|homogenousemptytime - 2016-08-27 |
Pickles = strong leader
No pickles = unfit to be president
|Anaxagoras - 2016-08-27 |
He spend 7.5 minutes on this? Really?
Wouldn't that be, um, 7 point...uh...
Let me just use my fingers here...
7...point...eight...three? Since it was 50 seconds into an eighth minute, rather than thirty, which would be .5 or 1/2 of a minute?
I genuinely think I may have dyscalculia. This took me like four minutes to figure out, and I probably got it wrong.
(Otherwise, your point is entirely correct. What the hell, AJ, don't you have some new chemtrails sighting to report on?)
|Cube - 2016-08-27 |
If evolution was real, there should be a new life form inside the can.
|EvilHomer - 2016-08-27 |
Hillary Clinton is elderly and very likely in poor health, which (as with McCain in 2008) is causing concern amongst undecided voters.
Jimmy Kimmel, a man known for producing shallow, deceptive, soft-ball propaganda, invites Hillary Clinton onto his entertainment show for a night of shallow, deceptive, soft-ball propaganda.
Alex Jones deconstructs Mr Kimmel's show, pointing out a few reasons to suspect the pickle jar segment is shallow, deceptive, soft-ball propaganda.
So I guess my question is: where's the problem here?
Do those who object to Mr Jones' observations believe that Mr Kimmel's segment was *unscripted*, and Hillary *legitimately* opened a stuck pickle jar on network television? Or do those who object to Mr Jones' observation do so because they mistakenly believe that the important issue here IS the pickle jar, and not the underlying question of Mrs Clinton's health (and thus her fitness to serve as President)?
Another thought: if Alex Jones were replaced with Jon Stewart or, better still, Charlie Brooker (both of whom are well-known for criticizing deceptive mainstream media segments), would people still have the same reaction to this?
Please expand on that, Mr Kamlem.
I am assuming that you are trying to imply both Brooker and Leibowitz would let Jimmy Kimmel's behavior slide. Jon Stewart might, but only because he himself is a partisan entertainer in the same business as Kimmel and Jones; Jon has never, to my knowledge, shown any reluctance whatsoever in pointing out the faults with Republican propaganda that might be masquerading as entertainment. And Brooker, being an Englishman, has no such horse in this race; in point of fact, most of his work on the Wipe series consists of him being a principled curmudgeon and "not getting jokes" from an entertainment program. His own show wouldn't work, otherwise.
But this is irrelevant - my question is not *would they* attack Jimmy Kimmel (they would not and would, respectively), but rather, *if* they did, would your appraisal of the situation change at all? It is a thought experiment about the structure of the narrative, rather than the particulars - so if you'd prefer, you may feel free to change 'Jimmy Kimmel' and 'Hillary' for something else. Perhaps you could envision the following: Donald Trump shows up on Alex Jones' show, downs a handful of Nutraceuticals, and, using his colloidal-silver-enhanced superstrength, tears the top half off of a nearby flaming oil barrel. Then, Jon Stewart examines the footage and points out a number of inconsistencies - the sound is wrong, the person doing the tearing may have been a stunt double, the barrel is clearly made out of styrofoam, etc. Picture ANY propaganda-joke-deconstruction scenario you like. The specifics do not matter, only the pattern of argumentation.
Furthermore, by admitting that the pickle jar segment is 'only' a joke, and that Kimmel's show is 'merely' entertainment, you are evidently conceding Mr Jones' core contention: that the pickle jar segment was fake, and does not show what it purports to show (Hillary Clinton's good health). Is that a fair assessment of your position?
This whole 'Clinton is actually horribly ill with multiple diseases' conspiracy theory has gained some disturbing legs the last few months. I mean, various people have been attacking her for decades, long enough that I, as a fucking Canadian (the best kind) have been defending her on a basically instinctual level since I was a child, just based on some recognition that the sheer amount of vitriol aimed at her was tantamount to the same bullying mindset I was on the receiving end of.
But now, out of seemingly nowhere, now members of the alt-right are diagnosing her with epilepsy, alzheimers, claiming seizures and facial tics and slurred speech where there isn't any. From what I can tell, she stumbled on some stairs once, years ago, and her team of doctors have given her a clean bill of health for a woman her age.
And now even everyday trolls like EH are latching onto it, just like idiots have been mindlessly repeating the attacks put out on her for those aforementioned decades.
Geez. And I don't even really LIKE her all that much, but the people lined up against her...well, hell.
...It's a fucking late night talk show bit. Sometimes a late night bit is just a late night bit.
I would put Stephen Hawking in her place in a heartbeat, I don't care if he makes it six months only to be replaced by Vice President Sexy Nurse.
It's the content of the human mind that is the origin of the diseases and ailments that I live to see unfold in our world.
In a colony of brain lepers, don't expect well put together politics.
stephen hawking is going to outlive us all, the fucker.
"Furthermore, by admitting that the pickle jar segment is 'only' a joke, and that Kimmel's show is 'merely' entertainment, you are evidently conceding Mr Jones' core contention: that the pickle jar segment was fake, and does not show what it purports to show (Hillary Clinton's good health). Is that a fair assessment of your position?"
That is exactly my position, but that is not the core contention of AJ. His core contention is that it is a conspiracy. It is a set up joke, or what passes for one, on an entertainment program.
Edith Wilson was the first woman president.
Kamlem - from what I understand, Mr Jones is alleging that there are two "conspiracies" (our term, not his) at work here.
One is the "conspiracy" by Jimmy Kimmel and Hillary's press manager to fake a pickle-jar-opening, in order to dismiss health allegations and bolster her support amongst the television-watching public. And on this point, Alex is correct. The pickle-jar-opening was a staged event, completely fake, and most (if not all) of us are perfectly happy to concede this point to Alex and the Infowars team.
The second "conspiracy" is the allegation, put forward by Mr Jones and by others, that Mr Clinton's campaign team has been conspiring to keep her health problems a secret (Kimmel's "pickle-jar psyop" being merely one instance of this). The health allegations may or may not be true, but the weight of publicly-available evidence is currently against her, so Alex may well be correct on this point, too.
To put it another way, is a conspiracy theory a "conspiracy theory", if it is true? And what does it say about us, if we, ourselves, feel compelled to fault a "conspiracy theorist" for pointing out the truth?
SDC - There is nothing ironic about my autism. :/
|Xenocide - 2016-08-27 |
We all knew the "women are too weak to be president" argument would worm its way into the right's talking points somehow, but I'll admit this is a pretty clever way of going about it.
I'm surprised they haven't talked about how periods would make a woman president start a war.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|