-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News
- Thread starter bananas
- Start date
- Status
PhoenixDark
Banned
If he produces an accurate bracket (not 100% obviously, but more like 70-90%)...oh boy. I doubt it'll happen due to the randomness of certain factors but I can't wait to read his analysis.
The creators of south park are libertarian as well I think. They sometimes have jokes/episodes that mock liberalism/liberals that are still pretty funny. I don't think I've ever seen anyone socially conservative who is at all funny.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I think the two main obstacles to a conservative Daily Show are the talent gap and the conservative bubble.
The talent gap is an obvious one. There aren't that many comedians with Fox politics. You can find lots of libertarian-ish ones, but they're generally socially liberal and they're not very pro-business. Of course, comedy doesn't pay all that well and you could buy some comedians for pretty cheap, but writing jokes for people who have a different sense of humor than you do is tricky.
It's especially tricky in this case because conservatives live in their own little world. The Daily Show's audience isn't primarily made up of partisan Democrats. Bill O'Reilly's right - it's a bunch of stoned college students. Lots of Daily Show viewers are going to have a "both parties are the same" view of things. They're not terribly political. And the Daily Show's politics are pretty centrist for its age demo. But partisan Democrats live in the same world and can laugh at most of the same things.
It's very, very hard, however, to appeal to a mainstream audience and the conservative fringe at the same time. Especially the religious fringe - they have their own little culture. What's funny to them just isn't what's funny to everyone else. And they're very concerned with policing that boundary; it's going to be very easy to get excommunicated from conservatism if you don't stick to the approved material. This isn't a problem unique to humor - conservative Christian-branded music and books and schools are also generally pretty terrible. Possibly because the purpose of this stuff is to advance a political agenda or glorify God or whatever rather than just to make good music or write good literature or discover what's true.
Another consequence of this is that lots of conservatives just can't tell when they're saying something that mainstream American culture is going to respond poorly to. That's just not something they've developed a feel for. And so a conservative Daily Show is going to have trouble on both sides - it can't stray too far from conservative talking points because nothing in conservative culture is allowed to stray too far from conservative talking points, but it also can't touch sensitive subjects in mainstream culture because it's very likely to cross a line and kick off a controversy.
Edit: For example, the Daily Show gets a lot of mileage out of Mitch McConnell looking like a turtle and John Boehner being orange. Does anyone trust a conservative Daily Show to mock Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama in something like the same way without sounding sexist or racist, especially given that a lot of its audience is already going to be posting sexist and racist jokes to their Facebook walls? The political goals of the show are not served by actually attempting to do edgy humor. This is a huge turn-off for a mainstream audience.
The talent gap is an obvious one. There aren't that many comedians with Fox politics. You can find lots of libertarian-ish ones, but they're generally socially liberal and they're not very pro-business. Of course, comedy doesn't pay all that well and you could buy some comedians for pretty cheap, but writing jokes for people who have a different sense of humor than you do is tricky.
It's especially tricky in this case because conservatives live in their own little world. The Daily Show's audience isn't primarily made up of partisan Democrats. Bill O'Reilly's right - it's a bunch of stoned college students. Lots of Daily Show viewers are going to have a "both parties are the same" view of things. They're not terribly political. And the Daily Show's politics are pretty centrist for its age demo. But partisan Democrats live in the same world and can laugh at most of the same things.
It's very, very hard, however, to appeal to a mainstream audience and the conservative fringe at the same time. Especially the religious fringe - they have their own little culture. What's funny to them just isn't what's funny to everyone else. And they're very concerned with policing that boundary; it's going to be very easy to get excommunicated from conservatism if you don't stick to the approved material. This isn't a problem unique to humor - conservative Christian-branded music and books and schools are also generally pretty terrible. Possibly because the purpose of this stuff is to advance a political agenda or glorify God or whatever rather than just to make good music or write good literature or discover what's true.
