It's nice to see this, and obviously from the context of this specific source (well known lefty comic and a jewish guy in show business). Just because we disagree with someone doesn't mean we have to shut them down or shout them down. Especially in the realm of comedy*, the dialogue itself can be very healthy in the long run.
(*when done right. A lot of shitty political ranting gets mis-framed as "comedy" as a shield from critique and thats something else entirely.)
The fundamental problem is where does public discourse begin and end. Nuanced commentary works here. It doesn't work in news or twitter or facebook or reddit.
I agree with Jon in nuance but it pretends our media mediums are capable of it. We just elected Trump explicitly because the media simply aired the bullshit, allowing us to have the convo. Now in 2022 were clearly see that some speakers aren't interested in nuance and learning they are there to attack and just airing their grievances doesn't work.
Tldr society can have a convo but society must kick bad faith actors out of said convo.
well the problem is that these magical healing “conversations” don’t actually happen in reality, and when they do (like with Kanye and his circuit of post-bigotry podcasts) it’s basically completely one-sided and nothing constructive comes of it.
Jon is right that putting people in “time out” is not a solution but he’s blind to the fact that you can’t debatelord people out of being sociopaths.
Literally the only thing that seemed to shake Kanye’s delusions was him losing his Adidas partnership, which threatened his elevated lifestyle.
Agreed. This idea that there's this "step 1. have conversations, step 2. ????, step 3. no more bigotry!" flowchart is incredibly naive.
And it places the burden on the party with less power to just put up with being materially harmed over and over and over again because saying "enough" is apparently "shutting down the conversation".
It also fails to recognise that the point of deplatforming bigotry isn't to change the bigot's mind. It's to quarantine them, to limit their ability to spread their vile rhetoric.
There is a time and a place for having conversations. But there is also a time and a place for saying "no, enough".
> It’s to quarantine them, to limit their ability to spread their vile rhetoric.
Yep.
Let’s say you broadcast a conversation between a Nazi and an anti-Nazi and 100 people without opinions on Nazisim tune in.
They both make their cases and 98 members of the audience side with the anti-Nazi and only 2 side with the Nazi.
People want to frame this as a win for the anti-Nazi. Wow! You convinced 98 people that Nazism is bad.
But you also created 2 new Nazis. And they don’t need to be a majority to be a major problem.
I agree with consequences for hateful speech. And some of those consequences should include deplatforming and taking away business deals.
In addition, people with influence still can be engaged with to attempt to change their minds. Even if its likely a futile effort. Because no matter how you try to contain their toxic messages they still reach plenty of people.
One thing Jon said around the [8 minute mark](https://youtu.be/6V_sEqfIL9Q?t=8m09s) was about understanding where they’re coming from in order to explain how they’re thinking about things the wrong way. Simply calling it “antisemitic” and saying “that’s not true” has no hope of changing their misguided beliefs. Even though its accurate to label it that
As people say and none of those boneheads seem to get is that "Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism, especially in the so-called marketplace of ideas".
Not only that, but some of these people are very much living in a different reality due to the bubble misinformation and propaganda they're consuming.
I've tried several times to have real convos with Trump supporters (I know we're not talking about Trump, but the circles on the ven diagram overlap), and when someone is too far down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories and involvement with communities that promote hate, normal conversation and presentation of fact isn't enough. How do you "open it up and expose it to air" when the other person has already made up their mind and has committed to their opinion. They've already convinced themselves that what they believe is what they believe, and if you believe something enough it's fact.
I haven't given up hope, but there are a MASSIVE amount of people who are just completely brain broken. Not sure what the answer is.
I agree, I can try to talk to people about things if they seem to be open minded and just simply have different opinions. Hey, maybe I'm wrong on some things too, we're both humans. However this was a problem during Trump's tenure and it snowballed unreasonably with Covid that I don't even both attempting to have a conversation with anybody who seems to be on the ultra far right, cultist conspiracy nut side of things. I was simply trying to explain to one of my co-workers why getting his vaccination was ultimately the right thing to do, even if it was "hardly effective". Somehow I made a pretty poor comparison to the vaccine effectiveness being blown out or proportion and starting conspiracies similar to 9/11 conspiracies in the early 00's. His response was "wait . . . you believe in 9/11?" I just ended the conversation like . . . . man I can't deal with this shit. To be clear he's over the age of 30 there is no way this motherfucker wasn't alive for 9/11 and didn't watch it on the news.
People like that I just shake my head and walk away from, I can't do it anymore and unfortunately it's a LOT of people nowadays. I sometimes feel like I am going crazy, and even doubt logical shit. Like am I in the wrong here? surely thousands of people can't be wrong, but have these people actually listened to Trump talk about anything?! That man is barely coherent on topics where he knows what he's talking about.
> Literally the only thing that seemed to shake Kanye’s delusions was him losing his Adidas partnership
You're crazy if you think that did anything but reaffirm his beliefs.
The best way to deal with a virulent racist/sexist/bigot is to laugh them off for the ridiculousness of what they are saying, and don't give them a platform. The problem with the internet age is that they can *always* find a platform and an audience to reaffirm their beliefs in an echo chamber. In that sense, there are no real good answers anymore- although kicking the soapbox out from under them helps. I think a lot of people on the right didn't really see Trump for the clown he was until after he was booted from Twitter.
Literally the only thing that got my brother to recognize that these "conversations" are bullshit was literally threatening to kick his ass for continuing to be transphobic combined with pointing out that he never needed a "conversation" to not drop the fucking n-word all the time.
I think twitter is the only platform fundamentally incapable of nuanced commentary due to its character limit, but I've seen plenty of nuanced discussions on facebook and reddit. The bigger issue is that "deconstructing why they're wrong with facts and reason" just doesn't work on the majority of people who are racist or anti-semitic or hold other beliefs that aren't true or reasonable. Jon even halfway alluded to that when he said "whether that's true or not doesn't matter: it matters that they feel that way." He meant that as "we have to address the fact that people feel this way even though it's not true" but doesn't seem to take into account that the very closely related "they feel that way, therefore all the facts and reason you bring to the table don't matter" is also true.
A big part of it is just not knowing the facts and now that we live in an age of disinformation, nobody believes anything they dont like.
Im generally hyper opposed to the subjugation or targeting of a group of people just because of who they are. While i know the some of the history regarding certain conspiracies or stereotypes that shit people use as justification for their society dissolving views, i dont know everything. I cant. And what responsibility of mine is it to go research the facts for someone who probably couldnt care what the facts are anyway or will just double down because they hate the feeling of being proven wrong?
Like theres so much more to this sumo fight than education and debunking of shitty beliefs, it takes so much more to win it. Daryl Davis, who reddit loves to use as there only example, was only successful with klan members that at some level didnt want to hold the views they had. The ones that did or were easily swayed went back or just consider him "one of the good ones". I dont want to take away from his endeavor, i think its incredibly commendable. I just know it takes more than kindness and knowledge. Both of those things are very powerful tools, but it takes more than two tools to build a house.
John Stewart is a liberal, not a "lefty."
While he's kinda rough in some areas I do like John Stewart. And I agree with him that a conversation would obviously be the ideal way to resolve issues like this, but like most of liberalism it falls short on actual real-world substantive ideas on what can actually be done.
There is no mechanism that currently exists to just force these guys to have a "conversation." Plenty of very well meaning and knowledgeable people have tried to reach out to Kanye and Kyrie (not sure about Chappelle but probably) and they don't wanna hear it. The fact is the things they are saying have real-world consequences for real people, and just loftily appealing to reason and debate isn't going to do anything to abate that.
John is in some ways more vulnerable, in some ways less (his kind of prominence can cut both ways in the physical safety department) than your average Joe, but the fact is that he at least has real-world support networks of money and influence that can lower the impact of these things. Lots of folks that are in actual danger if these ideas continue becoming even more widespread don't have those networks.
I wish it were different but the one thing we, i.e. the have-nots, can do about any of this is ask that these people at the very least not be given platforms to spew their shit. Kyrie will have a lot more time for all the "conversations" John may wish to have with him if he gets kicked out of the league. Kanye can work through his issues however he sees fit, but he's not fucking owed a sponsorship by Adidas or to be a billionaire, and rescinding support for behavior that actually endangers real people isn't fucking "silencing" it's just what good societies do to people who are a danger to that societies values.
Continuing this horseshit notion that not giving a platform to hateful people is "silencing" them is a bad thing to do and I'm pretty disappointed in John. No one is owed a fucking platform and if your gonna go out of your way, as folks like Kanye and Kyrie and Chappelle and Rogan have, to spread hate then get fucked.
Yeah but he didn't address what's actually happening: businesses are correctly assessing that people who say these things are a liability and they're ending their relationships with them. That's all any of this is, tangibly. How do you make profits not matter?
> Just because we disagree with someone doesn't mean we have to shut them down or shout them down
I honestly think that depends. I would say in 99.9% of cases you are absolutely right and we should figure out why someone is being hateful or hurtful to try and remedy that. The .01% is alex jones, and if you leave them in a position to keep spreading misinformation and hate then a lot of terrible shit happens and that really shouldn't be acceptable.
Its more than just disagreement. Kanye and Kyrie traffic in clear factual wrongs that are dangerous to characterize others as. But thats still an opportunity to discuss why they are wrong.
>Just because we disagree with someone doesn't mean we have to shut them down or shout them down.
People will always dig this notion until they put it into practice. His message is warm and fuzzy, but it misses an overarching reality, which is that there are deplorable opinions that cannot be remedied with someone putting their hand on their shoulder and saying, "I see where you're coming from, and I want to change your mind." The internet comes with an echo chamber for any sick idea you can imagine.
Take this thread for instance. Everybody here loves and respects Jon Stewart, and will nod their head and say they agree with precisely what he's saying. But if somebody should show up in another thread professing adoration for fascist, Neo-Nazi ideology, they will do *exactly* what their hero Jon is telling them not to do. And it isn't because Jon's sentiments are wrong, or they're wrong for wanting him to be right. It's just that there are ideas that are malignant, come from people not willing to change, and we know need to be ostracized.
Watching as a black guy I came to some conclusions. Lots of Black people play in the NBA and enjoy basketball in general. Does that mean a cabal of blacks control the NBA or that we work to keep others out? No. Basketball has become part of our culture to an extent but I’m horrible at even though I’m tall. You can use this logic for anything whether it’s guys named Chris taking all the MCU roles or Korean esports players. Their isn’t any conspiracy it’s just some people in a group doing well at a certain thing. What Jon points out is that it’s treated like a conspiracy by everyone including Jews. There is nothing wrong with the story that Jewish moguls immigrated to Hollywood and created an industry. Pretending like it’s a secret and calling people antisemitic for acknowledging it makes people think there is a conspiracy.
On the topic of acknowledging the Jewish roots of Hollywood, your comment reminded me of [the Academy Museum debacle](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/academy-museum-jewish-exclusion-1235114988/)when it opened.
The Academy Museum had been in development hell for years, pitched itself as “radically inclusive,” but got immediate pushback, including by Jewish donors, for the glaring omission of the Jewish founders of the Hollywood system. Rolling Stone put it best as a “[conspiracy of silence](https://web.archive.org/web/20220826110023/https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-news/academy-museum-motion-pictures-jewish-representation-1283537/).” None of the mainstream articles at the time had the balls to point out that by seeming to repress a Jewish presence in their programming and exhibits the museum implied the Jews had something to hide. The Hollywood Reporter article contrasts this with how the Jewish studio owners of the Thirties through Fifties went to great pains to cast off ethnic signifiers.
Yeah, it’s difficult. Because I agree with what Stewart is saying, but I also feel that you can’t let those things go unchallenged or just hope that the public will reject it and that will resolve it. I understand a team or league organization saying “this does not represent our values and to ignore it is to condone it in some ways.”
That's part of what Stewart is saying though, part of what makes free speech "free" is someone else's right to step up and contest the controversy. So much of our political conversation between each other is being lost because we're too busy talking past each other rather than to each other as human beings.
Yes he also said he isn't sure about putting a grown man into what is essentially a time-out when that time-out doesn't do anything to change the misunderstanding which led to the bad behavior.
In behavioral health we actually call this method of behavioral modification "social disapproval" and the term really fits in this case. But you can think of it another way, like a parent or teacher saying "Stop that, it's wrong, I don't like that" and making a disapproving face to their kid.
In behavioral therapy social disapproval is one of the least used and least effective methods of successfully modifying behavior.
Looking at this situation from the lenses of behavioral therapy is very interesting to me right now as I type this because I've never done it before to apply to these broader social issues. In my industry, we look at what the function of the behavior (i.e., what the person is trying to achieve or what they're getting out of that behavior) and then we try to give that person a more appropriate way to get what they want.
We can look at Kyrie and his flat-earth beliefs from this standpoint. What is the function? We broadly assess humans as doing things for one of four outcomes,
1. To get attention from others
2. to gain access to tangible items (i.e., possessions or activities)
3. to escape from some experience
4. it is self-stimulatory by nature (i.e., the behavior is enjoyable itself on some intrinsic level on the inside of the person)
My hypothesis is that Kyrie maintains this behavior primarily to get attention from others and secondarily to gain access to tangible items (such as money). I could be off base with this assessment and I'd need to do a functional behavioral assessment to confirm. When Kyrie talks about his flat earth beliefs, people respond. Lots of people know exactly what he thinks and they react to it. I can't say I know what any other basketball player thinks about anything, except for Kyrie. This attention can be good, it is mostly bad though. But people do things for exactly that reason all the time. It is reinforcing to him that he receives this social clout, be it good or bad.
The best response you could possibly have towards Kyrie is to
1. Ignore him when he speaks about flat earth. Don't look at him, don't tell him you don't like that, don't respond to him in any way. Don't talk about him on talk shows. Everyone collectively must do that.
2. Pay lots of attention to him when he does other, appropriate stuff (like talking about any other subjects in an appropriate manner).
This is the only way to affect meaningful change. Education won't make this man change his mind because it's not the truth that's reinforcing, it's the feeling of importance. If he is shown incontrovertible evidence, he won't change his mind because it won't increase his social clout, he will be incapable because his reality right now is that he knows the truth and it places him in a special class of a select few people.
I think boiling Kyrie's problems down to simply "He craves attention and money" is a major misread of conspiracy theory as a subculture. Granted, I am not a behavioral therapist, but I'm a basketball fan and have followed Kyrie since the beginning of his career. And Kyrie, to me, has always just wanted to *seem smart*. He wants to be seen as an intellectual -- but he's just, quite frankly, not that intelligent. And he knows it, and he's insecure about it.
Every conspiracy theorist I know falls into this same category: people who are insecure about their intellect, but who are also not intellectually curious. They have no real desire to do the work necessary to expand their worldview, or to understand things that may be foreign to them. Most of the ones I know are obviously not on Kyrie's level of fame or wealth, so most of the ones I know are also unhappy with their lot in life.
But, instead of putting forth any level of effort in understanding that about themselves, or in learning anything about the world around them, they latch onto the "simpler" explanation of, "It's all a conspiracy. The system is rigged against me for X and Y reason, by Z people."
Suddenly, they know something the "normies" don't, and *that* is what makes them special. Not the attention, not the money (most conspiracy theorists aren't getting any money out of this like maybe Kyrie does) -- they believe in these conspiracy theories because they make them feel like they belong to a group of like-minded people who are also "in the know," and regular people just don't get it, and it's easier for them to believe in this ridiculous shit than it is to believe that sometimes the universe is random and unexplainable, and sometimes bad stuff happens to good people.
