carry on....

I made a comment on UKC which I knew would be unpopular. There's obviously nothing in it for me! But hopefully now others are a little better informed.

I used to be a big fan of Colbert. He's a political commentator as much as a comedian and I broadly share his opinions. But after a while I got a bit disillusioned by his constant bias. Wasn't in the least surprised by the choice of excerpt he used in this monologue.

However, more troubling is the reaction of others to my original comment. A lot of people on here really don't like reading things that go against their established view of the world. 

8
In reply to Big Bruva:

“Troubling” reaction.... “people don’t like reading things that go against their established view of the world “...

Spare us. You posted your views on a public forum, and people have disagreed with you. No one called you names, or attacked your character. But you’re now turning to the ad hom playbook- implying that people who disagree with you are somehow driven by an irrational anger, rather than just being of the view you are wrong. That’s not very nice. And, it gives the impression that there’s some projecting going on here- that the person who has difficulty coping with “reading things that go against their established view of the world” might in fact be you...

your view is unpopular because, of all the things you could have come to this thread to say, in the aftermath of scenes provoked by the POTUS that left 5 dead, you picked bring critical of a comedian for not showing sufficient political balance in his comedy routine. I don’t think I’m the only one here who thinks that is a bizarre missing of the point. 
 

But no, the problem can’t be with you; it’s because we’re snowflakes who can’t cope with reading other points of view...

Post edited at 17:38
 Big Bruva 08 Jan 2021
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> You posted your views on a public forum, and people have disagreed with you. 

What do you disagree with in my original comment?

4
In reply to Big Bruva:

nothing per se, BB.

but you didn’t come to the thread to call him all that. You came to suggest he has been subject to biased reporting.  By a comedian. 
 

And you’re still going, defending this proposition hours later, and mysteriously still not engaging with the point about him being a comedian, and not a news reporter. Or the point that his one throwaway line about not being violent, in the midst of 4 hours of paranoid alternative reality and explicit exhortations to violence, was there precisely to get people like you to go on social media and complain that, to paraphrase, “the libs distort the truth too”.

Of all the angles you could have chosen to engage with these historic events, people are entitled to raise eyebrows at you that this is the one you’ve picked, and dug in on. 

 Roadrunner6 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Roadrunner6:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9126687/Trump-supporters-call-Ashli-Babbitt-martyr-say-death-shot-revolution.html

Any shooting on the DC streets this weekend and Trump will have to stand down. Read the plans for Saturday.

 deepsoup 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Darron:

> Stephen Colbert’s finest hour?

You might well be right.  That was really impressive, though he always impresses me.

Seth Meyers was very impressive too.  (He skips the jokes altogether.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOIFBKB4mIE&

Anderson Cooper did a long interview with Colbert on CNN a year or so ago (I stumbled across it on youtube not so long ago), it's well worth a watch.  In the first half they mostly talk about Trump, and among other things the difference between comedy/satire and straight news reporting, so kinda sorta relevant to this thread.

The second half is mostly a very personal conversation about the nature of grief (both of their fathers died when they were children, and both of their mothers more recently at a ripe old age).  It's not at all relevant to the thread here, but also well worth a watch.  Quite moving actually.

Er.. link..
Here it is:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6AbqhfOwK0&

 Big Bruva 08 Jan 2021
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> nothing per se, BB.

So we agree. Who would have known!

>You came to suggest he has been subject to biased reporting.  By a comedian. 

Colbert blurs the line between comedy and political commentator. As such he has as much responsibility to respect the facts as any other political commentator. He actually calls himself "America's most fearless purveyor of 'truthiness'".

> in the midst of 4 hours of ... explicit exhortations to violence

Can you give me some actual examples of these? From Trump. Between quote marks.

> was there precisely to get people like you to go on social media and complain that, to paraphrase, “the libs distort the truth too”.

Unfortunately they do and it would be unhelpful and disingenious not to acknowledge that. Trump's just taken it to a whole new level. We should refuse to play his game. 