Another consequence of this is that lots of conservatives just can't tell when they're saying something that mainstream American culture is going to respond poorly to. That's just not something they've developed a feel for. And so a conservative Daily Show is going to have trouble on both sides - it can't stray too far from conservative talking points because nothing in conservative culture is allowed to stray too far from conservative talking points, but it also can't touch sensitive subjects in mainstream culture because it's very likely to cross a line and kick off a controversy.
Edit: For example, the Daily Show gets a lot of mileage out of Mitch McConnell looking like a turtle and John Boehner being orange. Does anyone trust a conservative Daily Show to mock Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama in something like the same way without sounding sexist or racist, especially given that a lot of its audience is already going to be posting sexist and racist jokes to their Facebook walls? The political goals of the show are not served by actually attempting to do edgy humor. This is a huge turn-off for a mainstream audience.
Avon Barksdale
Member
Plus, a lot of what the GOP does is extremely laughable and stupid when you look at it from a leftist point of view. However, the GOP's base eats up all that shit without a single smirk.
Yeah, democrats do silly things, but when your party gives satirical websites a run for their money, something is wrong.
Edit: Just look at all of the conservative cartoonist. Shit isn't funny.
Yeah, democrats do silly things, but when your party gives satirical websites a run for their money, something is wrong.
Edit: Just look at all of the conservative cartoonist. Shit isn't funny.
adamsappel
Member
That you can have a video where Harrison Ford is getting his chest waxed, and the only joke you can come up with is about his earring says volumes about your comedic talents.
PhoenixDark
Banned
While I disagree on Christian music overall - there's as much bad Christian music as bad secular music, and it should be noted a lot of great music has come from religious music (specifically gospel and its r&b roots) - you touch on an important point. In my experience, a lot of Christian media is reactionary. Something secular becomes popular, specifically children's content in the case of Christian media (television, film, books, etc) and the phenomena threatens parents or leaders. There's often a focus on avoiding distractions of "this world," and even the most innocuous items can be framed as gateway drugs to worse things (I vividly remember a tract detailing the dangers playing Diablo could have on a child).
I remember all my peers being swept up by the Pokemon craze, for instance. One day during Sunday School our deacon asked us to name as many Pokemon we could, and naturally the kids named scores of them. Afterwards he asked us to name/recite some bible verses and the responses were less enthusiastic and knowledgeable. He explained that Pokemon wasn't of god, therefore it must be of the world (ie Satan). But while Christians tried, they never really found a Pokemon counter.
I also remember plenty of Christian metal bands during the nu metal phase, the resurgence of Narnia during the Harry Potter craze, and the Christian hip hop boom during the late 90s/early aughts, etc. A lot of this stuff was pretty damn bad, although you could argue so was the stuff it imitated (I'll still take P.O.D. over Limp Bizkit).
In short, media is better when it's sincere. "Conservative humor" seems more like a cynical con job than comedians trying to be funny. There are Christian fantasy novels that seem more focused on countering Harry Potter than being good, and in the process miss what made Narnia work so well (well, until the last book). But can't this be said of secular media as well? For instance bad high fantasy novels that imitate Lord Of The Rings, or the current grimdark shit that imitates ASOIAF. My general rule: make good, sincere shit; when you try to ape off trends you venture from creative to corporate, and that doesn't work when making art. That applies to everyone equally.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I think what I don't like in South Park is how it's become kind of memefied by young Republicans. It's all they can cling onto I guess. Bring up Al Gore to teens/20 somethings and it's just "lol manbearpig mirite"
benjipwns
Banned
They quickly got rid of the insane Canadian conservative chick, then the main three adopted semi-exaggerated political personas to be used at times. But it mostly came to be more of a round table for stupid jokes about current events, a Tough Crowd lite.
The prime days were really 2008 where it was more about making as many jokes as possible than anything really deliberately political:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzM9FYJj538
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbd0nnW-VMc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHdDT-WcWWg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDAsDeZSMiA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWKNONl7XXc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U9F3MrB4NE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOjUKwoHUyw
The last few years it's basically turned into Late Night The Five two-thirds of the time or more, they eliminated all the unique segments and their guest pool shrank massively to almost 80+% Fox News Contributors.