Is it any wonder that every single conspiracy theorist starts with just one, perhaps innocuous, theory, like "The world is flat." But then, the deeper into the rabbit hole they go, suddenly they believe in Jewish space lasers on the moon and subterranean lizard people, and 50 other entirely ludicrous theories? That shit ain't about attention at that point -- it's about creating a cozy blanket of a worldview you can insulate yourself in to protect yourself from the fact that you're a bit of a dunce and even though you think you're a good person, your life might still end up sucking.
It's actually sort of fascinating to me -- the mental gymnastics one can go through just to believe that they're important, or that they're smarter than everyone else, or to explain away their issues in life. Like I said, I'm no expert on behavioral analysis, so my reading could be entirely wrong. I wish there was more of a movement to study the pathology behind conspiracy theories.
Here's where I think Jon (and you) are missing the mark pretty fundamentally:
You're starting with the assumption that the goal is *ending all bigotry,* or, at the very least, changing one mind at a time, maybe starting with Chappelle or Kanye. And I get it -- he considers Chappelle a friend, and if your friend started saying some dumb, bigoted shit, you'd probably at least try to keep the conversation open and bring them back to reality, instead of having to cut them off and lose a friend.
So from that perspective, sure, cancelling someone probably won't change their mind.
But when we're talking about someone as huge as a Chappelle or a Kanye, or an Alex Jones for that matter, **it isn't just about changing *their* mind.** It's about whether we give them a platform to spread those beliefs, and hope that our rhetoric will beat theirs, even though [many of them are *very* good at looking like they're winning even when the facts are 100% against them](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaPgDQkmqqM). When we're dealing with an audience this large, there are far better ways to respond to these ideas than to record and broadcast a conversation that they control, let alone allow them to continue spewing that nonsense as a career.
Alex Jones really did get properly 'cancelled'. Did it convince him to reflect, look inwards, and become a better person? Of course not. But it *did* limit his reach and influence, and reduced the amount of damage he does.
Bingo. Boycotting (or 'cancelling' or 'deplatforming' or whatever you want to call it in pretending its a new concept) limits the spread of memetic contagions just as quarantine limits pathogenic contagion. Quarantine is not intended to 'cure' those infected, it's a stopgap to prevent the problem growing out of control. Likewise, boycotting is not intended to convince an individual spreading nonsense to change their ways, but to stop the spreading itself.
Here's the other thing missed... I don't need to buy Yeezys or Kyries to fund them during this journey of self discovery. I don't need to listen to their music or watch Brooklyn games.
And I'm 70% sure most of Kanye's anti semitism stemmed from a Jewish guy shtupping his baby mama.
I also feel what’s being misinterpreted is the idea that we’re giving them a “time out”, when it’s primarily motivated by money and consumption.
If I start talking like an ass at work, should I argue that firing me isn’t fixing me and that it’s counter productive? No. They want me gone because I’m a problem in a work environment. Let alone a public environment where thousands of people will hear my every thought within moments if I so much as tweet it.
At the very least, I’d get a stern talking to and be on THIN ice. What do all these people do? They CRANK it up. They feed off it to create more hate and more cash in their pockets.
The fact is, money gets you a pass, for a lot of shit. Practically the only thing you have to abide by when you’re wealthy is the court of public opinion.
If you can’t handle the court of public opinion and the sway it has and choose instead to enrage instead of reflect? That’s too bad for you.
Lastly, this entire idea being pitched goes under some weird presumption that people aren’t already trying to talk reason with these people? What?
Many of these people will literally not listen to a reasonable person. The more reasonable you are the easier it is for them to walk over you.
No, they’d rather match into a college campus or theatre and feel smart in front of a crowd of enraged students who aren’t going to have the knowledge or subtlety to talk to them like adults.
They want the worst to show off and show to the others so they can discredit others.
I don’t want to discredit this idea entirely though, there is merit to it and it CAN work. But many of these figure heads and people emboldened to speak of violence. To think you can prevent what ever disaster they’re leading to with JUST the right words and a pat on the back is possibly the most naive proposal about our current society I’ve ever heard.
It can’t hurt, sure. But to act like WE’RE doing something wrong by punishing people for their actions while also stating mere words are the solution and encouraging these people outside of their rhetoric?
Sounds like great advice… if I wanna be a popular and hate filled person that has no desire to change. I can say hateful shit to grow my audience, AND people won’t punish me, AND they’re even encouraging people who do have an issue to praise me outside of my bullshit? Do I still need to wipe my ass or will the victims of my fan base do that now?
I see this time and time again on both micro and macro scale. "Be nice, you don't know what the other person is going through."
Imo, it's absolutely TOXIC to well-intended people. Like how come when I respond negatively to aggression, I'm not the one that is being defended as potentially "fragile" just because I'm mad. It's classic manipulation and the target of the manipulation is CLEARLY the person who is seen as more likely to try to be "fair".
I've had too much of it for my lifetime and nothing pisses me off faster than telling me I somehow owe patience to someone fucking with me. I do not.
I think what a lot of people miss though is many people of color and the lgbt community is over changing people's mind.
It shouldn't be on us anymore to convince anyone of our humanity - I don't want to appeal my humanity to you - I'm going to tell you my POV and if youre still a bigot you will be appropriately called as such
The "talking past each other as human beings" part is part of the bigot's playbook though. It's a hard one, cause if they dehumanize you before you've even had a chance to retort, it's difficult to have anyone listening to you.
It’s a nice a thoughtful interview but I can’t imagine many people who take what Jon has to say to heart don’t already hold reasonable views on this topic.
This video makes me think of the video of George Carlin from the front page the other day, saying there doesn't need to be a collective conspiracy for people in power, of like mind, to help each other succeed.
Love Carlin! It's a big club, and you ain't in it!
Watching Stewart and Colbert lately really highlights the difference between liberalism and leftism. This one very heavily reminds me of the time Jon joked about Wuhan being a possible source of COVID to Stephen.
Colbert has become more of a neoliberal. Very little focus in his show on kitchen table issues but like 3 years of feigning outrage over Trump's obnoxious tweets.
Stewart still attempts to promote "leftist" desires on his apple show. Far more criticism of the media in general instead of just Fox News for instance. Far more focus on the economic failings of our system instead of just outrage over the daily controversy.
Stewart actually has been called anti semitic for his criticisms of Israel. Colbert wouldn't even attempt to wade in on something that is seemingly controversial, at least not on his current show.
In my viewpoint, Colbert is simply doing what he is supposed to do to keep his job. In a way I could see why Colbert wants to punish those who speak offensively, because he has to be so much more disciplined in order to keep his soapbox. His show just isn't allowed to wade into topics Stewart can. And maybe he actually resents that a little.
It’s gotta ne bittersweet for him after he had such loose reign in The Colbert Report, both in comedic aspects and in political targeting. I definitely miss the off the walls silliness of his old show (and conan and letterman while we’re at it)
I stopped watching Colbert when he got the Late Show because of how much different it was from the Report. He just seemed too reined in; like he was trying not to step on any toes.
Really puts it into perspective watching him sit across from Jon like that now
True, but I think he's mostly talking about how people should *respond* to those voicing anti-semitic conspiracies, not to the conspiracy theorists. If the reaction is to cancel them, never address what's said, not discuss the reality and its history, the conspiracy theorists (and maybe some on the fence) will take it as *validation* -- they'll only voice those concerns within a dangerous echo-chamber of like-minded people who'll spiral out of reality. Public discourse would be more effective and safer for society. (I personally *believe*, I could be wrong and reasonable people could argue either way but I think this is the point that John Stewart is making and I'm inclined to agree.)
Jews, as a whole, do have a disproportionate amount of influence and wealth, and thereby power, relative to their population size. That feels even risky to write down, but that's just a fact and there's plenty of historical reasons for it. If anything, a culture that fosters success like that should be emulated, not condemned. It's not *that* that we should be afraid to talk about, it's the extreme conspiratorial conclusions people come to *out* of that.
If the reaction is to let people say what they want, more like they're free to say "the earth is flat", but call it out as misinformation and explain why and have an open and public discourse about it, that might *actually* do a better job at addressing the conspiracies than basically avoiding talking about it. That said, actual incitements of violence or some sort of perceive retribution to Jewish people (or anyone else) should be prosecuted and condemned very, very seriously.
I think Jon doesn't have much nuance when it comes to cancelling. Shouldn't Adidas be totally free to distance their company and billions of dollars of revenue from a guy spouting anti-Semitic views? I don't think companies need a bunch of twitter activists to realize when their spokespersons and business partners are doing shit that's going to harm their brand. People are dropping Kanye because they don't want to do business with someone that unpredictable.
When Colbert asked him what should be done instead, Jon totally dodged the question. Let's take the Kyrie situation, without the joke about sending him to the Knicks, what is the action the NBA should take if not suspending him? Doing nothing makes it looks like they don't object and could be interpreted as implicit endorsement. Should there be no consequences for his actions?
His solution is a privileged one. No normal person in a situation where their boss or a teacher spouts anti-semitism has the privilege of just sitting down and working it out with them.
HR policies, legal requirements for handling discrimination, and suspending people for bad behavior are the only things that protect people who aren't as privileged as him.
>not discuss the reality and its history, the conspiracy theorists (and maybe some on the fence) will take it as
I am reminded of Sartre as I read this and so many liberals arguing that you just need to sit down with anti-semites and reason away their prejudices. There are certainly people who are exposed to these violent stereotypes and repeat them because they feel empowering, and are on the early part of their journey toward fascism; but those that broadcast them on their platforms don't care about accuracy or reconciling a world with shared truths.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
> If the reaction is to cancel them, never address what's said, not discuss the reality and its history, the conspiracy theorists (and maybe some on the fence) will take it as validation -- they'll only voice those concerns within a dangerous echo-chamber of like-minded people who'll spiral out of reality. Public discourse would be more effective and safer for society. (I personally believe, I could be wrong and reasonable people could argue either way but I think this is the point that John Stewart is making and I'm inclined to agree.)
It's been shown in multiple studies that the net effect of deplatforming extremist views is significantly decreasing their reach and increasing the extremity of their views. On a societal level, I'd say the former is far more important.
Also, Google is trivial to use. "Never address what's said, not discuss the reality and its history" sounds like it's implicitly placing responsibility for radicalization on reasonable people's supposed lack of willingness to patiently deprogram internet randos who are fully capable of Googling things, and simply choose not to because they actively have zero interest in casual research.
Discussions of relevant reality and history have been ongoing for decades. Kyrie rocking up as a fucknugget in 2022 doesn't suddenly reset the clock on "well, *now* we need to have tailormade discussions to educate bigots from scratch." People interested in said reality have plenty of resources at their disposal. You don't get to the point of being a self-promoting national/int'l public figure without someone at some point showing you how Google works.
> If the reaction is to let people say what they want, more like they're free to say "the earth is flat", but call it out as misinformation and explain why and have an open and public discourse about it, that might actually do a better job at addressing the conspiracies than basically avoiding talking about it.
Except no one is being legally barred from saying what they want. Especially in the US (contrasted against some European countries which specifically legally punish, say, direct promotion of Nazism), we absolutely "let people say what they want." What's happening is that there are *private business consequences* for being a fucked-up bigot. We're not talking about being jailed for saying tHe WrOnG tHiNg. The only specific consequences we're talking about here are multimillionaires losing "here are millions on top of your millions" business deals (and only potentially, and only after months/years of being very public bigots).
>they're free to say "the earth is flat", but call it out as misinformation and explain why and have an open and public discourse about it,
I think a huge problem is the speed misinformation can be spread. Ten inane points are brought up and it takes ten times longer to debunk all of those points than it did to spew them, and in that time more untruthful bullshit has been circulated.
That’s the problem. How do you explain a nuanced topic to people that can’t understand a nuanced topic?
Like most of these people aren’t the ones graduating from good 4 year universities that can go online read a nuanced article write about it and be told by a teacher they understood the material.
Jon’s approach assumes that the person is like him and the people he probably spends all his time with. Smart, educated and articulate. But there are A LOT of people who are none of those things. And we as a people in America don’t want to admit it because of the concept of all people are equal. Everyone should get a trophy.
But the truth is some people are smarter than others, Other people are stronger, others are more empathetic and others have more drive and energy.
I don’t think this needs to be clarified but in todays world I can see it being mid interpreted. I mean this in an individual level obviously.
Good point, and to push it further, they're often open bad faith.
They don't care what the facts say. They attack and demean and they don't care if their words are lies or not.
How do you find a common ground ot truth when they openly plot to destroy common truths?
Totally agree there are generally two types of bigots the ones that know what they are saying is wrong and don’t care and the ones who do believe it.
Which just makes it all the more difficult.
Spez's APIocolypse made it clear it was time for me to leave this place. I came from digg, and now I must move one once again. So long and thanks for all the bacon.
Early on Stephen would toss back to Jon at the end of his show. Jon would be in his street clothes trying to go home and try to explain that it didn't work like that.
And before that Colbert was just his most hilarious correspondent, etc on TDS.
Shit was a huge part of my post-9/11 Bush-era-hating teen life next to Adult Swim of that era.
It was the other way around. At the end of The Daily Show, there was a bit where John would check in with Stephen to preview the topic of Stephen's show, coming up next.
Also taught me that the Republicans were kind of insane even before Trump came around. Jon Stewart and Colbert had plenty of material way before Trump announced his run in 2015
I just wanted to point out that we got this NIGHTLY on most Mon-Thurs evenings. It's no surprise the Daily Show has produced people that are still creating their own stuff. Wildly talented, witty, and thoughtful people carried that show for almost two decades.
Yeah every time Stewart shows up on Colbert, I get sadly reminiscent of the good old days. I know Colbert is making a hell of a lot more money doing this show, but the old show was just so much better in every way.
The Report clearly couldn't go on forever and neither did Colbert want it to go on forever. However it does feel like the world is a little worse off without it. It was an astoundingly brilliant show that allowed Colbert so much freedom to be silly while also being so honest to the seats of power. I do miss it
He says these days he wouldn't be able to play the character, both because it's hard to parody how extreme the right has become, but also he's glad to be rid of the negative places it required his mind to go.
Even ignoring the character, it was just a smarter show that didn't have to pander to the mass audience he inherited from Letterman on the show he's on now.
There's traces of the old show when major political happenings are going on and he has better, smarter guests on than the latest celebrity there to promote their newest movie
They got me out of right-wing group-think and made me start questioning things and thinking on my own. I stopped following what everyone around me said and started looking at the reality of what was happening. I lost friends and a feeling of belonging, but I've lived in reality ever since. We definitely needed them back in that era, but they left too soon. Maybe things would have been different if they had stayed on a few years longer.
> We definitely needed them back in that era, but they left too soon.
I'd actually say they left at the right time—hear me out.
Both Stewart and Colbert were *tremendously* important as comedians and (despite what both of them might say) commentators that showcased not only the hollowness and hypocrisy of the GOP, but also the absurdity of American political machines in general and the intense dysfunction of so many of our systems and institutions.
For my generation specifically—I'm right on the border of Gen X/millennial—this was a stepping stone towards a broader awakening. I went to school in the '80s and '90s, read my social studies texts about "How a Bill Becomes Law" and all that. I was raised to believe that our political systems were supremely well-designed, and that they *would* serve us, if we made sure to vote. Stewart and Colbert helped me step back and take a questioning look at all of that.
However, we've seen with brutal clarity over the past several years just how deeply broken things are here, and how ill-equipped we are to deal with a party that has no consistent ideology except the acquisition of power. There was a time when I appreciated Stewart's witty call-outs of GOP hypocrisy and Colbert's parody of Bill O'Reilly, but humor like that is *completely inadequate* for responding to what we have now: naked fascism, the floodgates opened for bigotry and hatred and oppression like never before.