11
In reply to Big Bruva:

So does Ian Hislop. Indeed more so. He’s the editor of print media which comments directly on politics. Should he have to bookend every comment he makes on HIGNFY with quotes supportive of the politicians he is lampooning, in order to ensure there is no perception of unfairness? Not sure that the format would have lasted 30 years in that case...

but no; Colbert is not presenting the news. It is absurd to suggest that he should be required to present satirical commentary on politics with the same regulations as apply to a news report. And absurd to draw equivalence with the ultra partisan reporting in actual news bulletins on Fox.

and we’ll all note your tactics here- Trump didn’t actually explicitly instruct the mob to attack the Capitol, of course- he’s not stupid. But that’s not what I said- I didn’t claim he did give such instructions. however he gave a platform to family and high profile associates who did explicitly call for violence at the same event though; and you are in a rapidly shrinking minority if you don’t acknowledge his responsibility for what followed, and think that one liner about playing nice was anything other than trying to create cover for what came next. Of course, if you screw your eyes up tight, put your fingers in your ears and squint quickly at his ‘don’t smash stuff’ comment, you can of course convince yourself that he’s been hard done by, and the libs are just as bad by not giving verbatim transcripts of everything he says, all the time.  But if you did that, it would be patently obvious to everyone looking on that you were allowing some sort of ideology to blind yourself to the wider picture, which is utterly damning. And accepted as such even by arch conservatives. 
 

Anyway, we’re just rehearsing the same points over and again now, so we’re probably done here. You’ve made your point; it doesn’t seem to have attracted much support, and it seems wilfully myopic and misplaced. But it’s provided an interesting couple of hours, so thanks for that

 Mr Lopez 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Big Bruva:

I watched, or rather i endured, Trumps brainfarts live for the whole duration, and there was nothing 'peaceful' about his taunting and prodding. Just in case, and in the interest of accuracy, i downloaded the transcript and had a looksie.

The bufoon spoke for 1 hour, 11 minutes and 4 seconds. In that time he uttered 10869 words, with 59673 letters. Out of those 10869 words. he said peace/peacefully/or any reference or variations, once.

One time.

One time, when he said  "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

He didn't tell the poundshop revolutionaries to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard, he told them to fight, 23 times.

And yet you obsess that a comedian and poilitical commentator did not include that word, those 10 letters, those miliseconds, in a 20 second edit from that hour, 11 minutes and 4 seconds of verbal diarrhea... Weird

Post edited at 20:06
In reply to Mr Lopez:

Yes- and what’s with his “we should refuse to play his game”- implying that his position on the political spectrum is alongside Colbert. Yet his only contribution to discussions on the mayhem is to doggedly criticise a comedian for not quoting the entirely unrepresentative snippet of Trumps insurrection festival. 

PanRon used to do that- claim to be a left winger, while rehearsing full spectrum alt right belief systems, complete with buzz words. 
 

anyway, enough for now.

 Andy Hardy 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Big Bruva:

> I have a Masters degree in journalism and

'His name is Big Bruva, king of kings:

Look on his CV, ye Mighty, and despair!'

 Darron 08 Jan 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

Thank you. I will have a look at that.

 Darron 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Darron:

Here is your Friday night quiz folks! 

Please do match the quote to the event!

Trump: “When the looting starts, the shooting starts”

Trump: “We love you. You are very special people”

Summer 2020 BLM protest

Winter 2021 storming of the US Capitol

Please direct you answers to either T Cruz or J Hawley at the aforementioned US Capitol building.

Note: please do so quickly as the word is there may be something ‘going down’ there tomorrow.

 Big Bruva 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> Look on his CV, ye Mighty, and despair!'

I also did Left Wall, clean onsight. Actually Right Wall as well but I don't feel the need to put it on my profile! ;) 

My journalism point was in reply to someone who asked why I was more concerned about the truth than 2 of Trump's sidekicks. After investing a year of my life in studying journalism, it would be a shame not to be! Politicians are mostly concerned about re-election.

In reply to deepsoup:

> Seth Meyers was very impressive too.  (He skips the jokes altogether.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOIFBKB4mIE&

That really is an impressive and sober summary of the situation.

 Big Bruva 08 Jan 2021
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> PanRon used to do that- claim to be a left winger, while rehearsing full spectrum alt right belief systems, complete with buzz words. 

Is expressing concern about biased reporting now classified as an "alt right belief system"? If not please indicate where I have expressed alt-right views.