Black Mamba
Member
The problem with these types of comedic efforts is exactly as I think I read B-Dubs mention: They are trying to be the Daily show but against liberals which is why they already failed.
The Daily Show isn't a comedy show to make fun of liberals.
Comedy cannot be forced and reactionary. It is a natural process. If you are trying to be a comedian and you say "I want to make fun of the liberal take on food stamp welfare," you're going to fail. You are trying to find comedy and it will always elude you with this process.
Stewart and his writers do not seek out something and force comedy into it. The writers see Lyndsey Graham say something stupid and they say "hey, you know it would be funny if we pointed out that XYZ." If they did "hey, let's find a way to make fun on Graham today," they would fail.
And this is why those types of shows fail. They're not letting the comedy come to them, they're seeking it out and forcing it through. It's not that there can't be conservative humor (there certainly is libertarian humor), it's just has to be through a natural process. TDS makes fun of itself and also liberals/dems because when it's funny it's funny, ideology be damned.
FTR, this problem isn't just one for conservatives. It's why those billion parody movies are so bad.
It's also the same problem Mike Myers ran into with Austin Powers. The first movie was excellent because he saw the natural comedy in concepts of Bond and other spy movies and satirized them brilliantly. The success of the first forced him into writing a 2nd and eventually 3rd movie, but it wasn't something he naturally wrote but something he tried to force. The second resulted in mostly re-doing many jokes from the first and venturing a bit off, and the 3rd one was an accidental parody of itself and why [the 3rd especially] they were so horrible.
Comedy is about noticing humor not seeking it out.
The Daily Show isn't a comedy show to make fun of liberals.
Comedy cannot be forced and reactionary. It is a natural process. If you are trying to be a comedian and you say "I want to make fun of the liberal take on food stamp welfare," you're going to fail. You are trying to find comedy and it will always elude you with this process.
Stewart and his writers do not seek out something and force comedy into it. The writers see Lyndsey Graham say something stupid and they say "hey, you know it would be funny if we pointed out that XYZ." If they did "hey, let's find a way to make fun on Graham today," they would fail.
And this is why those types of shows fail. They're not letting the comedy come to them, they're seeking it out and forcing it through. It's not that there can't be conservative humor (there certainly is libertarian humor), it's just has to be through a natural process. TDS makes fun of itself and also liberals/dems because when it's funny it's funny, ideology be damned.
FTR, this problem isn't just one for conservatives. It's why those billion parody movies are so bad.
It's also the same problem Mike Myers ran into with Austin Powers. The first movie was excellent because he saw the natural comedy in concepts of Bond and other spy movies and satirized them brilliantly. The success of the first forced him into writing a 2nd and eventually 3rd movie, but it wasn't something he naturally wrote but something he tried to force. The second resulted in mostly re-doing many jokes from the first and venturing a bit off, and the 3rd one was an accidental parody of itself and why [the 3rd especially] they were so horrible.
Comedy is about noticing humor not seeking it out.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Plus the inherent "Fuck you, I got mine" mentality doesn't translate to something funny because most conservative positions are disgusting.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Wouldn't it be great if all the sick people died?
*stops for a moment... Thinks... Thinks... Thinks... Gear turns. Hesitates* ... Ye...yes.
benjipwns
Banned
Don't worry, they will.
To be clear, this is basically what I was talking about. I wasn't saying that religious art is worse than secular art because it is religious; I was saying that a great deal of modern religious art is worse than modern secular art because the people making modern religious art aren't really interested in making art. Instead they're trying to come up with Christian "alternatives" to stuff which is popular. It's an entire culture of knock-off works.
Aaron Strife
Banned
You know the resurgence of things like Narnia, LOTR etc among Christian groups specifically - not that they were ever really out of fashion but they definitely came back in response to Harry Potter - always confused me.
For one HP is packed with religious imagery and allegory just like almost every modern work. J.K. Rowling has straight up said it in interviews. I don't remember if the books ever mention God or anything explicitly but it's certainly there.