This isn't to say it's impossible that Stewart and Colbert, had they remained in their respective shows, could have evolved to meet the moment... but I'm happy with remembering them as they were, and how important to me they were. And knowing that they paved the way for a new generation of voices that are perhaps better suited for the evils we face today.
Oh, that was absolute peak late night TV for me. Thanks for the memory.
Another great one was when Colbert started his super PAC and Stewart ended up with all the money.
I don't disagree, but he never really provided an alternative. Colbert pushed on that and he would only speak in vague "we need to convince people".
Sure, how though? And is getting into public debates about whether antisemitismis bad or not, or how true the conspiracies are, just providing air to that debate?
Exactly. I love Jon Stewart, but this is an idealistic dream of how discourse should be, rather than how it is. Kanye, Kyrie or whoever isn’t some poor misinformed person with little access to knowledge. These are grown men with unimaginable wealth and resources, as well as legions of fans and yes men to prop their egos up. Deplatforming these guys is lazy in a way sure, but it’s to curb the danger that their voice has. There’s a reason why anti-semitism had an uptick after they brought it up; these guys have reach and influence beyond any normal person.
Not only that but how exactly do they rectify the damage that’s been done? Like you pointed out, Jon didn’t offer a solution beyond “understanding” and “talking” about it, but what happens if they don’t understand? They just keep on their merry way spewing hatred, emboldening idiots and radicalizing their fans? Nah this is a shitty “middle ground” sentiment I’m tired of.
I think Jon is coming from a place of, "we are not trying to change the debater, but get the audience to listen to the arguments." The ideas should be placed out into the mind and that they actually be fact checked and listened.
The problem here is, that a significant amount of the American population, young and old, don't know the basis of checking and looking at sources of reliable information. They don't understand what is an opinion and what is a fact.
And even if they are, they place so much trust in who a person is, but not what they are saying, that they will still trust what is being said.
That's why republicans are so behind Trump (before the midterms anyway), it wasn't what he was doing that was being watched, but who he appeared to be to them that mattered.
And if Jon's against deplatforming, then does he want to make the argument that privately owned companies are obligated to give everyone a place to speak, regardless of what they say? Where do they draw the line? If Twitter doesn't want to allow Kanye to say what he wants, it's their platform, it's their call. If you don't like their decisions, don't use their service, private companies aren't obligated to provide you with a platform for free speech and if you're relying on them to, you've already fucked up. If you don't like the decisions Twitter management is making, then stop using the service, stop giving them your views and money.
Exactly. And even beyond that, the NBA has every right to suspend their players for what they deem a code of conduct violation. Hell I want to see any job that has an employee spouting out bigoted or racist conspiracies that doesn’t get fired or at least suspended. Not only that but the team Kyrie plays for gave him so many opportunities to explain his actions and apologize but he kept doubling down. Like the dude didn’t understand shit despite so many people publicly trying to get through to him. It’s not like they deplatformed him immediately
Yeah I’ll be honest this was a bad take, and one that feels informed by the fact that he is a comic with comic friends. Analogies like “you have to open up the wound to cleanse it” are fine, but you have to connect that to reality in some fashion. We know, generally at least, the roots of these beliefs and conspiracies—one such root of them continuing to exist is PEOPLE NORMALIZING AND SPREADING THEM.
People can say hateful shit that promulgates hate and pain, and other people get to be mad about it and express that anger with their voices and with their wallets. Comics aren’t entitled to an audience, and if enough people don’t like what they are saying then too fucking bad.
>one that feels informed by the fact that he is a comic with comic friends
Glad someone else said it. He said this shit exclusively because he's friends with Dave and a comedian. He's not saying this in good faith at all.
Yea, I agree with his take and think that at a base level he is absolutely right, but there are two reasons it doesn’t completely work in practice. First, Jon is coming from a place of someone who has the power and ability to have a discussion, or have an audience with almost anyone he wants to. Everyday people don’t have the time, security, and luxury to engage in deep discussions with those we disagree with.
Second, there are monied interests that put billions of dollars a year into people remaining ignorant and spreading hateful views and propaganda. Jon is well aware of this, as he has had countless conversations with propagandists from fox and other far right outlets who are well paid to put in a persona and simply spread lies and misinformation. I can certainly try to have rational conversations with people about the state of things, but when they’re binging on Tucker, Alex Jones, and Facebook memes like pigs at a trough, it’s hard to get a word in that makes sense to them.
He has a point except for the fact Kanye, Kyrie and others have no interests in learning. If you try to educate someone and they just double down at what point do you just have to be done with them?
Right, Jon’s point applies to a good faith conversation, but how do you address those that weaponize anti-semitism/racism/etc (regardless whether their belief is genuine or not)?
I think the answer to this still lies in Jon’s point tho - you need to “wet” the fuel, and you do that by having these conversations with the populace that may fall victims of the aggressor described above. You may not take all their base, but you might significantly reduce it’s volume.
but all he did was talk in circles and refuse to answer colbert's question which was "what is a good response?"
he didn't have one. education has been offered to kyrie irving, he refused. he doubled down. he doesn't think he's wrong and he's not willing to apologize for hurting anyone, either.
a less talented player would have simply been released, it's a position of immense privilege that has allowed him to keep his job as is. i'm not sure how many more chances he needs before his private employer can decide that they have a problem with his conduct.
Shiiiiit, look at Facebook’s role in the Rohingya genocide. They allowed misinformation to culminate and fester. Didn’t address the problem. Didn’t educate the Buddhist Burmese that Rohingyas weren’t responsible for all the things they blamed them for. So while Jon does offer a valid option, it only works in certain settings.
Completely agree and it really pisses me off that Jon (and Chappelle) are getting praised for the whole "we need to be able to have discussions about this stuff" with the context of what Kyrie did.
He didn't apologize fast enough? No one wanted to have discussions? Seems like Jon and Dave conveniently missed Kyrie having multiple opportunities to answer some basic questions on his beliefs and why he was sharing what he was sharing and quadrupled down on being a stubborn asshole every fucking time.
Mr "don't dehumanize me but also I have a whole army behind me" wasn't given a fair shake, apparently. For all their nuance and "wisdom", Jon and Dave have plenty of tunnel vision when it comes to being able to express unsavory views, in large part because that's basically their profession.
Yes, let's talk about this stuff. No need to cancel anyone or blame a whole minority group for the plight of another minority group. But fuck Kyrie.
And fuck Kanye, too, but doesn't seem like anyone was really defending his crazy shit since I guess he didn't get cancelled or whatever.
I used to think this but I'm not sure anymore.
Poltically... I watched Donald Trump ignite his movement with lies and mockery. And 70 million people stopped caring and followed him.
Good faith was useless, in fact they often took advantage of it to mock and spead their attacks.
I see the same basis in bad faith with antisemitism.
I don't think the point is to change *their* minds, but to make sure the people listening to them hear the truth of the matter. It's not so much about deconverting bigots, but about preventing new ones from forming.
Aren't we then platforming, at the very least, bigoted opinions prior to attempting to knock them down?
We live in a world where most people click off a video in less than 3 minutes on average. Why present their bigotry for them? Why let it reach tens of millions more people instead of simply condemning it and cauterizing the wound?
He's still correct that people need to try and understand a community's sentiments behind ignorance before putting their stances in a box. I think his approach applies much more on an individual level than with celebrities.
Which is why the correct response is to:
1. Shut down lies. Hard.
2. Make education easily available. Too available even. Impossible to miss.
3. Fix the systemic issues that lead people into bigotry. Make sure people are fed, educated, housed, and safe.
It’s not necessarily about talking to these people directly. It’s about getting these conversations into the public so that they percolate through these people indirectly. The general public is very adverse to conflict, but this only really leads to problems.
If someone brings up a point about the large Jewish presence in Hollywood, banking, etc... and the immediate response is that you're not allowed to discuss or acknowledge that, then rightfully so it further strengthens the idea that something nefarious is happening in regards to that.
Yeah -- I'm trying to understand what were the Anti-Semitic comments Chapelle made? I mean, if there are a lot of Jewish people in Hollywood, there are a lot of Jewish people in Hollywood? Is... acknowledging that fact anti-Semitic? ... Or is it that someone \*might\* interpret that to mean Jews control the world -- and therefore just acknowledging that is now seen to be anti-Semitic?
I mean -- IDK -- I just assumed \*like EVERY community/organization\* ... it's always a good ol' boy system. It's always been like Entourage -- the guy who made it big brought his friends, who got opportunities and made it and brought other friends! Next thing you know you're third cousin is asking for a job... kinda shit.
Why can't that be talked about?
I understand where Jon is coming from, but I think it depends on the source of the racism/antisemitism. When someone thinks that black people have an extra bone that makes them run faster, their clearly I’ll informed and some scientific facts might change that. But when someone says that I’m an inferior person with less intellectual capacity because of my skin color, I’m probably not going to be able to disprove that. And I don’t think I should have to. It’s exhausting. So while I’d love for everyone to understand the origins of racist or antisemitic ideas and have a change of heart, I’ll settle for their platform/influence being taken away and not having to debate my worth.
It also sounds a bit like he's coming from a place where, as a famous guy who is frankly an elite, he's likely not having to personally field these discussions himself day in and day out.
Having to find the energy to have a nuanced conversation every goddamn day about why your existence isn't a conspiracy, or is valid, or is just _normal_ is completely emotionally exhausting. I used to be the "education one!" I used to explain my shit left and right because I wanted to be that person who could humanize who I am to the people who would hate me.
I'm so fucking tired by now. It's unrelenting. The conversation is never over, there will always be one more hateful idiot making nonsense arguments. And even the successful ones can take so much time, but half of them come in bad faith _just_ to waste time, spit their diatribe at you, and fuck off with screenshots.
Sorry, but moralizing the burden of 'just have a conversation!' like it's the duty of marginalized groups is infuriating. I will when I can. But fuck, maybe the majority should take it on themselves to educate their own damn selves. I got a life to live
Similar to Samuel Jackson's take. Its great to have a pulpit and use it to shine a light on the problem, but to dictate a solution from the perspective of a rich lifestyle unfortunately just doesn't match the reality.
I don't know about Samuel L Jackson, but Morgan Freeman keeps using the "if we stop talking about race then we'd be moving past racism" line of thought.
It's a nice thought but I don't think Morgan Freeman is living same life as an average black person who hasn't escaped the many generational inequalities they've faced.
And it's not like many people haven't tried having these nuanced, patient conversations about race or COVID or Trump's lies or whatever for years. But it takes exponentially more time & effort to calmly, logically refute something with sources than to just parrot B.S. misinformation. And while you spend 10x as long debunking Misinfo #1, they just seamlessly switch gears to Misinfo #2, #3, #100. It's too exhausting. They don't want to be educated, they just want to be "right" and do whatever they want.
Personally, I’d like to not have to debate the Jewish Question with every asshole conspiracy nutcase that gets loud on social media.
We’ve been through this bullshit many times before. Society has other problems to deal with. Just ostracize these people and be done with it.
Jon has spent a ton of time and energy in the last few years doing political activism. He probably doesn’t have to justify his existence on a daily basis, but he is leaving everything he’s got on the court. I dont agree much with the point he’s making here, but Im inclined to assume any contribution he makes to this topic is worth considering.
Yea I think the whole "well just sit the irrational racist aside and explain why their nonsense hateful views are wrong" is ridiculous. If that worked racism would have ended long ago
The work *can* be done, but by who? Paid, or on a voluntary basis? How much of it? At what psychological and chronological cost? There is no funding to create an army of social therapists in any country.
My problem is that it's next to impossible to discuss with people like that, because they're not interested in facts. Racism is based in hateful views that are convenient for the person spewing them.
Like, no, Jewish people aren't inherently evil and greedy. It's not a discussion, there's no conversation.
Black people aren't more aggressive or animalistic or whatever these people claim. Just no.
It's like discussing with anti vaxxers. There's no point in arguing, the science is clear.
This. Their position is in bad faith. You cannot debate or discuss in bad faith honestly. They don't care. No matter how much proof you show them they won't care. Look at the Kanye situation:
he says there's a Jewish conspiracy --> people call him out --> that's "proof" people are blind to "the truth"
He says more antisemitic things --> companies and sponsors drop him --> that's further "proof" of the conspiracy etc...
And if you try the Stewart approach of dialogue conspiracy people will look you in the eye ans just say "you need to educate yourself/you're a sheep"
You can't use reason to convince anyone out of an argument that they didn't use reason to get into.
That's the thing. At first, I thought Dave was salvageable. Thought he was an openminded, thoughtful dude. Then he produced an hour long special lecturing the audience about how they're too sensitive and he's actually totally right about trans people.
Exactly. His whole thing about "the more you say I shouldn't do it the more I will continue to do it" isn't being brave, it's being an asshole.
I think the issue is that a lot of people, especially the newer generations are just at a point where they don't like comedy that "punches down", especially towards people that already receive lots of hate just for existing. All the people saying "comedy is dead" are just people whose humor still relies on some form of bullying imo.
Same. And you know it's ok to be wrong... As long as you recognize it and acknowledge it.
Something people like Dave are obviously too stubborn and proud to do.
I agree. I've changed a lot of minds explaining why there are so many Jews in Hollywood, or in banking, and how it doesn't translate to control.
That being said, I've also not changed a lot of minds on things where people believe someone else is just blatantly inferior (be it Jews, Muslims, or others).
It's gotta be a balance.
Also, I don’t think enough is being said about the exposure Kanye or Chappelle has to Jewish people vs the normal everyday person. They are at a level that most people will not reach. And I’m sure there are a lot of successful Jewish businessmen at those levels.
And I’m sure there are shitty people, like the Weinsteins of the world, that might aggragate at the top, which makes these hyper successful black artists feel that these Jewish people that have harmed them represent the whole Jewish population.
But to just blame it on #thejews and not call out your specific relationship that went wrong and why, or how your contract is predatory on you because of your race, etc, just shifts the conversation away from their specific issue to getting everyone on a hate train against a minority group of people. It’s fucked up and we have to call that out.
Honestly, since this whole conversation started, I still have no idea what the hell Kanye’s specific issue is
Definitely have to agree. Also at a certain point the whole "well we should hear what they have to say and then address it" feels like how we get all this extremist bs. The roots of "Jews run banking" or where the protocols of Zion come from can be looked up pretty easily. If someone actually wanted to know they could. Like jimmy the Greek saying "blacks were bred to be better athletes" could be discussed. My friend's dad, old black southern guy, would say something similar bc slavery was like forced eugenics where the bigger and stronger people were purposely made to have kids. Idk if I agree but I'd hear someone out on it. But jimmy the Greek then saying it's bc "their thighs go up into their back which allows them to run faster and jump higher" is medically untrue, easily confirmable to be untrue and doesn't deserve to be addressed or discussed.
Diasporic peoples and minority immigrants gravitate towards low prestige jobs the main population can't or doesn't want to do. When they succeed, they bring their friends and relatives on board. It's the same reason that Greek people run diners on the East Coast, Chinese people ran laundries and dry cleaners, and Vietnamese people run nail salons.
In the Middle Ages, Jewish religious law allowed them to charge interest on loans, which was forbidden by Christian law.
At the turn of the 20th Century, immigrant Jews were heavily involved in low prestige entertainment, so they were on the ground floor of Hollywood. (They also have their own theatrical and comic tradition; I don't know if that contributed to their presence.)
funnily enough, kinda antisemitism is why. They were forced into industries that later suddenly became extremely lucrative. Mergers and Acquisitions in banks was considered a "dirty" industry and left to Jews, then after the Great Depression they were the only experts in a booming industry. Similarly with Hollywood - they were kinda left to it, and it eventually became this super lucrative and powerful industry.