3
 Big Bruva 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> he told them to fight, 23 times.

Weird that Colbert didn't pick up on these statements. The clip he showed of Trump's speech is typically rambling and sometimes incoherent, but there's nothing there that suggests - as Scotch Egg claims - "explicit exhortations to violence".

In Colbert's clip, Trump says:

"We're going to walk down to the Capitol"

"We're going to try and give our Republicans [blah...blah...blah] the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country"

As you have a transcript of the speech, can you please provide some quotes that better portray Trump inciting violence, coz Colbert actually did a pretty poor job of it.

Post edited at 22:20
4
 Darron 08 Jan 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

I’ve watched it and wanted to say, again, thank you.

Seeing two men talk so elequantly about grief was very moving. I lost my twin brother in a climbing accident when we were 21 so could relate to what was said. It does help to hear others experiences and know you are not alone.

In reply to Big Bruva:

I had already watched the Colbert clip (and other episodes) without realising that this thread was about that show. And my considered response is that if you don't realise that a 15 minute intro for a comedy/talk show is not journalism then you should really give you degree back as you have missed the point.

In reply to Big Bruva:

I didn’t say you held alt right views, just that you reminded me of another poster whose stated political position was at variance with everything the actually posted. It could have been clearer though, so I’m happy to correct that. 

but the bad faith arguments you use are getting tiresome - like this:

The clip he showed of Trump's speech is typically rambling and sometimes incoherent, but there's nothing there that suggests - as Scotch Egg claims - "explicit exhortations to violence".

You know fine and well I am not claiming Trump made these himself, because I’ve said so repeatedly. I’ve also repeatedly pointed out that his personal attorney, who he gave the stage, called for the mob to deliver “trial by combat”. That’s pretty explicit, and you have mysteriously failed to acknowledge this now for the whole evening. So you are repeatedly putting words in my mouth that I have rejected on several occasions now. And kept your blinkers on so as not to have to acknowledge the surrounding mayhem Trump clearly endorsed. 
 

these are not honest debating tactics.

Post edited at 22:59
 waitout 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Darron:

I won't win friends with this but.....

I quite like Colbert. I don't find him funny, but I like his character, he's the crazy lefty uncle, and I find him and this vid particularly to be architectural to the Leftist mythology. I know it's entertainment and not journalism - but it's the same noise and these days whether left or right it's the same thing.

I've hated Trump and his types since long before he was president and gave a population of Walmart fascists a nation of their own, but the comfortable Left Colbert plays to isn't any sort of counter. He entertains the echo chamber. For many that show will be seen as serious opinion and absorbed without fact checking just like an Alex jones cast, and he's 'just entertainment and opinion too' right?

His turn of phrase is good, but many of the important points in that broadcast were hyperbole as loose with correct terminology and informed reference as the people he is angry about. Viewed as the propaganda wing of the Left it's all in good fun, but I wonder how much of it is, I think it will only add to stoking Liberal hysteria. Colbert, Maher, Oliver are all people I like, the latter two I find among the funniest stuff in tv, but they are to rigorous discourse what oopah bands were to the Nazis.

It is good to laugh at all this though, cops shooting protesters isn't funny (but come on I can't be the only one chuckling that the 'medical emergencies' that the other 3 died from were probably linked to obese cheese burger warriors thinking they could occupy the Capitol with a Cuba Libre in one hand), but Colbert has to sell ratings and he was hardly going to come out with anything else. We all clicked on Colbert knowing we'd be gratified, not informed. Maybe I'm no as sold on outrage over this as some others are.

6
 Andy Hardy 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Big Bruva:

> I also did Left Wall, clean onsight. Actually Right Wall as well but I don't feel the need to put it on my profile! ;) 

> My journalism point was in reply to someone who asked why I was more concerned about the truth than 2 of Trump's sidekicks. After investing a year of my life in studying journalism, it would be a shame not to be! Politicians are mostly concerned about re-election.

How many years have you been a journalist? (in a professional capacity rather than someone who keeps a journal / diary)?

 Big Bruva 08 Jan 2021
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> these are not honest debating tactics.

Sorry but 14:58

In reply to Big Bruva:

Perhaps it is telling that you capitalise Truth, reminding us of the Ministry of Truth.

In reply to Big Bruva:

Sorry but that was factually accurate, unless you can find evidence that McConnell or Graham have been tweeting on the subject. Perhaps it’s a matter of opinion that you were ‘bleating’, and it was snarky for sure- but the underlying facts are correct. 