There's the "It's witchcraft!" angle but all these Christians arguing against HP conveniently ignore how many wizards and shit are in their fantasy novels. But I guess if God gave them those powers it's ok
For one HP is packed with religious imagery and allegory just like almost every modern work. J.K. Rowling has straight up said it in interviews. I don't remember if the books ever mention God or anything explicitly but it's certainly there.
There's the "It's witchcraft!" angle but all these Christians arguing against HP conveniently ignore how many wizards and shit are in their fantasy novels. But I guess if God gave them those powers it's ok
Can't say I ever met anyone who had a problem with Harry Potter who didn't have a similar grudge against LotR. I don't remember many magic users in Narnia in the first place. There were like what, three?
Because it's not really about witchcraft. It's about whether or not the artists are on your team. South Park had a good bit on this, with Cartman singing filthy Christian pop songs. Harry Potter is a problem because JK Rowling is not a conservative Christian. Like PD says, there's a huge concern with avoiding "worldly" distractions. Art needs to be approved by the cultural gatekeepers, and in practice that just means that the gatekeepers have to approve of the artist, with fig leaves in place to justify good guys using magic and the like. God giving wizards magic isn't making a substantive difference to the work, but it's a signal that the author identifies with that subculture.
CS Lewis was writing long before this became a thing. He gets grandfathered in, and obviously it helps that Aslan is Jesus.
As far as what Mamba is talking about, the comedy of satire, I would argue that it's more about perspective than anything else. It's about altering our view on something, skewing it so as to show it's flaws and make us laugh. It's political and philosophical optometry, at it's best. Which is why the "Scary Movie" knock offs aren't funny, they just rehash plot lines and add jokes. Austin Powers worked because it exaggerated the Bond figure just enough to alter our perspective and show us how incredibly ridiculous the character type was in the first place. The sequels didn't work because they had already drained that well, there was nothing left to expose after the first so all they could do was rehash it.
A couple of great examples of this are "The School" by Donald Barthelme and "The Eyes Have It" by Philip K Dick. They both find their humor in an altered perspective. They're both also incredibly funny, "The School" being my favorite short story of all time.
A couple of great examples of this are "The School" by Donald Barthelme and "The Eyes Have It" by Philip K Dick. They both find their humor in an altered perspective. They're both also incredibly funny, "The School" being my favorite short story of all time.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I've met a few like that. The excuse I usually hear is that HP teaches actual magic, because kids waving around sticks and saying wingardium leviosa is totally based in reality
The irony over the "HP is witchcraft!" shenanigans is that you actually have to believe witchcraft is a real thing that can be taught in order to buy into it.
Black Mamba
Member
Yup, this is precisely what I mean, but the thing is it worked because the writer/comic let the idea pop in their head rather than actively seek it out.
I don't even know if you can call the Scary/Epic Movie type movies (besides the very first) satire at this point. They're just random pop culture jokes/references as far as I can tell (hey, I won't sit through one) mixed in with awful sexist/misogynist/racist type humor.
You hit the nail on the head when you say these proper satire shows/movies "exaggerated the {X] figure
I just re-watched Dr. Strangelove last night (my girl had never seen it!) and so I'm in a satirical mood. Good satire is hard to come by these days, it seems.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Orson Scott Card had a great essay about this, back in the 80s before he went nuts. He was criticizing most religious fiction for trying too hard to be about the respective Religion with a capital R instead of actually exploring fundamentally religious themes like man's quest to find purpose yadda yadda
WayneMorse
Banned
Before the Daily Show went to the left under Stewart it was pretty much a terrible show and another faceless mediocre cable late night talk show. Craig Kilborn was extremely unfunny and I think Jon actually put some direction and meaning into the show by making it generally more "liberal."
speculawyer
Member
Well of course Witchcraft is real.
Exodus 22:18
King James Version (KJV)
18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
The Bible wouldn't mention witches if they weren't real, right?
This is why I just can't buy into any religion. They all require believing in completely unproven things and are rife with logical contradictions. The way my brain is constructed, I just can't handle the contradictions & nonsense. Not that I don't have my own particular contradictory and nonsensical thoughts . . . I certainly do. Everyone does. But I just can't handle the ones in religions.