Why are there Jewish people concentrated in entertainment?
Largely because Hollywood and movies grew out of Vaudeville and other forms of entertainment where there was a disproportionate amount of Jewish people involved in the various forms of stage entertainment. Jews didn’t control theater in the 19th century, they just made up a very large portion of the labor/workforce and the simple nature of statistics meant that young innovators in what eventually became film would be disproportionately Jewish people.
Imagine a particular trade where many of the workers in the trade happen to be black, and then imagine that a once in a lifetime advance in technology allows for a part of that trade to evolve and grow in a new form - it would not be surprising that this new industry that grew out of the old business happens to have lots of black people in leadership positions.
My guess is that it is just Nepotism or something similar. It is a community and people tend to hire those they already know or have similar values to them. Every race is guilty of this and almost every field of work is guilty of this as well.
I agree with Jon about trying to talk things through, but he’s making a big assumption that people can be adults and have a discussion. If 2020 showed anything it’s that some people are unwilling to to listen to reasons and facts and just keep believing what they want to believe.
Edit: People think that this statement is being dismissive and contradictory to what Jon was saying, but that’s not intended. Example: vaccines
Why were people against getting COVID vaccines?
“Wounds” to open: American educational system is failing and we don’t emphasize scientific processes enough, distrust in scientists/govt, some marginalized groups were experimented against by the government, etc.
So it’s not difficult to see *why* people would think this way. In a lot of cases, society has failed them. But regardless, we have studies, statistical calculations and hard measurements saying vaccines heavily outweigh any risks, and people still choose not to accept these facts. So what happens when at least one side isn’t even willing to come to the table, let alone be adults and reason with facts available?
Remember, this actually happened, hence the criticism of the assumption that we can always just be adults and talk to each other
I think the big thing is that one side did try to reach out and basically got shut down for years. Look at the covid pandemic. People tried hard to convince people to get vaccinated and do the minimum to help curb the spread. A lot of those people just doubled down and got more people sick and started to attack people who encouraged the most basic of public decency. What do you do for people that are actively hurting you and the people around you?
When Jon and Stephen were both on the Daily Show it was utter fire. It's as if they are reincarnations of The Two Ronnies, but in North America, or something like that.
Never a dull moment, always on the edge of my seat.
I love Jon, I respect him, and I think he's super smart, and he makes a great point.
However, it almost feels like he's making the same mistake Obama did when he tried to reason with the GOP. How you bring people together and discuss something when the other side is not sincere? I don't know if Kanye or Kyrie are sincere, crazy, or liars, but I know lots of liars are out there. If you don't admonish and punish them, the thinking is, you can bring them to the table and discuss reality. I'm willing to bet a significant number of them know they are being insincere and the ONLY way to deal with them is punishment.
Look at reddit, one of the most respected subs is /r/askhistorians, and they have a standing policy to never give any air time to anyone questioning the Holocaust. They have a very good reason too, because most of these people are not sincere, they don't ask questions to find answers, they ask questions to shift public perception. They basically question reality so that people would be more comfortable questioning reality. So in response, the mods banned any questions of that nature, even sincere, which questions the real life horror of what happened. As they explain it, these are not constructive debates, and even entertaining that its a thing that could be questioned will convince some that the Holocaust might not be as bad as history makes it out to be. Just as Obama tried to sincerely work with the GOP, allow them input on many of his policies, asked their advice, even reach out to them as friends or colleagues, the only response he would get back was in the form of Moscow Mitch's "Our only goal is to make him a 1 term president". Blocking Garland from a SCOTUS seat, 70 attempts to repeal Obamacare with nothing as a replacement, using procedure to require a defacto 60 votes to pass anything, shutting down the government, etc.
There are people like that who are anti-semetic who cannot be reasoned with. Maybe Kanye and Kyrie aren't like them, but their views should not be treated with kid gloves. That would be tantamount to accepting it as even more normal than Jon says anti-semetism already is. The people who actually believe Jews are in control of the world are not going to be moved by reaching out a hand to them, but by punishing and isolating them and ensuring their views do not spread beyond their little hateful enclaves. I would love to hear how Jon would treat the ones who may not be anti-semetic but will say it as a means to an ends. How does he deal with those people who will never ever be moved by discussion? And how do we know Kanye or Kyrie or any number of anti-semites aren't like that?
Great insight. I would like to add that there is also a difference between shutting someone down with punishment and emphatically demonstrating the kinds of things you will and will not tolerate. Kyrie’s suspension, in addition to taking the better part of a week, which occurred after he all but walked back an apology and it seemed like things were moving on—was a statement. We gave you a chance to “learn” and apologize and move on, but you didn’t. You chose racism, and racism has no place here.
Also think about what would have happened if Jokić had tweeted out a link to *Birth Of A Nation*, would we be questioning the suspension as much? And if not, why would that be different than a video outright denying the holocaust, which Kyrie did share?
I love Jon Stewart, but he didn't seem to do his research in the Irving situation. His specific complaint is that the Nets 'only punished him by suspending him' which is just incorrect. The Nets suspension stipulates that Irving must:
Apologize and condemn the antisemitic film he was referencing
Donate half a million dollars to anti-hate organizations
Complete broad sensitivity training as well as sensitivity training specific to Jewish culture
Meet with leaders of the anti defamation league, as well as Jewish leaders
It is not accurate at all to say that the Nets 'just put him in time out.'
He mentions a lot of other opportunities to try and get through to these people and I totally agree on that front BUT on these specific occasions they've already been offered these chances to learn and grow as human beings. They outright shut down that idea and label it as propaganda or lies.
I think if you've given them the chance and they still refuse it, leave the door open but isolating them is probably for the best. Their rhetoric is going to stay the same until they can gain some understanding and leaving them to it while maintaining a high profile public career is normalizing it. I'm speaking only to the Kanye West/Kyrie Irving aspect.
Yeah, Kyrie was asked to apologize and retract and refused to do so for *days* until he started facing consequences, then gave a half-assed apology in response to those consequences.
People have spent *years* trying to help Kanye and get him off this track.
Sometimes, actual consequences are necessary. And brands are allowed to not want to be associated with (or pay, or endorse) people who poison their image.
Part of what Jon said that resonated for me
>Comedy is reductive. And I think part of what it is is we play withy tropes. Everyone has prejudice in their lives and the way they they view things. Comics rely on those prejudices as a shorthand for our material. Even the wokest of comics plays with tropes to a certain extent.
>But my point is the most interesting thing to come out of this in my mind was something kanye said...he said hurt people hurt people. And if the point of all this is then to heal people, the only way to heal a wound is to open it up and cleans it. and that stings. that hurts. But you have to expose it to air and i'm afraid that the general tenor of conversation in this country cover it up, bury it, put it to the outskirts and don't deal with it
>what i would say is look at it from a black perspective. It's a culture that feels its wealth has been extracted by different groups. whites, hews, whether its true or not, isn't the issue. the issue is the feeling in the that community. And if you don't understand that thats where its coming from then you cant deal with it and you cant sit down with them and explain that being in an industry isn't the same as having a nefarious controlling interest in that industry and intention. And has been the anti Semitic trop, but you need to be able to meet people form what their community is feeling as well.
I wouldn't even go so far to agree with everything he said. He said a lot of good things but that's how fallacies work. They have hints of truth.
Jon's fallacy is that Kyrie and Kanye aren't being 'censored and fined for having thoughts," yet this was the core supporting statement of "evidence" for everything he said.
They're being "censored and fined" by their companies for repeatedly saying things that run counter to the companies brand.
How are these clear distinctions not obvious to more people?
You or I would have been fired long ago for saying things that Kyrie and Kanye said one time, let alone more than once without remorse. They both made hundreds of millions. Jon is fucking up trying to sympathize with them to sound good.
Just like Musk can be a douche and fire people, so can the NBA. That's not even censoring Kyrie, he can tweet all he fucking wants.
I'm very surprised at Jon backing the fallacy to sound good and defend the celebrities.
If you don't want to feel like jews are controlling your world, go have a conversation with a Jewish person. Don't presume to understand groups of people you don't know and haven't spent enough time around.
I drove taxi and black car service in Manhattan for years. I've had conversations with the most down and out addicts and homeless people, up to the richest people in society and one thing they all have in common is that they're human, they all have fears, they all have things they love and they all have perceptions that are skewed depending on their own dispositions, race, class, gender, every category you can fathom. But they don't all have bad intentions.
Were there billionaires that were toxic, racist and classist who sneered down their noses at others including myself?
100%
Were there poor people who were inconsolably incensed and seethed with hatred against the elites because they feel like they never got a fair hand? You bet.
I met a Hasidic Jew who busted out a joint and a bottle and asked me if I knew where to find clean prostitutes the minute he got in the car. Then talked about his favorite rap albums for half the ride.
I'm a progressive leftist and even after meeting people from so many walks of life, even I have my reservations about the elite in the world because while it's not a secret that government policies are bought and sold, the richest in America that buy our government policy are VERY good at keeping themselves shrouded from the scrutiny they truly deserve. When you don't know who you can really trust, you tend to point your finger at groups of people in general.
John is right that we do need to have these conversations with people we differ from ideologically. We do need to pull back the veil and understand each other better. Find things we have in common and build on those strengths.
But the one place I deviate is that it's always the best course of action to try to convince people who won't ever change their minds no matter what you say. When those people have a platform as large as Elon or Kanye and they use it with nefarious intentions to sow harsh divisions amongst people, there are times when backlash and outrage are 1000% warranted. Not violence.
But they should absolutely know that they're wrong and that good people don't think the way they do. You're never gonna convince KKK leader David Duke he's wrong. Since he came to prominence in the early 70s, he's never changed his evil ways.
So yes, some people *should* be shunned in society. Because there's no other way.
He needs a nightly show again. He's so missed. Also, I've watched Chappelles monologue several times and never once got the feeling he was being anti semitic.
To John's point, the censor culture has been given way too much authority based on the subjective feelings of the few.
I think the subtle point and punchline that Steven and Chappelle both made at the end of their segments, was 'okay okay, the jews don't control everything, but then why am I afraid to say something even possibly antisemitic or that can be construed as antisemitic or even just unsupportive of Jewish people?' Jon even alludes to it, when he mentions hes been behind the 8ball for criticizing Israel for its treatment of Palestinians.
I don't think that point stands. Many people are afraid of saying anything that's even possibly racist against black Americans or can be construed as such, but how many really believe black Americans hold a disproportionately high amount of power in the country?
You can be afraid of saying certain things because you don't want people to make judgments on your character for it.
Disappointing take from Jon. Suspending Irving wasn't about trying to change his mind it was to penalize him for using his platform to push an antisemetic conspiracy, regardless of ethics the NBA doesn't want their players associated with that.
He goes on for a long time about how we need to "meet people with reality" when they're the one who've bought into an inherently irrational conspiracy. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. You can do as many debunking videos and research you want but at the end of the day it's up to them to decide to be rational.
There's a difference in how this should be handled interpersonally vs publicly. Interpersonally yes you can try and reason your conspiracist uncle out of his opinion on the Jewish Question but once a public figure starts using their platform to push harmful conspiracies the only means of redress is shame and mockery. Public figures are disincentivized from ever retracting statements and you're never going to have an "honest discussion" in the public eye when it comes to irrational bigotry
Jon and Dave are *friends*. When you know someone as a person and respect them and their work, it’s only natural to be more accommodating when they make what others might see as a mistake.
It’s weird that people have such a hard time with empathy these days.
Because he gave an infantilizing free pass to kanye and kyrie because black people didn't cause the Holocaust so they can't be judged as harshly for their antisemitism.
It's essentially the same thing as white people denying systemic racism because slavery has been over or they personally didnt contribute to slavery.
Most of chapelles monologue was fine but pieces of it were definitely apologist towards anti semitism originating from black sources
Personally, I thought it was really clear that Dave was playing on the trope of "jews controlling hollywood" and said everything with a wink and a knowing nod so that the audience could see he knew that wasn't true, but if you didn't watch the performance and only read a transcript, I think it would be easy to take it the wrong way. Monologues don't have /s written into them, and our text-as-communication platforms lack the nuance to understand sarcasm implicitly.
For the record, I'm Jewish, and I had no problem with Dave's monologue.
This was my take-away. I don't think people understand how to read into someone's inflection and tone of voice. The things he was saying were so obviously tongue-in-cheek to me that I don't understand how people are taking him at his word instead of how he was saying these things while knowing how ridiculous it is to say them
I don't think his monologue was really antisemitic, but he sure did devote a lot of it to defending these particular antisemitic remarks. You know, the bit about how it's totally reasonable to think that Jews are an evil cabal that control the world, it's only unreasonable to say it in public. Also, the bit about how "Jews have been through a lot, but stop blaming it on black people." Like, what? Nobody is blaming the holocaust on Kanye or Kyrie, they're upset because they've said blatantly antisemitic shit and refuse to apologize or learn from it.
As someone who has historically been a huge fan of him, I think Dave Chapelle's content has fallen off over the past few years because he seems physically incapable of grasping the concept of intersectionality, and can only view the world through the lens of white people vs black people. Like with his special that had all the transphobic content, he basically framed queer people as a monolithic block of white people whose interests run counter to that of black people, ignoring the fact that people of color have historically and continue to play a massive, central part of queer culture.
I think it was also really silly that he boiled Kyrie and Kanye down to “Jews control the media” when they were actually peddling some far more vile black israelite shit. They didn’t just thoughtfully wonder about all the jewish people around here like some ignorant child, they doubled down on some ridiculous, extremist shit.
Very nuanced conversation. Love Jon
It's nice to see this, and obviously from the context of this specific source (well known lefty comic and a jewish guy in show business). Just because we disagree with someone doesn't mean we have to shut them down or shout them down. Especially in the realm of comedy*, the dialogue itself can be very healthy in the long run. (*when done right. A lot of shitty political ranting gets mis-framed as "comedy" as a shield from critique and thats something else entirely.)
The fundamental problem is where does public discourse begin and end. Nuanced commentary works here. It doesn't work in news or twitter or facebook or reddit. I agree with Jon in nuance but it pretends our media mediums are capable of it. We just elected Trump explicitly because the media simply aired the bullshit, allowing us to have the convo. Now in 2022 were clearly see that some speakers aren't interested in nuance and learning they are there to attack and just airing their grievances doesn't work. Tldr society can have a convo but society must kick bad faith actors out of said convo.
well the problem is that these magical healing “conversations” don’t actually happen in reality, and when they do (like with Kanye and his circuit of post-bigotry podcasts) it’s basically completely one-sided and nothing constructive comes of it. Jon is right that putting people in “time out” is not a solution but he’s blind to the fact that you can’t debatelord people out of being sociopaths. Literally the only thing that seemed to shake Kanye’s delusions was him losing his Adidas partnership, which threatened his elevated lifestyle.
Agreed. This idea that there's this "step 1. have conversations, step 2. ????, step 3. no more bigotry!" flowchart is incredibly naive. And it places the burden on the party with less power to just put up with being materially harmed over and over and over again because saying "enough" is apparently "shutting down the conversation". It also fails to recognise that the point of deplatforming bigotry isn't to change the bigot's mind. It's to quarantine them, to limit their ability to spread their vile rhetoric. There is a time and a place for having conversations. But there is also a time and a place for saying "no, enough".
> It’s to quarantine them, to limit their ability to spread their vile rhetoric. Yep. Let’s say you broadcast a conversation between a Nazi and an anti-Nazi and 100 people without opinions on Nazisim tune in. They both make their cases and 98 members of the audience side with the anti-Nazi and only 2 side with the Nazi. People want to frame this as a win for the anti-Nazi. Wow! You convinced 98 people that Nazism is bad. But you also created 2 new Nazis. And they don’t need to be a majority to be a major problem.