It’s not repeatedly claiming I’ve posted something when I haven’t, even when you’ve been called out about it. 
 

oh- it occurs to me that you think that’s evidence of me claiming Trump made explicit threats- read it again, and note, “nested in”- Trump did not speak for two hours, but others spoke on the platform too, and did his dirty work.

anyway, when you’ve reached the point of scrolling back through all my posts to find something ambiguous that you can try to ‘nail me’ with, this has probably gone beyond what’s  healthy, so let’s call it a night. 

 65 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Roadrunner6:

Here's something that I haven't seen or heard mentioned, or considered, until I saw a twitter share earlier this evening:

It has been suggested that as the event, (for want of a better word) was known about beforehand, there is a real possibility of foreign agents having being among the crowd, with enough time and distracting chaos around them to wire the place to the point that every single piece of electronic equipment and more within the Capitol Building must now be regarded as a potential enemy asset.

Russia and Iran, for starters, are more than a little handy at espionage. I wonder if the US govt are planning to just get the hoover out or if this will put the building into some sort of quarantine/detox. 

Perhaps there has been mention of this in US media, I haven't seen any here, but it seems so obvious. 

Post edited at 00:00
 mondite 09 Jan 2021
In reply to waitout:

> I won't win friends with this but.....

Let me guess you will be claiming to be taking a balanced approach which just happens to end up following the latest republican line in trying to create equivilence between the right and the left.

> For many that show will be seen as serious opinion and absorbed without fact checking just like an Alex jones cast, and he's 'just entertainment and opinion too' right?

and voila we have a strike although even by the latest attack line its pretty impressive comparing Colbert to Jones.  Jones, of course, doesnt present himself as entertainment (well until he is in court at which point he got a bit more vague).

Its not looking good for your fact checking but lets try anyway. Got any proof of any people taking it as serious opinion? A good starter would be him losing a lawsuit after pushing conspiracy theories for example.

> It is good to laugh at all this tough, cops shooting protesters isn't funny

Ermm and where did he do that?  Are you going in for hyperbole by any chance?

>  Maybe I'm no as sold on outrage over this as some others are.

I think you have made it clear you are far superior to anyone else and so obviously outrage is beneath you.

1
 mondite 09 Jan 2021
In reply to 65:

> Perhaps there has been mention of this in US media, I haven't seen any here, but it seems so obvious. 

Its been in the technical press/discussion forums but dont think it has got much outside there.

Although they got good access it isnt likely they got anywhere that a determined adversary could get to anyway (by subverting cleaning staff etc) so I would tend to expect that the normal security measures would pick most of it up. Any of the ultra secure rooms probably had better security anyway and, even if not, would get routinely swept.

Plus, of course, after the solarwind hack they are probably owned anyway.

 waitout 09 Jan 2021
In reply to mondite:

> Let me guess you will be claiming to be taking a balanced approach which just happens to end up following the latest republican line in trying to create equivilence between the right and the left.

> and voila we have a strike although even by the latest attack line its pretty impressive comparing Colbert to Jones.  Jones, of course, doesnt present himself as entertainment (well until he is in court at which point he got a bit more vague).

> Its not looking good for your fact checking but lets try anyway. Got any proof of any people taking it as serious opinion? A good starter would be him losing a lawsuit after pushing conspiracy theories for example.

> Ermm and where did he do that?  Are you going in for hyperbole by any chance?

> >  Maybe I'm no as sold on outrage over this as some others are.

> I think you have made it clear you are far superior to anyone else and so obviously outrage is beneath you.

Cool thanks. I'll leave you to your presumptions about me, your erosion of context and your counter argument without any counter points, and agree to disagree. You can have the moral and intellectual superiority on this one, I'll wait for a reasoned response to come along.

Yes, you can write as a victory for yourself my flipping off any rigor of reply.

4
 65 09 Jan 2021
In reply to mondite:

Yes, fair points, especially the last one.

 waitout 09 Jan 2021
In reply to 65:

> It has been suggested that as the event, (for want of a better word) was known about beforehand, there is a real possibility of foreign agents having being among the crowd, with enough time and distracting chaos around them to wire the place to the point that every single piece of electronic equipment and more within the Capitol Building must now be regarded as a potential enemy asset.

