I enjoyed this bit and I’m glad to see Jon Stewart dare to speak a modicum of sense through a medium that’s been dedicated to nonsense as of late. I’d rather hear what he REALLY has to say, but the Stephen Colbert show is not a forum for that sort of thing. We get to instead experience the equally entertaining Jon Stewart crafting jokes that won’t get him cancelled…
Not now, at least. I wonder, would he get the same reaction if he did the same bit exactly one year ago?
My biggest disagreement with Mr. Stewart is who we owe the debt of gratitude to. We owe it to the children more than anyone.
He made some good jokes too. Everyone should watch this. If you can’t find humor somewhere, seek help, OR BLINK TWICE.
Its funny. It was included in the Crowders show yesterday and half the segment was about it. I recommend seeing it as well, because Crowder rised the same questions you did and tried to answer them.
Great clip! It’s important to figure out where the virus originated, but once the virus was in the open in Wuhan there was a coverup by the Chinese government that cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars. They can’t bring back dead people, so they should be held accountable for it financially.
Whether the virus was manmade or occurred naturally doesn’t mean much in terms of accountability.
I like Crowder and I’ll have to check that episode out. I’ve been listening to Dan Carlin’s new Hardcore History on my commute this week. I first heard about this bit from Mike Rowe.
As much as I liked hearing a mainstream comedian joke about reality, the entire affair struck me as a contrived exercise to let the air out of the woke crowd featuring someone the wokesters generally consider to be one of their own.
That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it is a sad thing.
As I alluded to, we CANNOT forget that this same bit would have gotten you banned from most social media a year ago. If anyone has any doubts about the good intentions of social media information gatekeepers, let this example illustrate the fact that they are nothing more than small minded hacks for the Democrats.
If you believe the intentions behind this censorship were good, we at least know that their judgement is absolutely abysmal. Nobody should have been banned for discussing this or any other topic.
More and more is trickling out that demonstrates that the establishment reaction to Trump was far, far worse than anything Trump ever did. The draconian restrictions on speech imposed by social media in behalf of the Democrats are an affront to free expression. They must go.
Let us reflect on all of the fact free media narratives everyone who hated Trump took at face value and ridiculed and slandered anyone who dared question them. People were banned, canceled, called racist and fascist for even questioning the latest 5 minutes of hate.
Trump was right. Section 230 needs new language. We cannot tolerate a Ministry of Truth in any shape or form.
I chose the title I did because Jon Stewart seems to be pulling the pendulum back to the middle once again, just like he did during the Bush 43 era. Now he just needs to hit the gas a little harder.
He’s late to the party, but better late than never.
That was hilarious. But he did start off saying i’ve been vaccinated and we all been vaccinated and I don’t have to worry about catching coronavirus…… he’s wrong. Fully vaccinated people still die and end up in the hospital. Just saying as funny as it is, he still spread false info.
What’s truly scary is the only way you can come across some of the people banned on Twitter is on America’s number one radio stations and number one news channels. And numerous websites and social media platforms on the internet. They’ve been truly silenced.
Even worse would be posting on one of the longest running and most popular fitness sites on the web with a history of banning people for violating their terms and services. I should be able to link all the competitors products and pimp them. Don’t hamper my speech t-nation. Can I at least talk repeatedly about killing the Vice President if he won’t overthrow an election? Or how about we make detailed plans on here to burn T-Nation headquarters to the ground and set meeting times because Plazma’s been out of stock some. I mean they won’t ban us for that will they? We have free speech and anything should go on here.
I’m in favor of having websites make their own terms and conditions if they would like. Do you think T-Nation should be forced to allow you to post everything? You’re using a form of social media right now. Forums are actually the OG’s. And the vast majority of them have moderation and have had for years.
I’m also in favor of websites not having rules if that’s what they prefer.
Heard of it but doubt I’ve ever been there. Maybe once long ago. President Trump right now could get an interview on the most popular news site in America and a plethora of the most popular radio hosts in the nation. He can post on an unreal amount of blogs, forums, and social media platforms. I guess I don’t view it as the end or the world that he can’t send a tweet.
I see, so I’ll chalk you up in the pro social media censorship camp.
What would you say the biggest benefit of their actions has been?
No, and I’ve never suggested as such.
Do you believe AT&T should be legally allowed to listen to your phone calls and deny you use of their platform if they find your conversations objectionable?
If not, what makes you think about social media differently?
If I’m misrepresenting your opinion, feel free to clearly state one. You spent an awful lot of words that seemed to indicate my concerns of social media censorship are misplaced.
Yet you also seem to take offense when I conclude you are in favor of social media censorship.
I’ll try again. Do you believe social media ought to retain section 230 protections from lawsuits while also clearly acting on behalf of Democrats by censoring political opponents, up to and including a sitting President?
If so, why?
Again do you also believe AT&T should actively monitor conversations on their platform and deny service at their discretion?
If not, why do you see the situations differently?
To help you understand why they are different under the current legal framework, AT&T could and would be sued and probably charged with a crime if someone working there did what I described.
TV, radio and print news do not enjoy section 230 protections, and are thus liable for what they publish. This is why Nick Sandaman is a very wealthy young man who can afford all of the MAGA hats he wants.
Do you believe Facebook, Twitter et al are keeping with the neutral spirit of section 230 as drafted in 1997? What say you, are they neutral platforms or selective publishers?
I think you’re ignoring what I’m saying and missing key points or ignoring them intentionally because you want to talk about something else.
You’re fine using a website with terms and conditions that limits your speech already. Why can T-Nation ban you over violating terms but Twitter can’t?
I just agreed with you. Web sites should not be free of any moderation. Just like free speech is not unlimited.
I’m not arguing for no terms at all. Im arguing that section 230 is antiquated. When it was drafted zero percent of people got their news from social media. It didn’t exist.
Today an overwhelming majority of people do.
If you want to talk about this, please don’t gloss over the important and pertinent questions I asked that you ignored.
If you want to discuss it with one liners lacking any depth or understanding of the issue, you might enjoy Twitter.
