11
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
11 points (73.9% liked)
Skeptic
1266 readers
49 users here now
A community for Scientific Skepticism:
Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism, sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is a position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence.
Do not confuse this with General Skepticism, Philosophical Skepticism, or Denialism.
Things we like:
- Civility
- Thoughtful discussion based on evidence and facts
- Humor
Things we don't like:
- Personal attacks or disrespectful attitude
- Wild speculation on events with no evidence
- Low-effort comments and posts
Other communities of interest:
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." -David Hume
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Who you personally care to engage with is not at issue here. There are far more people than that and they cumulatively guide society. Ignore that at your peril.
There are not enough such people getting their news from The Daily Show to matter, no way, no how, and whether I would personally engage with them on an individual level was not what I was getting at; I was referring to engagement and mitigation on a societal level, ie dumbing-down The Daily Show or turning it into a more serious show, neither of which would work anyways - the idiots would find other shows to reinforce their delusions. Pretending there are enough people to make that reasonable is an absurdly stupid proposition. Are you convinced most of the MAGA crowd get's all their news from The Daily Show or something?
You sure about that? Because the people behind the show, who get the metrics, seem to feel otherwise.
https://www.goldderby.com/feature/jennifer-flanz-the-daily-show-executive-producer-video-interview-1204963257/amp/
Fun thing about fact-checking YOUR JOKES at the guests' expense, is that they can say whatever bullshit they want, and the audience knows the guest isn't in on, doesn't get the joke. Are you trying to present yourself as clueless enough to garner a guest spot?
I'm not sure why telling quoting about what the staff remembers has any bearing on what the viewers believe.
Wasn't this about the viewers and whether or not they give the Daily Show credibility as a news source?
No, it was about whether they should do so and whether those idiots that do such exist in sufficient numbers to be a hindrance to society. The only evidence I've seen of those idiots numbers existing in even the low single digits are right here in this thread.
Also, Flanz inclued themselves in that reference. Are you really so bad at reading comprehension?
And I showed you that, based on the Daily Show producers who get metrics, that they do.
You should know better than to rely on your own personal anecdotal evidence in a skeptic community.
You showed no such thing. No such thing was remotely claimed in that interview.
Meanwhile, you're asking me to prove a negative, while offering no evidence to support your own position besides the fact that yourself and apparently one other commenter here regard The Daily Show as a credible news source, or expect me to believe such. I'm not buying it, and I'm done engaging with your non-sense.
I'm not the one spouting bunk conspiracy theories about how the wrong guest on The Daily Show will hinder society or discredit more decent guests. Calling those slightly more respectable people out on their bullshit is the point of inviting them on the show alongside the overt crackpots in the first place.
And now you're lying. My whole argument is that it isn't credible, but some people think it is.
We're done here.