> Russia and Iran, for starters, are more than a little handy at espionage. I wonder if the US govt are planning to just get the hoover out or if this will put the building into some sort of quarantine/detox. 

I've entertained that thought too. It seemed to follow a mobbish format then because surprisingly orchestrated before collapsing again short of any real objective. 

1
 redjerry 09 Jan 2021
In reply to mondite:

Yes, Waitout is the king of false equivalence.
I always get a chuckle out of the way he gets pouty when called out.

1
 waitout 09 Jan 2021
In reply to redjerry;

So Republicanism isn't OK, and centralism isn't OK, and calling bullshit on all sides isn't OK, and calling out media partisanship is false equivalency, and deciding to debate back isn't OK and deciding to walk away is pouty and expecting context or reasoned argument or counter points is not OK?

This is no more than a circle jerk and it's all yours.

3
 Roadrunner6 09 Jan 2021
In reply to 65:

> Here's something that I haven't seen or heard mentioned, or considered, until I saw a twitter share earlier this evening:

> It has been suggested that as the event, (for want of a better word) was known about beforehand, there is a real possibility of foreign agents having being among the crowd, with enough time and distracting chaos around them to wire the place to the point that every single piece of electronic equipment and more within the Capitol Building must now be regarded as a potential enemy asset.

> Russia and Iran, for starters, are more than a little handy at espionage. I wonder if the US govt are planning to just get the hoover out or if this will put the building into some sort of quarantine/detox. 

> Perhaps there has been mention of this in US media, I haven't seen any here, but it seems so obvious. 

Good point, I've not heard that but I'd imagine it's getting a thorough going over. They smeared excrement all over the walls so it's going to get a thorough cleaning.

I found out tonight, one of the guys stealing the speakers podium is a MD's husband, my wife is on a Doctor Mom's facebook group with her, the papers here have already picked it up. He'll be getting a knock by the police.

 Big Bruva 09 Jan 2021
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> anyway, when you’ve reached the point of scrolling back through all my posts 

Top Tip Scotch Eggs, to save you having to scroll back to find what other people have said, use the 'Ctrl F' tool. Type in eg. 'explicit' or 'exhortation' and you will have quick access to every post that uses these terms.

4
 deepsoup 09 Jan 2021
In reply to Darron:

> Seeing two men talk so elequantly about grief was very moving.

Oh, that's great.  I'm really glad I mentioned it now.
I re-watched it (it's been a while) and the link I posted wasn't the one I saw before.  Sorry about those weird ads in the middle, and it cuts off the last minute.  D'Oh! 
This is a much better version of their conversation about grief: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB46h1koicQ&

It didn't resonate with me the way it did with you (I've never lost a sibling and the situation with my parents was very different) but it was still very striking, and god so refreshing for a conversation about Donald Trump to segue into something so honest and thoughtful.  Also I had absolutely no idea that Stephen Colbert was religious let alone so devout, so it was very refreshing to be reminded that it isn't normal for Americans to use their Christianity as a vehicle for bigotry. 

Er..  y'know what I mean I hope - watching the news the last few years, and all those Southern Republican senators etc., you start to get the idea that bigotry is the only way for a (white) American to experience their religion.

I just remembered something else of interest about comedy -vs- news reporting.

Armando Iannucci was a guest on Frankie Boyle's New World Order before the election back in October.  He had some very relevant remarks about how difficult it is to satirise someone who is in many ways his own satire, and how often with Trump if you're trying to find humour it's actually funnier to state the facts instead of even trying to find a joke because that's how you highlight the absurdity of the situation.

Ah..  found it.  Still up on the BBC iPlayer for anyone inside the UK (or using a VPN).  Iannucci is the first guest on, about 4 minutes in..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000n7q6/frankie-boyles-new-world-order-series-4-episode-6

 stp 09 Jan 2021
In reply to Roadrunner6:

> These idiots had nazi tattoos, camp auschwitz tops on.

I think you're making the mistake of seeing the whole group as all the same. I'm sure most didn't even see the cop getting killed and some almost certainly would have been against it.. The fact they're neo-nazis has nothing to do with anything, except incite prejudice against them. They should still get a fair trial for what they did and some, or probably several, should be absolutely be done for the murder of the cop - regardless of their unpleasant political persuasions.