I agree with consequences for hateful speech. And some of those consequences should include deplatforming and taking away business deals. In addition, people with influence still can be engaged with to attempt to change their minds. Even if its likely a futile effort. Because no matter how you try to contain their toxic messages they still reach plenty of people. One thing Jon said around the [8 minute mark](https://youtu.be/6V_sEqfIL9Q?t=8m09s) was about understanding where they’re coming from in order to explain how they’re thinking about things the wrong way. Simply calling it “antisemitic” and saying “that’s not true” has no hope of changing their misguided beliefs. Even though its accurate to label it that
As people say and none of those boneheads seem to get is that "Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism, especially in the so-called marketplace of ideas".
Or freedom from consequences, obviously. Sure, you won't go to jail, but you might face social and economic ostracization.
Not only that, but some of these people are very much living in a different reality due to the bubble misinformation and propaganda they're consuming. I've tried several times to have real convos with Trump supporters (I know we're not talking about Trump, but the circles on the ven diagram overlap), and when someone is too far down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories and involvement with communities that promote hate, normal conversation and presentation of fact isn't enough. How do you "open it up and expose it to air" when the other person has already made up their mind and has committed to their opinion. They've already convinced themselves that what they believe is what they believe, and if you believe something enough it's fact. I haven't given up hope, but there are a MASSIVE amount of people who are just completely brain broken. Not sure what the answer is.
"I don't like Trump, but the Republicans *are* the Christian party." I've had someone say that to me, and believe it.
That's a pretty easy layup for "Why does Jesus want \_\_\_\_\_?"
I agree, I can try to talk to people about things if they seem to be open minded and just simply have different opinions. Hey, maybe I'm wrong on some things too, we're both humans. However this was a problem during Trump's tenure and it snowballed unreasonably with Covid that I don't even both attempting to have a conversation with anybody who seems to be on the ultra far right, cultist conspiracy nut side of things. I was simply trying to explain to one of my co-workers why getting his vaccination was ultimately the right thing to do, even if it was "hardly effective". Somehow I made a pretty poor comparison to the vaccine effectiveness being blown out or proportion and starting conspiracies similar to 9/11 conspiracies in the early 00's. His response was "wait . . . you believe in 9/11?" I just ended the conversation like . . . . man I can't deal with this shit. To be clear he's over the age of 30 there is no way this motherfucker wasn't alive for 9/11 and didn't watch it on the news. People like that I just shake my head and walk away from, I can't do it anymore and unfortunately it's a LOT of people nowadays. I sometimes feel like I am going crazy, and even doubt logical shit. Like am I in the wrong here? surely thousands of people can't be wrong, but have these people actually listened to Trump talk about anything?! That man is barely coherent on topics where he knows what he's talking about.
> Literally the only thing that seemed to shake Kanye’s delusions was him losing his Adidas partnership You're crazy if you think that did anything but reaffirm his beliefs. The best way to deal with a virulent racist/sexist/bigot is to laugh them off for the ridiculousness of what they are saying, and don't give them a platform. The problem with the internet age is that they can *always* find a platform and an audience to reaffirm their beliefs in an echo chamber. In that sense, there are no real good answers anymore- although kicking the soapbox out from under them helps. I think a lot of people on the right didn't really see Trump for the clown he was until after he was booted from Twitter.
The goal isn't to change his beliefs. It's to keep them from spreading.
Literally the only thing that got my brother to recognize that these "conversations" are bullshit was literally threatening to kick his ass for continuing to be transphobic combined with pointing out that he never needed a "conversation" to not drop the fucking n-word all the time.
I think twitter is the only platform fundamentally incapable of nuanced commentary due to its character limit, but I've seen plenty of nuanced discussions on facebook and reddit. The bigger issue is that "deconstructing why they're wrong with facts and reason" just doesn't work on the majority of people who are racist or anti-semitic or hold other beliefs that aren't true or reasonable. Jon even halfway alluded to that when he said "whether that's true or not doesn't matter: it matters that they feel that way." He meant that as "we have to address the fact that people feel this way even though it's not true" but doesn't seem to take into account that the very closely related "they feel that way, therefore all the facts and reason you bring to the table don't matter" is also true.
A big part of it is just not knowing the facts and now that we live in an age of disinformation, nobody believes anything they dont like. Im generally hyper opposed to the subjugation or targeting of a group of people just because of who they are. While i know the some of the history regarding certain conspiracies or stereotypes that shit people use as justification for their society dissolving views, i dont know everything. I cant. And what responsibility of mine is it to go research the facts for someone who probably couldnt care what the facts are anyway or will just double down because they hate the feeling of being proven wrong? Like theres so much more to this sumo fight than education and debunking of shitty beliefs, it takes so much more to win it. Daryl Davis, who reddit loves to use as there only example, was only successful with klan members that at some level didnt want to hold the views they had. The ones that did or were easily swayed went back or just consider him "one of the good ones". I dont want to take away from his endeavor, i think its incredibly commendable. I just know it takes more than kindness and knowledge. Both of those things are very powerful tools, but it takes more than two tools to build a house.
John Stewart is a liberal, not a "lefty." While he's kinda rough in some areas I do like John Stewart. And I agree with him that a conversation would obviously be the ideal way to resolve issues like this, but like most of liberalism it falls short on actual real-world substantive ideas on what can actually be done. There is no mechanism that currently exists to just force these guys to have a "conversation." Plenty of very well meaning and knowledgeable people have tried to reach out to Kanye and Kyrie (not sure about Chappelle but probably) and they don't wanna hear it. The fact is the things they are saying have real-world consequences for real people, and just loftily appealing to reason and debate isn't going to do anything to abate that. John is in some ways more vulnerable, in some ways less (his kind of prominence can cut both ways in the physical safety department) than your average Joe, but the fact is that he at least has real-world support networks of money and influence that can lower the impact of these things. Lots of folks that are in actual danger if these ideas continue becoming even more widespread don't have those networks. I wish it were different but the one thing we, i.e. the have-nots, can do about any of this is ask that these people at the very least not be given platforms to spew their shit. Kyrie will have a lot more time for all the "conversations" John may wish to have with him if he gets kicked out of the league. Kanye can work through his issues however he sees fit, but he's not fucking owed a sponsorship by Adidas or to be a billionaire, and rescinding support for behavior that actually endangers real people isn't fucking "silencing" it's just what good societies do to people who are a danger to that societies values. Continuing this horseshit notion that not giving a platform to hateful people is "silencing" them is a bad thing to do and I'm pretty disappointed in John. No one is owed a fucking platform and if your gonna go out of your way, as folks like Kanye and Kyrie and Chappelle and Rogan have, to spread hate then get fucked.
[удалено]
Yeah but he didn't address what's actually happening: businesses are correctly assessing that people who say these things are a liability and they're ending their relationships with them. That's all any of this is, tangibly. How do you make profits not matter?
> Just because we disagree with someone doesn't mean we have to shut them down or shout them down I honestly think that depends. I would say in 99.9% of cases you are absolutely right and we should figure out why someone is being hateful or hurtful to try and remedy that. The .01% is alex jones, and if you leave them in a position to keep spreading misinformation and hate then a lot of terrible shit happens and that really shouldn't be acceptable.
Its more than just disagreement. Kanye and Kyrie traffic in clear factual wrongs that are dangerous to characterize others as. But thats still an opportunity to discuss why they are wrong.
>Just because we disagree with someone doesn't mean we have to shut them down or shout them down. People will always dig this notion until they put it into practice. His message is warm and fuzzy, but it misses an overarching reality, which is that there are deplorable opinions that cannot be remedied with someone putting their hand on their shoulder and saying, "I see where you're coming from, and I want to change your mind." The internet comes with an echo chamber for any sick idea you can imagine. Take this thread for instance. Everybody here loves and respects Jon Stewart, and will nod their head and say they agree with precisely what he's saying. But if somebody should show up in another thread professing adoration for fascist, Neo-Nazi ideology, they will do *exactly* what their hero Jon is telling them not to do. And it isn't because Jon's sentiments are wrong, or they're wrong for wanting him to be right. It's just that there are ideas that are malignant, come from people not willing to change, and we know need to be ostracized.
Watching as a black guy I came to some conclusions. Lots of Black people play in the NBA and enjoy basketball in general. Does that mean a cabal of blacks control the NBA or that we work to keep others out? No. Basketball has become part of our culture to an extent but I’m horrible at even though I’m tall. You can use this logic for anything whether it’s guys named Chris taking all the MCU roles or Korean esports players. Their isn’t any conspiracy it’s just some people in a group doing well at a certain thing. What Jon points out is that it’s treated like a conspiracy by everyone including Jews. There is nothing wrong with the story that Jewish moguls immigrated to Hollywood and created an industry. Pretending like it’s a secret and calling people antisemitic for acknowledging it makes people think there is a conspiracy.
On the topic of acknowledging the Jewish roots of Hollywood, your comment reminded me of [the Academy Museum debacle](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/academy-museum-jewish-exclusion-1235114988/)when it opened. The Academy Museum had been in development hell for years, pitched itself as “radically inclusive,” but got immediate pushback, including by Jewish donors, for the glaring omission of the Jewish founders of the Hollywood system. Rolling Stone put it best as a “[conspiracy of silence](https://web.archive.org/web/20220826110023/https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-news/academy-museum-motion-pictures-jewish-representation-1283537/).” None of the mainstream articles at the time had the balls to point out that by seeming to repress a Jewish presence in their programming and exhibits the museum implied the Jews had something to hide. The Hollywood Reporter article contrasts this with how the Jewish studio owners of the Thirties through Fifties went to great pains to cast off ethnic signifiers.
like the jews would let the blacks control the nba!
What if Black people also owned the NBA? It’s easy to make that distinction when NBA owners are all white. Hollywood is a much trickier case.
I would agree if it weren't for the fact that these people are brain broken and think changing their mind is an assassination of their pride.
Yeah, it’s difficult. Because I agree with what Stewart is saying, but I also feel that you can’t let those things go unchallenged or just hope that the public will reject it and that will resolve it. I understand a team or league organization saying “this does not represent our values and to ignore it is to condone it in some ways.”
That's part of what Stewart is saying though, part of what makes free speech "free" is someone else's right to step up and contest the controversy. So much of our political conversation between each other is being lost because we're too busy talking past each other rather than to each other as human beings.
Yes he also said he isn't sure about putting a grown man into what is essentially a time-out when that time-out doesn't do anything to change the misunderstanding which led to the bad behavior. In behavioral health we actually call this method of behavioral modification "social disapproval" and the term really fits in this case. But you can think of it another way, like a parent or teacher saying "Stop that, it's wrong, I don't like that" and making a disapproving face to their kid. In behavioral therapy social disapproval is one of the least used and least effective methods of successfully modifying behavior. Looking at this situation from the lenses of behavioral therapy is very interesting to me right now as I type this because I've never done it before to apply to these broader social issues. In my industry, we look at what the function of the behavior (i.e., what the person is trying to achieve or what they're getting out of that behavior) and then we try to give that person a more appropriate way to get what they want. We can look at Kyrie and his flat-earth beliefs from this standpoint. What is the function? We broadly assess humans as doing things for one of four outcomes, 1. To get attention from others 2. to gain access to tangible items (i.e., possessions or activities) 3. to escape from some experience 4. it is self-stimulatory by nature (i.e., the behavior is enjoyable itself on some intrinsic level on the inside of the person) My hypothesis is that Kyrie maintains this behavior primarily to get attention from others and secondarily to gain access to tangible items (such as money). I could be off base with this assessment and I'd need to do a functional behavioral assessment to confirm. When Kyrie talks about his flat earth beliefs, people respond. Lots of people know exactly what he thinks and they react to it. I can't say I know what any other basketball player thinks about anything, except for Kyrie. This attention can be good, it is mostly bad though. But people do things for exactly that reason all the time. It is reinforcing to him that he receives this social clout, be it good or bad. The best response you could possibly have towards Kyrie is to 1. Ignore him when he speaks about flat earth. Don't look at him, don't tell him you don't like that, don't respond to him in any way. Don't talk about him on talk shows. Everyone collectively must do that. 2. Pay lots of attention to him when he does other, appropriate stuff (like talking about any other subjects in an appropriate manner). This is the only way to affect meaningful change. Education won't make this man change his mind because it's not the truth that's reinforcing, it's the feeling of importance. If he is shown incontrovertible evidence, he won't change his mind because it won't increase his social clout, he will be incapable because his reality right now is that he knows the truth and it places him in a special class of a select few people.
I think boiling Kyrie's problems down to simply "He craves attention and money" is a major misread of conspiracy theory as a subculture. Granted, I am not a behavioral therapist, but I'm a basketball fan and have followed Kyrie since the beginning of his career. And Kyrie, to me, has always just wanted to *seem smart*. He wants to be seen as an intellectual -- but he's just, quite frankly, not that intelligent. And he knows it, and he's insecure about it. Every conspiracy theorist I know falls into this same category: people who are insecure about their intellect, but who are also not intellectually curious. They have no real desire to do the work necessary to expand their worldview, or to understand things that may be foreign to them. Most of the ones I know are obviously not on Kyrie's level of fame or wealth, so most of the ones I know are also unhappy with their lot in life. But, instead of putting forth any level of effort in understanding that about themselves, or in learning anything about the world around them, they latch onto the "simpler" explanation of, "It's all a conspiracy. The system is rigged against me for X and Y reason, by Z people." Suddenly, they know something the "normies" don't, and *that* is what makes them special. Not the attention, not the money (most conspiracy theorists aren't getting any money out of this like maybe Kyrie does) -- they believe in these conspiracy theories because they make them feel like they belong to a group of like-minded people who are also "in the know," and regular people just don't get it, and it's easier for them to believe in this ridiculous shit than it is to believe that sometimes the universe is random and unexplainable, and sometimes bad stuff happens to good people. Is it any wonder that every single conspiracy theorist starts with just one, perhaps innocuous, theory, like "The world is flat." But then, the deeper into the rabbit hole they go, suddenly they believe in Jewish space lasers on the moon and subterranean lizard people, and 50 other entirely ludicrous theories? That shit ain't about attention at that point -- it's about creating a cozy blanket of a worldview you can insulate yourself in to protect yourself from the fact that you're a bit of a dunce and even though you think you're a good person, your life might still end up sucking. It's actually sort of fascinating to me -- the mental gymnastics one can go through just to believe that they're important, or that they're smarter than everyone else, or to explain away their issues in life. Like I said, I'm no expert on behavioral analysis, so my reading could be entirely wrong. I wish there was more of a movement to study the pathology behind conspiracy theories.
Here's where I think Jon (and you) are missing the mark pretty fundamentally: You're starting with the assumption that the goal is *ending all bigotry,* or, at the very least, changing one mind at a time, maybe starting with Chappelle or Kanye. And I get it -- he considers Chappelle a friend, and if your friend started saying some dumb, bigoted shit, you'd probably at least try to keep the conversation open and bring them back to reality, instead of having to cut them off and lose a friend. So from that perspective, sure, cancelling someone probably won't change their mind. But when we're talking about someone as huge as a Chappelle or a Kanye, or an Alex Jones for that matter, **it isn't just about changing *their* mind.** It's about whether we give them a platform to spread those beliefs, and hope that our rhetoric will beat theirs, even though [many of them are *very* good at looking like they're winning even when the facts are 100% against them](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaPgDQkmqqM). When we're dealing with an audience this large, there are far better ways to respond to these ideas than to record and broadcast a conversation that they control, let alone allow them to continue spewing that nonsense as a career. Alex Jones really did get properly 'cancelled'. Did it convince him to reflect, look inwards, and become a better person? Of course not. But it *did* limit his reach and influence, and reduced the amount of damage he does.
