Political Polarization

[MoreFeasts]

1) There are more than two viewpoints on most issues
2) Stewart is much more likely to mock the hyperbole and theater than the actual position (well, unless the position itself is completely nutty, such as Akin's comments on rape). He will occasionally editorialize against a position, though, in support of another one.

Hey , I was the one who brought up alt viewpoints, so don't throw that back at me like I am not aware. However, if John is mocking one viewpoint, he is supporting the opposite viewpoint, whether he means to or not. Admit it , damn it!

Your point 2 is subtle, that may be the case sometimes, but my point applies often enough that it should not be disgarded.

 

[The Black Swordsman]

What Chesterton said almost 100 years ago is even more relevant today.

"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected."

 

[One Brow]

Hey , I was the one who brought up alt viewpoints, so don't throw that back at me like I am not aware. However, if John is mocking one viewpoint, he is supporting the opposite viewpoint, whether he means to or not. Admit it , damn it!

You want me to admit he is supporting something you say doesn't exist? Hmmm...

 

[MoreFeasts]

Positions have opposites. The opposite is as real as the opposite of the opposite.

 

[One Brow]

Positions have opposites. The opposite is as real as the opposite of the opposite.

1) Opposites only exist in the presence of a clearly defined middle point. Few political issues have one.
2) Sometimes, both opposites are bad. Assuming you view totalitarianism and anarchy as opposite, criticizing the feasibility of a complete lack of government is not support for having a dictator.

 

[MoreFeasts]

Regarding (1) You're wrong. Mocking takes a side, attacking one side, and supporting it's opposite. Opposites do exist with most of John Stewart's mockings.

I never said anything opposing part (2).

At this point we could get into the nitty gritty of the semantics of the word "opposite". I submit to you that a more accurate opposite of being in favor of totalitarianism is being against totalitarianism.

 

[Stoked]

1) Opposites only exist in the presence of a clearly defined middle point. Few political issues have one.
2) Sometimes, both opposites are bad. Assuming you view totalitarianism and anarchy as opposite, criticizing the feasibility of a complete lack of government is not support for having a dictator.

#1 Seems to be a silly distinction given what you are discussing.

#2 I agree that sometimes the polar opposites are both bad.

 

[Gameface]

John Stewart is the king of "It's true because it's funny" in my opinion. I appreciate pointing and laughing as much as the next guy but I don't see John Stewart as particularly insightful.

 

[Stoked]

John Stewart is the king of "It's true because it's funny" in my opinion. I appreciate pointing and laughing as much as the next guy but I don't see John Stewart as particularly insightful.

I just don't care for him to much. I like Colbert much more

 

[One Brow]

John Stewart is the king of "It's true because it's funny" in my opinion. I appreciate pointing and laughing as much as the next guy but I don't see John Stewart as particularly insightful.

I agree. I tend to agree with Stewart's politics, and he's not stupid, but I would never refer to him as a leader or as someone with true positive contributions.

 

[One Brow]

Regarding (1) You're wrong. Mocking takes a side, attacking one side, and supporting it's opposite. Opposites do exist with most of John Stewart's mockings.

I never said anything opposing part (2).

At this point we could get into the nitty gritty of the semantics of the word "opposite". I submit to you that a more accurate opposite of being in favor of totalitarianism is being against totalitarianism.

I'm not going to try to convince you of 1). "Mocking takes a side, attacking one side, and supporting it's opposite." is opposing what I said in 2). However, I'm sure you don't see it that way, and the limits of the human capacity for cognitive dissonance knows no bounds.