The most culpable for the whole thing is Trump and is cronies and they're the ones that haven't even been arrested and will probably get away with it as the rich and powerful usually do.

In reply to jkarran:

> Can a rampaging mob ever really be considered 'unarmed'? It's certainly a credible threat to the lives of those in its way, mobs don't behave like individuals.

Exactly, if you have enough people surging into you they don't even have to behave violently for you to end up dying from crush injuries.

Once they start smashing your head in with a fire extinguisher they are certainly not 'unarmed'.

People get murdered by 'unarmed' mobs all the time.

 wintertree 09 Jan 2021
In reply to jkarran:

> Not least the security.

I think quite a bit was “organised” about the security probably down to which carefully sounded out individuals were in critical locations.

 Roadrunner6 09 Jan 2021
In reply to stp:

They were chanting f*ck the blue.

Huge crowds of people, mob rule takes over.

I've said before I don't think everyone was intent on violence but when scum of the earth are next to you, you should walk Away.

I'm hopeful many will be getting many years in prison.

Post edited at 12:51
 wintertree 09 Jan 2021
In reply to stp:

> The fact they're neo-nazis has nothing to do with anything, except incite prejudice against them. 

Let is not confuse sound judgement with prejudice.

 Mr Lopez 09 Jan 2021
In reply to Big Bruva:

Guess we've found the limitations of the "Masters in Journalism" awarded by Trump University...

 wintertree 09 Jan 2021
In reply to Big Bruva:

> According to Oxford Business Group:

Oh, okay.  I thought seeing as you had claimed relevant understanding from your time there about how we could both be more relaxed to Covid than we are in the UK, and avoid the terrible consequences unfolding around us, that you must have used your training in journalism to really dig in to the details underlying your claim.  It seems you've just googled it though?

Actually it looks like you were just talking crap when suggesting that we could be more relaxed to Covid than we are, somehow without suffering consequences.  Some of the people reading your words on that thread won't have dug in to or understood the impact of the demographic differences, and could have taken a very harmful message away from your words.  

1
 Big Bruva 10 Jan 2021
In reply to wintertree:

Most people on here don't seem to think Stephen Colbert needs to show any journalistic rigor while commenting on politics on national American television. You think I should conduct a full investigation before posting an observation on UKC! Who to heed? Guess I'll just do my own thing...

4
In reply to Big Bruva:

> Most people on here don't seem to think Stephen Colbert needs to show any journalistic rigor 

Rigour (with a u round here),  doesn't mean repeating every phrase that someone says.  It means fairly interpreting events, judging which aspects are important and characterise them, and placing them in context.  One might hope someone with an journalism qualification would know this.

 wintertree 10 Jan 2021
In reply to Big Bruva:

> You think I should conduct a full investigation before posting an observation on UKC! Who to heed? Guess I'll just do my own thing...

No - I am just hinting - clearly with far to much subtly - that despite claiming to have local insight from your time in Egypt in to how we can be more relaxed in our approach to Coronavirus in the UK, that you seem to be totally ignorant of the demographic factors and have no local insight to offer from your time there in to anything which could make it better here.

Instead, you've been on UKC on the eve of a severe crisis telling people we shouldn't worry so much because it's fine in a country, not mentioning that primarily it's because said county doesn't have many older people.

> Most people on here don't seem to think Stephen Colbert needs to show any journalistic rigor while commenting on politics on national American television

Because (a) he is a comedian, (b) you are equating "rigor" with going out of ones way to present the one needle of positivity from a giant, septic haystack of negativity in the apparently mistaken belief that both sides in this are equal and (c) Colbert wasn't significantly downplaying the role of Covid control measures to maintaining broader public health in the UK over the next month.

 wintertree 10 Jan 2021
In reply to MG:

Jinx.  Posted at the same time.

> Rigour (with a u round here), 

I wasn't going to spell it out beyond some quotes, but in retrospect it's probably needed...

 Big Bruva 10 Jan 2021
In reply to MG:

> It means fairly interpreting events, judging which aspects are important and characterise them, and placing them in context.  One might hope someone with an journalism qualification would know this.