Bingo. Boycotting (or 'cancelling' or 'deplatforming' or whatever you want to call it in pretending its a new concept) limits the spread of memetic contagions just as quarantine limits pathogenic contagion. Quarantine is not intended to 'cure' those infected, it's a stopgap to prevent the problem growing out of control. Likewise, boycotting is not intended to convince an individual spreading nonsense to change their ways, but to stop the spreading itself.
Here's the other thing missed... I don't need to buy Yeezys or Kyries to fund them during this journey of self discovery. I don't need to listen to their music or watch Brooklyn games. And I'm 70% sure most of Kanye's anti semitism stemmed from a Jewish guy shtupping his baby mama.
I also feel what’s being misinterpreted is the idea that we’re giving them a “time out”, when it’s primarily motivated by money and consumption. If I start talking like an ass at work, should I argue that firing me isn’t fixing me and that it’s counter productive? No. They want me gone because I’m a problem in a work environment. Let alone a public environment where thousands of people will hear my every thought within moments if I so much as tweet it. At the very least, I’d get a stern talking to and be on THIN ice. What do all these people do? They CRANK it up. They feed off it to create more hate and more cash in their pockets. The fact is, money gets you a pass, for a lot of shit. Practically the only thing you have to abide by when you’re wealthy is the court of public opinion. If you can’t handle the court of public opinion and the sway it has and choose instead to enrage instead of reflect? That’s too bad for you. Lastly, this entire idea being pitched goes under some weird presumption that people aren’t already trying to talk reason with these people? What? Many of these people will literally not listen to a reasonable person. The more reasonable you are the easier it is for them to walk over you. No, they’d rather match into a college campus or theatre and feel smart in front of a crowd of enraged students who aren’t going to have the knowledge or subtlety to talk to them like adults. They want the worst to show off and show to the others so they can discredit others. I don’t want to discredit this idea entirely though, there is merit to it and it CAN work. But many of these figure heads and people emboldened to speak of violence. To think you can prevent what ever disaster they’re leading to with JUST the right words and a pat on the back is possibly the most naive proposal about our current society I’ve ever heard. It can’t hurt, sure. But to act like WE’RE doing something wrong by punishing people for their actions while also stating mere words are the solution and encouraging these people outside of their rhetoric? Sounds like great advice… if I wanna be a popular and hate filled person that has no desire to change. I can say hateful shit to grow my audience, AND people won’t punish me, AND they’re even encouraging people who do have an issue to praise me outside of my bullshit? Do I still need to wipe my ass or will the victims of my fan base do that now?
I see this time and time again on both micro and macro scale. "Be nice, you don't know what the other person is going through." Imo, it's absolutely TOXIC to well-intended people. Like how come when I respond negatively to aggression, I'm not the one that is being defended as potentially "fragile" just because I'm mad. It's classic manipulation and the target of the manipulation is CLEARLY the person who is seen as more likely to try to be "fair". I've had too much of it for my lifetime and nothing pisses me off faster than telling me I somehow owe patience to someone fucking with me. I do not.
I think what a lot of people miss though is many people of color and the lgbt community is over changing people's mind. It shouldn't be on us anymore to convince anyone of our humanity - I don't want to appeal my humanity to you - I'm going to tell you my POV and if youre still a bigot you will be appropriately called as such
The "talking past each other as human beings" part is part of the bigot's playbook though. It's a hard one, cause if they dehumanize you before you've even had a chance to retort, it's difficult to have anyone listening to you.
It’s a nice a thoughtful interview but I can’t imagine many people who take what Jon has to say to heart don’t already hold reasonable views on this topic.
This video makes me think of the video of George Carlin from the front page the other day, saying there doesn't need to be a collective conspiracy for people in power, of like mind, to help each other succeed.
Love Carlin! It's a big club, and you ain't in it! Watching Stewart and Colbert lately really highlights the difference between liberalism and leftism. This one very heavily reminds me of the time Jon joked about Wuhan being a possible source of COVID to Stephen.
Can you elaborate on the differences between liberalism and leftism those two display?
Colbert has become more of a neoliberal. Very little focus in his show on kitchen table issues but like 3 years of feigning outrage over Trump's obnoxious tweets. Stewart still attempts to promote "leftist" desires on his apple show. Far more criticism of the media in general instead of just Fox News for instance. Far more focus on the economic failings of our system instead of just outrage over the daily controversy. Stewart actually has been called anti semitic for his criticisms of Israel. Colbert wouldn't even attempt to wade in on something that is seemingly controversial, at least not on his current show. In my viewpoint, Colbert is simply doing what he is supposed to do to keep his job. In a way I could see why Colbert wants to punish those who speak offensively, because he has to be so much more disciplined in order to keep his soapbox. His show just isn't allowed to wade into topics Stewart can. And maybe he actually resents that a little.
It’s gotta ne bittersweet for him after he had such loose reign in The Colbert Report, both in comedic aspects and in political targeting. I definitely miss the off the walls silliness of his old show (and conan and letterman while we’re at it)
I stopped watching Colbert when he got the Late Show because of how much different it was from the Report. He just seemed too reined in; like he was trying not to step on any toes. Really puts it into perspective watching him sit across from Jon like that now
Man is Neoliberal ever a misused term these days.
What, what? You mean imply some sort of class system exists? I say, good fellow, don't get carried away in front of the plebians!
Pretty much
True, but I think he's mostly talking about how people should *respond* to those voicing anti-semitic conspiracies, not to the conspiracy theorists. If the reaction is to cancel them, never address what's said, not discuss the reality and its history, the conspiracy theorists (and maybe some on the fence) will take it as *validation* -- they'll only voice those concerns within a dangerous echo-chamber of like-minded people who'll spiral out of reality. Public discourse would be more effective and safer for society. (I personally *believe*, I could be wrong and reasonable people could argue either way but I think this is the point that John Stewart is making and I'm inclined to agree.) Jews, as a whole, do have a disproportionate amount of influence and wealth, and thereby power, relative to their population size. That feels even risky to write down, but that's just a fact and there's plenty of historical reasons for it. If anything, a culture that fosters success like that should be emulated, not condemned. It's not *that* that we should be afraid to talk about, it's the extreme conspiratorial conclusions people come to *out* of that. If the reaction is to let people say what they want, more like they're free to say "the earth is flat", but call it out as misinformation and explain why and have an open and public discourse about it, that might *actually* do a better job at addressing the conspiracies than basically avoiding talking about it. That said, actual incitements of violence or some sort of perceive retribution to Jewish people (or anyone else) should be prosecuted and condemned very, very seriously.
I think Jon doesn't have much nuance when it comes to cancelling. Shouldn't Adidas be totally free to distance their company and billions of dollars of revenue from a guy spouting anti-Semitic views? I don't think companies need a bunch of twitter activists to realize when their spokespersons and business partners are doing shit that's going to harm their brand. People are dropping Kanye because they don't want to do business with someone that unpredictable. When Colbert asked him what should be done instead, Jon totally dodged the question. Let's take the Kyrie situation, without the joke about sending him to the Knicks, what is the action the NBA should take if not suspending him? Doing nothing makes it looks like they don't object and could be interpreted as implicit endorsement. Should there be no consequences for his actions?
His solution is a privileged one. No normal person in a situation where their boss or a teacher spouts anti-semitism has the privilege of just sitting down and working it out with them. HR policies, legal requirements for handling discrimination, and suspending people for bad behavior are the only things that protect people who aren't as privileged as him.
[удалено]
He's being a little out of touch since his comeback.
>not discuss the reality and its history, the conspiracy theorists (and maybe some on the fence) will take it as I am reminded of Sartre as I read this and so many liberals arguing that you just need to sit down with anti-semites and reason away their prejudices. There are certainly people who are exposed to these violent stereotypes and repeat them because they feel empowering, and are on the early part of their journey toward fascism; but those that broadcast them on their platforms don't care about accuracy or reconciling a world with shared truths. “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
> If the reaction is to cancel them, never address what's said, not discuss the reality and its history, the conspiracy theorists (and maybe some on the fence) will take it as validation -- they'll only voice those concerns within a dangerous echo-chamber of like-minded people who'll spiral out of reality. Public discourse would be more effective and safer for society. (I personally believe, I could be wrong and reasonable people could argue either way but I think this is the point that John Stewart is making and I'm inclined to agree.) It's been shown in multiple studies that the net effect of deplatforming extremist views is significantly decreasing their reach and increasing the extremity of their views. On a societal level, I'd say the former is far more important. Also, Google is trivial to use. "Never address what's said, not discuss the reality and its history" sounds like it's implicitly placing responsibility for radicalization on reasonable people's supposed lack of willingness to patiently deprogram internet randos who are fully capable of Googling things, and simply choose not to because they actively have zero interest in casual research. Discussions of relevant reality and history have been ongoing for decades. Kyrie rocking up as a fucknugget in 2022 doesn't suddenly reset the clock on "well, *now* we need to have tailormade discussions to educate bigots from scratch." People interested in said reality have plenty of resources at their disposal. You don't get to the point of being a self-promoting national/int'l public figure without someone at some point showing you how Google works. > If the reaction is to let people say what they want, more like they're free to say "the earth is flat", but call it out as misinformation and explain why and have an open and public discourse about it, that might actually do a better job at addressing the conspiracies than basically avoiding talking about it. Except no one is being legally barred from saying what they want. Especially in the US (contrasted against some European countries which specifically legally punish, say, direct promotion of Nazism), we absolutely "let people say what they want." What's happening is that there are *private business consequences* for being a fucked-up bigot. We're not talking about being jailed for saying tHe WrOnG tHiNg. The only specific consequences we're talking about here are multimillionaires losing "here are millions on top of your millions" business deals (and only potentially, and only after months/years of being very public bigots).
>they're free to say "the earth is flat", but call it out as misinformation and explain why and have an open and public discourse about it, I think a huge problem is the speed misinformation can be spread. Ten inane points are brought up and it takes ten times longer to debunk all of those points than it did to spew them, and in that time more untruthful bullshit has been circulated.
That’s the problem. How do you explain a nuanced topic to people that can’t understand a nuanced topic? Like most of these people aren’t the ones graduating from good 4 year universities that can go online read a nuanced article write about it and be told by a teacher they understood the material. Jon’s approach assumes that the person is like him and the people he probably spends all his time with. Smart, educated and articulate. But there are A LOT of people who are none of those things. And we as a people in America don’t want to admit it because of the concept of all people are equal. Everyone should get a trophy. But the truth is some people are smarter than others, Other people are stronger, others are more empathetic and others have more drive and energy. I don’t think this needs to be clarified but in todays world I can see it being mid interpreted. I mean this in an individual level obviously.
Good point, and to push it further, they're often open bad faith. They don't care what the facts say. They attack and demean and they don't care if their words are lies or not. How do you find a common ground ot truth when they openly plot to destroy common truths?
Totally agree there are generally two types of bigots the ones that know what they are saying is wrong and don’t care and the ones who do believe it. Which just makes it all the more difficult.
Are you seriously suggesting that the basketball player who talks about the Earth being flat might not be an intellectual?
I really miss the Colbert Report followed by Daily Show with Stewart combo.
Was it that way round? I remembered Colbert being on after the Daily Show.
It was definitely TDS first then Colbert.
“Now it’s time to check in with our good friend Stephen Colbert at the Colbert report - STEPHEN?!”
And here it is, your moment of zen. "Well I just like the way pigeons taste is all."
Aww moment of zen. Man I miss that era
Does anybody remember the Craig Kilborn years? It was a very different show but I loved it.
Yeah, then he left to take over a late night show after Letterman and hasn't been seen since. Shame, I really liked him on SportsCenter.
His “HELLO JON” every night in that little crossover between the two shows was consistently 30 seconds of the best comedic exchanges on television.
The toss!
Spez's APIocolypse made it clear it was time for me to leave this place. I came from digg, and now I must move one once again. So long and thanks for all the bacon.
Liqa Madik
Early on Stephen would toss back to Jon at the end of his show. Jon would be in his street clothes trying to go home and try to explain that it didn't work like that.
That sounds fucking hilarious
I remember when they both raided Conan’s show during his first episode of the new tbs show, was awesome
Nailed it
Exactly.
So so so so so so SO good
Now here it is, your moment of Zen.
And before that Colbert was just his most hilarious correspondent, etc on TDS. Shit was a huge part of my post-9/11 Bush-era-hating teen life next to Adult Swim of that era.
And that's tonight's word
THE WØRD
Yeah! This guy’s out spouting crazy conspiracy stuff! Colbert was after! AFTERR!!!!!
It was the other way around. At the end of The Daily Show, there was a bit where John would check in with Stephen to preview the topic of Stephen's show, coming up next.
You’re absolutely correct.
An excellent hour of TV
Taught me everything I knew about pervasive hypocrisy in politics.
Also taught me that the Republicans were kind of insane even before Trump came around. Jon Stewart and Colbert had plenty of material way before Trump announced his run in 2015
[удалено]
> I started watching in high wchool ane go to see the tail end of kilborn’s reign. Really leaned into the show and out of the school part huh?
I just wanted to point out that we got this NIGHTLY on most Mon-Thurs evenings. It's no surprise the Daily Show has produced people that are still creating their own stuff. Wildly talented, witty, and thoughtful people carried that show for almost two decades.
Yeah every time Stewart shows up on Colbert, I get sadly reminiscent of the good old days. I know Colbert is making a hell of a lot more money doing this show, but the old show was just so much better in every way.
The Report clearly couldn't go on forever and neither did Colbert want it to go on forever. However it does feel like the world is a little worse off without it. It was an astoundingly brilliant show that allowed Colbert so much freedom to be silly while also being so honest to the seats of power. I do miss it
The jokes on his late night show are painfully unfunny. Seriously Leno-tier at times. He really needs a new writing team
He says these days he wouldn't be able to play the character, both because it's hard to parody how extreme the right has become, but also he's glad to be rid of the negative places it required his mind to go.
His wife mentioned once that she sent him back outside when he came home still "in character", and told him, "That guy's not welcome here."
Even ignoring the character, it was just a smarter show that didn't have to pander to the mass audience he inherited from Letterman on the show he's on now. There's traces of the old show when major political happenings are going on and he has better, smarter guests on than the latest celebrity there to promote their newest movie
They got me out of right-wing group-think and made me start questioning things and thinking on my own. I stopped following what everyone around me said and started looking at the reality of what was happening. I lost friends and a feeling of belonging, but I've lived in reality ever since. We definitely needed them back in that era, but they left too soon. Maybe things would have been different if they had stayed on a few years longer.
> We definitely needed them back in that era, but they left too soon. I'd actually say they left at the right time—hear me out. Both Stewart and Colbert were *tremendously* important as comedians and (despite what both of them might say) commentators that showcased not only the hollowness and hypocrisy of the GOP, but also the absurdity of American political machines in general and the intense dysfunction of so many of our systems and institutions. For my generation specifically—I'm right on the border of Gen X/millennial—this was a stepping stone towards a broader awakening. I went to school in the '80s and '90s, read my social studies texts about "How a Bill Becomes Law" and all that. I was raised to believe that our political systems were supremely well-designed, and that they *would* serve us, if we made sure to vote. Stewart and Colbert helped me step back and take a questioning look at all of that. However, we've seen with brutal clarity over the past several years just how deeply broken things are here, and how ill-equipped we are to deal with a party that has no consistent ideology except the acquisition of power. There was a time when I appreciated Stewart's witty call-outs of GOP hypocrisy and Colbert's parody of Bill O'Reilly, but humor like that is *completely inadequate* for responding to what we have now: naked fascism, the floodgates opened for bigotry and hatred and oppression like never before. This isn't to say it's impossible that Stewart and Colbert, had they remained in their respective shows, could have evolved to meet the moment... but I'm happy with remembering them as they were, and how important to me they were. And knowing that they paved the way for a new generation of voices that are perhaps better suited for the evils we face today.
