Yeah no, if hje wants to apologize for this I would consider forgiving him, but this kind of shit had consequences for people in their lives. You dont get 'get out of being a shit head' points because you do more good things than bad in aggregate.
Sure, I don't question your experience at all, I can almost relate although I was young at the time. I don't think that applies to most people though, there is far more variety. Stewart is only good for easy dunks on conservatives, not hard at all. If you're anything but conservative (libertarian, liberal, socialist, socdem) he isn't going to do a lot besides affirm that, and for some people (like me) it was a good way to keep them out of any far-right bubbles, but I don't think it entrenched me in anything besides "Republicans suck". Looking through this thread alone, I think that's a bit more common.
That's what I meant by an ideological trap. He didn't say anything that moved anyone from their positions or revealed any serious contradictions. He just kinda reinforced the bare minimum for anyone who wasn't a racist piece of shit.
That's most likely because his form of "south park" ideology was in offensive to anyone and sold tons of ad time.
I guess maybe we agree more than we disagree on this, but I think that the phrase "ideological trap" makes me think that he entrenched someone in their positions, when all he did was push someone away from Republicans. Not quite the same thing imo.
You're both making valid points. Consider scenario #2 - Jon logs back on Twitter, having hibernated himself into a Maoist and begins to lead thousands in weekly theory readings - would Chapo Chat be cancelling him for his 2003 transphobia? Probably not right?
I feel if you asked Jon Stewart his thoughts today on trans issues he'd whistle a more enlightened tune.
Excoriating people for shitty things they said 20 years ago when he helped a generation move left seems absent-minded.
Yeah no, if hje wants to apologize for this I would consider forgiving him, but this kind of shit had consequences for people in their lives. You dont get 'get out of being a shit head' points because you do more good things than bad in aggregate.
Jon Stewart is a libertarian. He didn't lead anyone left, he trapped them in his garbage ideological jail.
This is not true at all. He's not "good" or anything, but what you're saying generally just isn't true....
When I considered myself a libertarian, Jon Stewart basically re-enforced all my bad ideas. I went left in spite of him, not because of him.
Sure, I don't question your experience at all, I can almost relate although I was young at the time. I don't think that applies to most people though, there is far more variety. Stewart is only good for easy dunks on conservatives, not hard at all. If you're anything but conservative (libertarian, liberal, socialist, socdem) he isn't going to do a lot besides affirm that, and for some people (like me) it was a good way to keep them out of any far-right bubbles, but I don't think it entrenched me in anything besides "Republicans suck". Looking through this thread alone, I think that's a bit more common.
That's what I meant by an ideological trap. He didn't say anything that moved anyone from their positions or revealed any serious contradictions. He just kinda reinforced the bare minimum for anyone who wasn't a racist piece of shit.
That's most likely because his form of "south park" ideology was in offensive to anyone and sold tons of ad time.
I guess maybe we agree more than we disagree on this, but I think that the phrase "ideological trap" makes me think that he entrenched someone in their positions, when all he did was push someone away from Republicans. Not quite the same thing imo.
He just served as a relief valve for a lot of people. I see him as no different than Howard Beale in Network except even less provocative.
You're both making valid points. Consider scenario #2 - Jon logs back on Twitter, having hibernated himself into a Maoist and begins to lead thousands in weekly theory readings - would Chapo Chat be cancelling him for his 2003 transphobia? Probably not right?