Well tbh you don't need a rigorous training in journalism to know that what seems fair to one person is bias to another. Is it important that amidst all Trump's lies and obfuscation, he told his followers he knew they would be peaceful? You might think not, but I'm pretty sure a lot of people think otherwise. 

The problem with "circle jerks" (thanks waitout!) like this thread, is that people are more concerned about being in agreement with each other than they are about having their opinions challenged. Trump in the USA, Brexit in the UK, same story. Personally I think this is a greater threat to democracy than a bunch of people storming Congress and delaying a vote for a few hours.

I stopped watching Colbert's commentary when I realised how selective he was being with his exerpts from the speech. I don't want to have people continually confirming my viewpoint, I want to know what is actually happening out there.

9
In reply to Big Bruva:

WTF are you talking about? Some of us have spent 5+ years arguing with every Brexit' supporter we could find,  unfortunately being on the same team as Cameron was just one challenge too much.

 Big Bruva 10 Jan 2021
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> WTF are you talking about? Some of us have spent 5+ years arguing with every Brexit' supporter we could find,  unfortunately being on the same team as Cameron was just one challenge too much.

Did you ever try to find some common ground with them? Worth a shot!

Also, it's not clear whether you're in Cameron's team or if the Brexit supporters you were arguing with are?

4
In reply to Big Bruva:

The arguments were always a bit asymmetric - Remainers consistently said the EU was imperfect, in need of reform, had made mistakes that needed to be resolved. Brexiters, to a man (and woman) , had only one argument - OUT! - and one volume setting - 11.

Post edited at 17:13
In reply to Big Bruva:

>.... people are more concerned about being in agreement with each other than they are about having their opinions challenged. ..... I think this is a greater threat to democracy than a bunch of people storming Congress ...

It's a point a view.  A barking mad one, but there we are. (you have also not spent much time round here if you think everyone agree with each other)

> I stopped watching Colbert's commentary when I realised how selective he was being with his exerpts from the speech. I don't want to have people continually confirming my viewpoint, 

You stopped watching because he didn't confirm your viewpoint but you don't want your viewpoint confirmed. Got it.

Post edited at 17:55
 Big Bruva 10 Jan 2021
In reply to MG:

> You stopped watching because he didn't confirm your viewpoint but you don't want your viewpoint confirmed. Got it.

Can tell me what my viewpoint on Trump is, with evidence?

ps. love the way you edited my comment! I can't imagine a better way of supporting my argument. 

Post edited at 18:36
2
In reply to Big Bruva:

> Can tell me what my viewpoint on Trump is, with evidence?

Well you obviously think he means it when he says  "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" or you wouldn't spend endless posts arguing it was terrible a comedian didn't include this in his material.  Similarly you obviously don't think he means all the other incitement he spouts or you wouldn't be so worked up that people are focuson this.

In reply to Big Bruva:

> ps. love the way you edited my comment! I can't imagine a better way of supporting my argument. 

Edited to highlight the aspect I was commenting on.  You seem to be confusing stenography and journalism (and discussion forums).

 Big Bruva 10 Jan 2021
In reply to MG:

MG, it's possible to make a point about media bias towards someone, even if you think that person is a lying scumbag. I used to find Colbert's media bias entertaining, now I find it tiresome. I don't think it's done anything to subdue populist, alt-right tendancies. I actually think it aggravates them. As someone said above, give people the facts and let them make their minds up.

(In your own words) "Got it?"

6
 Big Bruva 10 Jan 2021
In reply to MG:

> Edited to highlight the aspect I was commenting on.  

And in doing so you changed the meaning of my comment!

4
In reply to Big Bruva:

> And in doing so you changed the meaning of my comment!

Except I didn't.  It may be you don't like what you said being picked up on, but that it is different.

In reply to Big Bruva:

>. As someone said above, give people the facts and let them make their minds up.

So no satire, comedy, drama, historical novels, opinion pieces etc etc?

The idea spewing out endless "facts" is useful for anything really is nonsense It's how they are interpreted and understood which is important.

Post edited at 19:11
 Big Bruva 10 Jan 2021
In reply to MG:

> So no satire, comedy, drama, historical novels, opinion pieces etc etc?

Actually, yes, all that and more. I don't think it's even possible to eliminate bias in the media. But when someone points that bias out, you don't have to be in denial about it just because it doesn't fit your own opinion.

5

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.