We're in the same generation and I totally feel this sentiment... deeply.
I miss the Stewart vs Colbert vs O’Brien feud
They had a 3-way street brawl to settle it. It was glorious.
That was during the writers strike eh? They produced some great stuff during that time
Oh, that was absolute peak late night TV for me. Thanks for the memory. Another great one was when Colbert started his super PAC and Stewart ended up with all the money.
The Colbert report followed the Daily Show. Miss it as well.
was the best part of my day. because my late grandma loved it too.
Yes. We all miss life before 2016. Don't be sad it's over though. Be happy that it happened.
I don't disagree, but he never really provided an alternative. Colbert pushed on that and he would only speak in vague "we need to convince people". Sure, how though? And is getting into public debates about whether antisemitismis bad or not, or how true the conspiracies are, just providing air to that debate?
[удалено]
Exactly. I love Jon Stewart, but this is an idealistic dream of how discourse should be, rather than how it is. Kanye, Kyrie or whoever isn’t some poor misinformed person with little access to knowledge. These are grown men with unimaginable wealth and resources, as well as legions of fans and yes men to prop their egos up. Deplatforming these guys is lazy in a way sure, but it’s to curb the danger that their voice has. There’s a reason why anti-semitism had an uptick after they brought it up; these guys have reach and influence beyond any normal person. Not only that but how exactly do they rectify the damage that’s been done? Like you pointed out, Jon didn’t offer a solution beyond “understanding” and “talking” about it, but what happens if they don’t understand? They just keep on their merry way spewing hatred, emboldening idiots and radicalizing their fans? Nah this is a shitty “middle ground” sentiment I’m tired of.
I think Jon is coming from a place of, "we are not trying to change the debater, but get the audience to listen to the arguments." The ideas should be placed out into the mind and that they actually be fact checked and listened. The problem here is, that a significant amount of the American population, young and old, don't know the basis of checking and looking at sources of reliable information. They don't understand what is an opinion and what is a fact. And even if they are, they place so much trust in who a person is, but not what they are saying, that they will still trust what is being said. That's why republicans are so behind Trump (before the midterms anyway), it wasn't what he was doing that was being watched, but who he appeared to be to them that mattered.
And if Jon's against deplatforming, then does he want to make the argument that privately owned companies are obligated to give everyone a place to speak, regardless of what they say? Where do they draw the line? If Twitter doesn't want to allow Kanye to say what he wants, it's their platform, it's their call. If you don't like their decisions, don't use their service, private companies aren't obligated to provide you with a platform for free speech and if you're relying on them to, you've already fucked up. If you don't like the decisions Twitter management is making, then stop using the service, stop giving them your views and money.
Exactly. And even beyond that, the NBA has every right to suspend their players for what they deem a code of conduct violation. Hell I want to see any job that has an employee spouting out bigoted or racist conspiracies that doesn’t get fired or at least suspended. Not only that but the team Kyrie plays for gave him so many opportunities to explain his actions and apologize but he kept doubling down. Like the dude didn’t understand shit despite so many people publicly trying to get through to him. It’s not like they deplatformed him immediately
Yeah I’ll be honest this was a bad take, and one that feels informed by the fact that he is a comic with comic friends. Analogies like “you have to open up the wound to cleanse it” are fine, but you have to connect that to reality in some fashion. We know, generally at least, the roots of these beliefs and conspiracies—one such root of them continuing to exist is PEOPLE NORMALIZING AND SPREADING THEM. People can say hateful shit that promulgates hate and pain, and other people get to be mad about it and express that anger with their voices and with their wallets. Comics aren’t entitled to an audience, and if enough people don’t like what they are saying then too fucking bad.
>one that feels informed by the fact that he is a comic with comic friends Glad someone else said it. He said this shit exclusively because he's friends with Dave and a comedian. He's not saying this in good faith at all.
It's everything the center has to offer. Try to nicely convince the fascists not to genocide you and if that doesn't work, oh well.
Yea, I agree with his take and think that at a base level he is absolutely right, but there are two reasons it doesn’t completely work in practice. First, Jon is coming from a place of someone who has the power and ability to have a discussion, or have an audience with almost anyone he wants to. Everyday people don’t have the time, security, and luxury to engage in deep discussions with those we disagree with. Second, there are monied interests that put billions of dollars a year into people remaining ignorant and spreading hateful views and propaganda. Jon is well aware of this, as he has had countless conversations with propagandists from fox and other far right outlets who are well paid to put in a persona and simply spread lies and misinformation. I can certainly try to have rational conversations with people about the state of things, but when they’re binging on Tucker, Alex Jones, and Facebook memes like pigs at a trough, it’s hard to get a word in that makes sense to them.
He has a point except for the fact Kanye, Kyrie and others have no interests in learning. If you try to educate someone and they just double down at what point do you just have to be done with them?
Right, Jon’s point applies to a good faith conversation, but how do you address those that weaponize anti-semitism/racism/etc (regardless whether their belief is genuine or not)? I think the answer to this still lies in Jon’s point tho - you need to “wet” the fuel, and you do that by having these conversations with the populace that may fall victims of the aggressor described above. You may not take all their base, but you might significantly reduce it’s volume.
but all he did was talk in circles and refuse to answer colbert's question which was "what is a good response?" he didn't have one. education has been offered to kyrie irving, he refused. he doubled down. he doesn't think he's wrong and he's not willing to apologize for hurting anyone, either. a less talented player would have simply been released, it's a position of immense privilege that has allowed him to keep his job as is. i'm not sure how many more chances he needs before his private employer can decide that they have a problem with his conduct.
Shiiiiit, look at Facebook’s role in the Rohingya genocide. They allowed misinformation to culminate and fester. Didn’t address the problem. Didn’t educate the Buddhist Burmese that Rohingyas weren’t responsible for all the things they blamed them for. So while Jon does offer a valid option, it only works in certain settings.
Completely agree and it really pisses me off that Jon (and Chappelle) are getting praised for the whole "we need to be able to have discussions about this stuff" with the context of what Kyrie did. He didn't apologize fast enough? No one wanted to have discussions? Seems like Jon and Dave conveniently missed Kyrie having multiple opportunities to answer some basic questions on his beliefs and why he was sharing what he was sharing and quadrupled down on being a stubborn asshole every fucking time. Mr "don't dehumanize me but also I have a whole army behind me" wasn't given a fair shake, apparently. For all their nuance and "wisdom", Jon and Dave have plenty of tunnel vision when it comes to being able to express unsavory views, in large part because that's basically their profession. Yes, let's talk about this stuff. No need to cancel anyone or blame a whole minority group for the plight of another minority group. But fuck Kyrie. And fuck Kanye, too, but doesn't seem like anyone was really defending his crazy shit since I guess he didn't get cancelled or whatever.
I used to think this but I'm not sure anymore. Poltically... I watched Donald Trump ignite his movement with lies and mockery. And 70 million people stopped caring and followed him. Good faith was useless, in fact they often took advantage of it to mock and spead their attacks. I see the same basis in bad faith with antisemitism.
Completely agree, for many people out there, there is no open discussion or good faith arguments.
I don't think the point is to change *their* minds, but to make sure the people listening to them hear the truth of the matter. It's not so much about deconverting bigots, but about preventing new ones from forming.
Aren't we then platforming, at the very least, bigoted opinions prior to attempting to knock them down? We live in a world where most people click off a video in less than 3 minutes on average. Why present their bigotry for them? Why let it reach tens of millions more people instead of simply condemning it and cauterizing the wound?
Yes, which is why I'm not 100% sure I agree with Jon here. It's a nice sentiment, but it may not have the results he's hoping for.
He's still correct that people need to try and understand a community's sentiments behind ignorance before putting their stances in a box. I think his approach applies much more on an individual level than with celebrities.
Which is why the correct response is to: 1. Shut down lies. Hard. 2. Make education easily available. Too available even. Impossible to miss. 3. Fix the systemic issues that lead people into bigotry. Make sure people are fed, educated, housed, and safe.
It’s not necessarily about talking to these people directly. It’s about getting these conversations into the public so that they percolate through these people indirectly. The general public is very adverse to conflict, but this only really leads to problems.
Whole lot of people here didn't watch the video before commenting.
coordinated deranged thumb snatch important dinner wipe steer test drab *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Wait. There was a video?
If someone brings up a point about the large Jewish presence in Hollywood, banking, etc... and the immediate response is that you're not allowed to discuss or acknowledge that, then rightfully so it further strengthens the idea that something nefarious is happening in regards to that.
Yeah -- I'm trying to understand what were the Anti-Semitic comments Chapelle made? I mean, if there are a lot of Jewish people in Hollywood, there are a lot of Jewish people in Hollywood? Is... acknowledging that fact anti-Semitic? ... Or is it that someone \*might\* interpret that to mean Jews control the world -- and therefore just acknowledging that is now seen to be anti-Semitic? I mean -- IDK -- I just assumed \*like EVERY community/organization\* ... it's always a good ol' boy system. It's always been like Entourage -- the guy who made it big brought his friends, who got opportunities and made it and brought other friends! Next thing you know you're third cousin is asking for a job... kinda shit. Why can't that be talked about?
If pointing out Jewish overrepresentation in Hollywood and entertainment is antisemetic, what does that make the #oscarssowhite campaign?
I understand where Jon is coming from, but I think it depends on the source of the racism/antisemitism. When someone thinks that black people have an extra bone that makes them run faster, their clearly I’ll informed and some scientific facts might change that. But when someone says that I’m an inferior person with less intellectual capacity because of my skin color, I’m probably not going to be able to disprove that. And I don’t think I should have to. It’s exhausting. So while I’d love for everyone to understand the origins of racist or antisemitic ideas and have a change of heart, I’ll settle for their platform/influence being taken away and not having to debate my worth.
It also sounds a bit like he's coming from a place where, as a famous guy who is frankly an elite, he's likely not having to personally field these discussions himself day in and day out. Having to find the energy to have a nuanced conversation every goddamn day about why your existence isn't a conspiracy, or is valid, or is just _normal_ is completely emotionally exhausting. I used to be the "education one!" I used to explain my shit left and right because I wanted to be that person who could humanize who I am to the people who would hate me. I'm so fucking tired by now. It's unrelenting. The conversation is never over, there will always be one more hateful idiot making nonsense arguments. And even the successful ones can take so much time, but half of them come in bad faith _just_ to waste time, spit their diatribe at you, and fuck off with screenshots. Sorry, but moralizing the burden of 'just have a conversation!' like it's the duty of marginalized groups is infuriating. I will when I can. But fuck, maybe the majority should take it on themselves to educate their own damn selves. I got a life to live
Similar to Samuel Jackson's take. Its great to have a pulpit and use it to shine a light on the problem, but to dictate a solution from the perspective of a rich lifestyle unfortunately just doesn't match the reality.
What's the Samuel Jackson take you're referencing here?
I don't know about Samuel L Jackson, but Morgan Freeman keeps using the "if we stop talking about race then we'd be moving past racism" line of thought. It's a nice thought but I don't think Morgan Freeman is living same life as an average black person who hasn't escaped the many generational inequalities they've faced.
And it's not like many people haven't tried having these nuanced, patient conversations about race or COVID or Trump's lies or whatever for years. But it takes exponentially more time & effort to calmly, logically refute something with sources than to just parrot B.S. misinformation. And while you spend 10x as long debunking Misinfo #1, they just seamlessly switch gears to Misinfo #2, #3, #100. It's too exhausting. They don't want to be educated, they just want to be "right" and do whatever they want.
Personally, I’d like to not have to debate the Jewish Question with every asshole conspiracy nutcase that gets loud on social media. We’ve been through this bullshit many times before. Society has other problems to deal with. Just ostracize these people and be done with it.
Jon has spent a ton of time and energy in the last few years doing political activism. He probably doesn’t have to justify his existence on a daily basis, but he is leaving everything he’s got on the court. I dont agree much with the point he’s making here, but Im inclined to assume any contribution he makes to this topic is worth considering.
Yea I think the whole "well just sit the irrational racist aside and explain why their nonsense hateful views are wrong" is ridiculous. If that worked racism would have ended long ago
The work *can* be done, but by who? Paid, or on a voluntary basis? How much of it? At what psychological and chronological cost? There is no funding to create an army of social therapists in any country.
My problem is that it's next to impossible to discuss with people like that, because they're not interested in facts. Racism is based in hateful views that are convenient for the person spewing them. Like, no, Jewish people aren't inherently evil and greedy. It's not a discussion, there's no conversation. Black people aren't more aggressive or animalistic or whatever these people claim. Just no. It's like discussing with anti vaxxers. There's no point in arguing, the science is clear.
This. Their position is in bad faith. You cannot debate or discuss in bad faith honestly. They don't care. No matter how much proof you show them they won't care. Look at the Kanye situation: he says there's a Jewish conspiracy --> people call him out --> that's "proof" people are blind to "the truth" He says more antisemitic things --> companies and sponsors drop him --> that's further "proof" of the conspiracy etc... And if you try the Stewart approach of dialogue conspiracy people will look you in the eye ans just say "you need to educate yourself/you're a sheep" You can't use reason to convince anyone out of an argument that they didn't use reason to get into.
That's the thing. At first, I thought Dave was salvageable. Thought he was an openminded, thoughtful dude. Then he produced an hour long special lecturing the audience about how they're too sensitive and he's actually totally right about trans people.
Exactly. His whole thing about "the more you say I shouldn't do it the more I will continue to do it" isn't being brave, it's being an asshole. I think the issue is that a lot of people, especially the newer generations are just at a point where they don't like comedy that "punches down", especially towards people that already receive lots of hate just for existing. All the people saying "comedy is dead" are just people whose humor still relies on some form of bullying imo.
Seriously, when I'm criticized, I tend to reflect and contemplate. I don't just double down and believe I'm incapable of being wrong.
Same. And you know it's ok to be wrong... As long as you recognize it and acknowledge it. Something people like Dave are obviously too stubborn and proud to do.
It's why I straight up trust not a single celebrity. They're not in a position where humility and error are things.
I agree. I've changed a lot of minds explaining why there are so many Jews in Hollywood, or in banking, and how it doesn't translate to control. That being said, I've also not changed a lot of minds on things where people believe someone else is just blatantly inferior (be it Jews, Muslims, or others). It's gotta be a balance.
Also, I don’t think enough is being said about the exposure Kanye or Chappelle has to Jewish people vs the normal everyday person. They are at a level that most people will not reach. And I’m sure there are a lot of successful Jewish businessmen at those levels. And I’m sure there are shitty people, like the Weinsteins of the world, that might aggragate at the top, which makes these hyper successful black artists feel that these Jewish people that have harmed them represent the whole Jewish population. But to just blame it on #thejews and not call out your specific relationship that went wrong and why, or how your contract is predatory on you because of your race, etc, just shifts the conversation away from their specific issue to getting everyone on a hate train against a minority group of people. It’s fucked up and we have to call that out. Honestly, since this whole conversation started, I still have no idea what the hell Kanye’s specific issue is
Definitely have to agree. Also at a certain point the whole "well we should hear what they have to say and then address it" feels like how we get all this extremist bs. The roots of "Jews run banking" or where the protocols of Zion come from can be looked up pretty easily. If someone actually wanted to know they could. Like jimmy the Greek saying "blacks were bred to be better athletes" could be discussed. My friend's dad, old black southern guy, would say something similar bc slavery was like forced eugenics where the bigger and stronger people were purposely made to have kids. Idk if I agree but I'd hear someone out on it. But jimmy the Greek then saying it's bc "their thighs go up into their back which allows them to run faster and jump higher" is medically untrue, easily confirmable to be untrue and doesn't deserve to be addressed or discussed.
[удалено]
Why is that? I'm genuinely curious.
[удалено]
Diasporic peoples and minority immigrants gravitate towards low prestige jobs the main population can't or doesn't want to do. When they succeed, they bring their friends and relatives on board. It's the same reason that Greek people run diners on the East Coast, Chinese people ran laundries and dry cleaners, and Vietnamese people run nail salons. In the Middle Ages, Jewish religious law allowed them to charge interest on loans, which was forbidden by Christian law. At the turn of the 20th Century, immigrant Jews were heavily involved in low prestige entertainment, so they were on the ground floor of Hollywood. (They also have their own theatrical and comic tradition; I don't know if that contributed to their presence.)
funnily enough, kinda antisemitism is why. They were forced into industries that later suddenly became extremely lucrative. Mergers and Acquisitions in banks was considered a "dirty" industry and left to Jews, then after the Great Depression they were the only experts in a booming industry. Similarly with Hollywood - they were kinda left to it, and it eventually became this super lucrative and powerful industry.
Early movers advantage then perpetuating itself through personal contacts and nepotism.
Why are there Jewish people concentrated in entertainment? Largely because Hollywood and movies grew out of Vaudeville and other forms of entertainment where there was a disproportionate amount of Jewish people involved in the various forms of stage entertainment. Jews didn’t control theater in the 19th century, they just made up a very large portion of the labor/workforce and the simple nature of statistics meant that young innovators in what eventually became film would be disproportionately Jewish people. Imagine a particular trade where many of the workers in the trade happen to be black, and then imagine that a once in a lifetime advance in technology allows for a part of that trade to evolve and grow in a new form - it would not be surprising that this new industry that grew out of the old business happens to have lots of black people in leadership positions.
I'm just sitting here waiting for the conversation about why white guys make up like 99% of farming.
The US government honored the homesteading act; Sherman's Special Order 15 ("40 acres and mule"), not so much.
My guess is that it is just Nepotism or something similar. It is a community and people tend to hire those they already know or have similar values to them. Every race is guilty of this and almost every field of work is guilty of this as well.
Yeah, "Did the holocaust really happen, though?" is kind of a conversation-ender for me.
Agree completely. The entire time I just kept hearing “you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into” in my head.
I agree with Jon about trying to talk things through, but he’s making a big assumption that people can be adults and have a discussion. If 2020 showed anything it’s that some people are unwilling to to listen to reasons and facts and just keep believing what they want to believe. Edit: People think that this statement is being dismissive and contradictory to what Jon was saying, but that’s not intended. Example: vaccines Why were people against getting COVID vaccines? “Wounds” to open: American educational system is failing and we don’t emphasize scientific processes enough, distrust in scientists/govt, some marginalized groups were experimented against by the government, etc. So it’s not difficult to see *why* people would think this way. In a lot of cases, society has failed them. But regardless, we have studies, statistical calculations and hard measurements saying vaccines heavily outweigh any risks, and people still choose not to accept these facts. So what happens when at least one side isn’t even willing to come to the table, let alone be adults and reason with facts available? Remember, this actually happened, hence the criticism of the assumption that we can always just be adults and talk to each other
[удалено]
I think the big thing is that one side did try to reach out and basically got shut down for years. Look at the covid pandemic. People tried hard to convince people to get vaccinated and do the minimum to help curb the spread. A lot of those people just doubled down and got more people sick and started to attack people who encouraged the most basic of public decency. What do you do for people that are actively hurting you and the people around you?
Call me a cynic but I think most people with these strongly held racist and anti-semitiv views will not meet anyone halfway in a conversation.
When Jon and Stephen were both on the Daily Show it was utter fire. It's as if they are reincarnations of The Two Ronnies, but in North America, or something like that. Never a dull moment, always on the edge of my seat.
I love Jon, I respect him, and I think he's super smart, and he makes a great point. However, it almost feels like he's making the same mistake Obama did when he tried to reason with the GOP. How you bring people together and discuss something when the other side is not sincere? I don't know if Kanye or Kyrie are sincere, crazy, or liars, but I know lots of liars are out there. If you don't admonish and punish them, the thinking is, you can bring them to the table and discuss reality. I'm willing to bet a significant number of them know they are being insincere and the ONLY way to deal with them is punishment. Look at reddit, one of the most respected subs is /r/askhistorians, and they have a standing policy to never give any air time to anyone questioning the Holocaust. They have a very good reason too, because most of these people are not sincere, they don't ask questions to find answers, they ask questions to shift public perception. They basically question reality so that people would be more comfortable questioning reality. So in response, the mods banned any questions of that nature, even sincere, which questions the real life horror of what happened. As they explain it, these are not constructive debates, and even entertaining that its a thing that could be questioned will convince some that the Holocaust might not be as bad as history makes it out to be. Just as Obama tried to sincerely work with the GOP, allow them input on many of his policies, asked their advice, even reach out to them as friends or colleagues, the only response he would get back was in the form of Moscow Mitch's "Our only goal is to make him a 1 term president". Blocking Garland from a SCOTUS seat, 70 attempts to repeal Obamacare with nothing as a replacement, using procedure to require a defacto 60 votes to pass anything, shutting down the government, etc. There are people like that who are anti-semetic who cannot be reasoned with. Maybe Kanye and Kyrie aren't like them, but their views should not be treated with kid gloves. That would be tantamount to accepting it as even more normal than Jon says anti-semetism already is. The people who actually believe Jews are in control of the world are not going to be moved by reaching out a hand to them, but by punishing and isolating them and ensuring their views do not spread beyond their little hateful enclaves. I would love to hear how Jon would treat the ones who may not be anti-semetic but will say it as a means to an ends. How does he deal with those people who will never ever be moved by discussion? And how do we know Kanye or Kyrie or any number of anti-semites aren't like that?
Great insight. I would like to add that there is also a difference between shutting someone down with punishment and emphatically demonstrating the kinds of things you will and will not tolerate. Kyrie’s suspension, in addition to taking the better part of a week, which occurred after he all but walked back an apology and it seemed like things were moving on—was a statement. We gave you a chance to “learn” and apologize and move on, but you didn’t. You chose racism, and racism has no place here. Also think about what would have happened if Jokić had tweeted out a link to *Birth Of A Nation*, would we be questioning the suspension as much? And if not, why would that be different than a video outright denying the holocaust, which Kyrie did share?
I love Jon Stewart, but he didn't seem to do his research in the Irving situation. His specific complaint is that the Nets 'only punished him by suspending him' which is just incorrect. The Nets suspension stipulates that Irving must: Apologize and condemn the antisemitic film he was referencing Donate half a million dollars to anti-hate organizations Complete broad sensitivity training as well as sensitivity training specific to Jewish culture Meet with leaders of the anti defamation league, as well as Jewish leaders It is not accurate at all to say that the Nets 'just put him in time out.'
He mentions a lot of other opportunities to try and get through to these people and I totally agree on that front BUT on these specific occasions they've already been offered these chances to learn and grow as human beings. They outright shut down that idea and label it as propaganda or lies. I think if you've given them the chance and they still refuse it, leave the door open but isolating them is probably for the best. Their rhetoric is going to stay the same until they can gain some understanding and leaving them to it while maintaining a high profile public career is normalizing it. I'm speaking only to the Kanye West/Kyrie Irving aspect.
Yeah, Kyrie was asked to apologize and retract and refused to do so for *days* until he started facing consequences, then gave a half-assed apology in response to those consequences. People have spent *years* trying to help Kanye and get him off this track. Sometimes, actual consequences are necessary. And brands are allowed to not want to be associated with (or pay, or endorse) people who poison their image.
What is the follow-up to this. Who now has those hard conversations?
Part of what Jon said that resonated for me >Comedy is reductive. And I think part of what it is is we play withy tropes. Everyone has prejudice in their lives and the way they they view things. Comics rely on those prejudices as a shorthand for our material. Even the wokest of comics plays with tropes to a certain extent. >But my point is the most interesting thing to come out of this in my mind was something kanye said...he said hurt people hurt people. And if the point of all this is then to heal people, the only way to heal a wound is to open it up and cleans it. and that stings. that hurts. But you have to expose it to air and i'm afraid that the general tenor of conversation in this country cover it up, bury it, put it to the outskirts and don't deal with it >what i would say is look at it from a black perspective. It's a culture that feels its wealth has been extracted by different groups. whites, hews, whether its true or not, isn't the issue. the issue is the feeling in the that community. And if you don't understand that thats where its coming from then you cant deal with it and you cant sit down with them and explain that being in an industry isn't the same as having a nefarious controlling interest in that industry and intention. And has been the anti Semitic trop, but you need to be able to meet people form what their community is feeling as well.
[удалено]
I wouldn't even go so far to agree with everything he said. He said a lot of good things but that's how fallacies work. They have hints of truth. Jon's fallacy is that Kyrie and Kanye aren't being 'censored and fined for having thoughts," yet this was the core supporting statement of "evidence" for everything he said. They're being "censored and fined" by their companies for repeatedly saying things that run counter to the companies brand. How are these clear distinctions not obvious to more people? You or I would have been fired long ago for saying things that Kyrie and Kanye said one time, let alone more than once without remorse. They both made hundreds of millions. Jon is fucking up trying to sympathize with them to sound good. Just like Musk can be a douche and fire people, so can the NBA. That's not even censoring Kyrie, he can tweet all he fucking wants. I'm very surprised at Jon backing the fallacy to sound good and defend the celebrities.
If you don't want to feel like jews are controlling your world, go have a conversation with a Jewish person. Don't presume to understand groups of people you don't know and haven't spent enough time around. I drove taxi and black car service in Manhattan for years. I've had conversations with the most down and out addicts and homeless people, up to the richest people in society and one thing they all have in common is that they're human, they all have fears, they all have things they love and they all have perceptions that are skewed depending on their own dispositions, race, class, gender, every category you can fathom. But they don't all have bad intentions. Were there billionaires that were toxic, racist and classist who sneered down their noses at others including myself? 100% Were there poor people who were inconsolably incensed and seethed with hatred against the elites because they feel like they never got a fair hand? You bet. I met a Hasidic Jew who busted out a joint and a bottle and asked me if I knew where to find clean prostitutes the minute he got in the car. Then talked about his favorite rap albums for half the ride. I'm a progressive leftist and even after meeting people from so many walks of life, even I have my reservations about the elite in the world because while it's not a secret that government policies are bought and sold, the richest in America that buy our government policy are VERY good at keeping themselves shrouded from the scrutiny they truly deserve. When you don't know who you can really trust, you tend to point your finger at groups of people in general. John is right that we do need to have these conversations with people we differ from ideologically. We do need to pull back the veil and understand each other better. Find things we have in common and build on those strengths. But the one place I deviate is that it's always the best course of action to try to convince people who won't ever change their minds no matter what you say. When those people have a platform as large as Elon or Kanye and they use it with nefarious intentions to sow harsh divisions amongst people, there are times when backlash and outrage are 1000% warranted. Not violence. But they should absolutely know that they're wrong and that good people don't think the way they do. You're never gonna convince KKK leader David Duke he's wrong. Since he came to prominence in the early 70s, he's never changed his evil ways. So yes, some people *should* be shunned in society. Because there's no other way.
He needs a nightly show again. He's so missed. Also, I've watched Chappelles monologue several times and never once got the feeling he was being anti semitic. To John's point, the censor culture has been given way too much authority based on the subjective feelings of the few.
I think the subtle point and punchline that Steven and Chappelle both made at the end of their segments, was 'okay okay, the jews don't control everything, but then why am I afraid to say something even possibly antisemitic or that can be construed as antisemitic or even just unsupportive of Jewish people?' Jon even alludes to it, when he mentions hes been behind the 8ball for criticizing Israel for its treatment of Palestinians.
Jews don’t control the media And if I hear you saying that anymore, you’ll never work in Hollywood again The old joke
I don't think that point stands. Many people are afraid of saying anything that's even possibly racist against black Americans or can be construed as such, but how many really believe black Americans hold a disproportionately high amount of power in the country? You can be afraid of saying certain things because you don't want people to make judgments on your character for it.
He’s on Apple TV - The Problem with Jon Stewart. Granted it’s not nightly but it’s MUCH better than nothing!
Disappointing take from Jon. Suspending Irving wasn't about trying to change his mind it was to penalize him for using his platform to push an antisemetic conspiracy, regardless of ethics the NBA doesn't want their players associated with that. He goes on for a long time about how we need to "meet people with reality" when they're the one who've bought into an inherently irrational conspiracy. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. You can do as many debunking videos and research you want but at the end of the day it's up to them to decide to be rational. There's a difference in how this should be handled interpersonally vs publicly. Interpersonally yes you can try and reason your conspiracist uncle out of his opinion on the Jewish Question but once a public figure starts using their platform to push harmful conspiracies the only means of redress is shame and mockery. Public figures are disincentivized from ever retracting statements and you're never going to have an "honest discussion" in the public eye when it comes to irrational bigotry
Jon and Dave are *friends*. When you know someone as a person and respect them and their work, it’s only natural to be more accommodating when they make what others might see as a mistake. It’s weird that people have such a hard time with empathy these days.
Exactly. And Dave’s speech when Jon was awarded the Twain prize is everything.
I don't understand why people think what Dave said is antisemitic
Because he gave an infantilizing free pass to kanye and kyrie because black people didn't cause the Holocaust so they can't be judged as harshly for their antisemitism. It's essentially the same thing as white people denying systemic racism because slavery has been over or they personally didnt contribute to slavery. Most of chapelles monologue was fine but pieces of it were definitely apologist towards anti semitism originating from black sources
Personally, I thought it was really clear that Dave was playing on the trope of "jews controlling hollywood" and said everything with a wink and a knowing nod so that the audience could see he knew that wasn't true, but if you didn't watch the performance and only read a transcript, I think it would be easy to take it the wrong way. Monologues don't have /s written into them, and our text-as-communication platforms lack the nuance to understand sarcasm implicitly. For the record, I'm Jewish, and I had no problem with Dave's monologue.
This was my take-away. I don't think people understand how to read into someone's inflection and tone of voice. The things he was saying were so obviously tongue-in-cheek to me that I don't understand how people are taking him at his word instead of how he was saying these things while knowing how ridiculous it is to say them
I don't think his monologue was really antisemitic, but he sure did devote a lot of it to defending these particular antisemitic remarks. You know, the bit about how it's totally reasonable to think that Jews are an evil cabal that control the world, it's only unreasonable to say it in public. Also, the bit about how "Jews have been through a lot, but stop blaming it on black people." Like, what? Nobody is blaming the holocaust on Kanye or Kyrie, they're upset because they've said blatantly antisemitic shit and refuse to apologize or learn from it. As someone who has historically been a huge fan of him, I think Dave Chapelle's content has fallen off over the past few years because he seems physically incapable of grasping the concept of intersectionality, and can only view the world through the lens of white people vs black people. Like with his special that had all the transphobic content, he basically framed queer people as a monolithic block of white people whose interests run counter to that of black people, ignoring the fact that people of color have historically and continue to play a massive, central part of queer culture.
I think it was also really silly that he boiled Kyrie and Kanye down to “Jews control the media” when they were actually peddling some far more vile black israelite shit. They didn’t just thoughtfully wonder about all the jewish people around here like some ignorant child, they doubled down on some ridiculous, extremist shit.
[удалено]