The show was a very different animal prior to the 2000 elections. I personally thought the show was hysterical, and frankly kind of miss the nonpolitical stuff. Craig wasn't great, but frankly Jon isn't that great either. It seems like every bit has one of like... Three deliveries.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Perhaps the major thing many Christian criticisms of Harry Potter dwell on is the general lack of consequences and constant disregard for authority figures. Potter constantly breaks the rules and is never punished - in fact, he's often rewarded, as he is always right in the end. Potter becomes a subversive figure, which is the last thing you want to be in the eyes of conservatives or Christians. To me it's just an example of Rowling's trope storytelling, but it's more sinister to Christians.
I remember arguing about Harry Potter with Christian friends and family members at the time. To me then, I couldn't figure out why HP was "bad" but Narnia was good. Both had similar themes as well as magic. Hell, Potter's life was saved due to his mother sacrificing her life, just as Aslan sacrificed his life to save Edmund; pretty sure we all know.
Gotchaye is probably: right and wrong depend on whose on your team's side.
I remember arguing about Harry Potter with Christian friends and family members at the time. To me then, I couldn't figure out why HP was "bad" but Narnia was good. Both had similar themes as well as magic. Hell, Potter's life was saved due to his mother sacrificing her life, just as Aslan sacrificed his life to save Edmund; pretty sure we all know.
Gotchaye is probably: right and wrong depend on whose on your team's side.
Rhomega Beta
Member
To be fair, it's harder to memorize what amounts to several paragraphs rather than a list of singular words. Also consider that most Christians haven't even really read the Bible anyway.
empty vessel
Member
Absolutely not.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Why would it?
What this reveals is just Arizonans and most people in general, vote on party (as they should in most legislative cases) not the person. When the base is crazy you get people who are crazy who get voted in because the moderates vote for the party rather than the person.
The problem is with the base. This just explains why the base has so much power. Its actually a great idea to expand. Shows how public funding makes elections more democratic and reflective of voters, not interest groups.
Aaron Strife
Banned
That's fair, although Harry isn't always let off the hook. In the first book he loses 150 points for Gryffindor for sneaking out of bed one night.
And then his detention is going monster hunting with Hagrid. Actually I see your point now.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Also doesn't he wind up getting those points back at the end of the book? I haven't read it in years.
Giant Panda
Member
To me this also shows that a more parliamentarian legislature system instead of a two-party system, would work better with public financing. People would still vote mostly on party lines but the parties would probably be closer to their actual opinions.
WayneMorse
Banned
Easier to get legislation and policy implemented as well in a parliamentary system. In the UK the Labour government from 1945-1951 was able to implement more progressive policy in those six years than progressives in the US could for the past 100 years.
The US pretty much has one of the most complex systems of passing laws in the world, and that's not a good thing, a superior form of government would be similar to the UK's, minus the monarchy and Lords.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
The WSJ is continuing Romney's Phantom Presidency
speculawyer
Member
I can't be bothered to read Mitt's crap. He hired the Bush foreign policy team. I had 8 years of that. I didn't like it. I think most people realized it was crap. And you are still trying to sell that shit?
WayneMorse
Banned
thank god john dean didn't have to throw anyone in front of subway cars.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Isn't Dean now pretty anti republican?
thank god john dean didn't have to throw anyone in front of subway cars.
Welp, cue the GOP machine talking point: "Look at who the Democrats are letting run these days! A marxist/gay/Muslim, an old woman, and even a convicted criminal! Who are they going to let run next? A gay man?! Guffaw, guffaw, guffaw."
Black Mamba
Member
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
If you really did see this coming, and you were somehow able to get european countries on board with sanction threats that would hurt those country's economies, then I could see a small chance that Russia would change it's mind before walking in. Everything else is just crazy talk.
Even if Mubarak remained in full power, Assad was hung in the streets, and we started screwing Iran over even harder than before, I still don't see how the situation would change at all.
lol
Big Baybee
Member
If he could run for governor here again he'd probably win in a landslide.
Aaron Strife
Banned
But not the only one that matters! U-S-A! U-S-A!
Fox Analyst: Putin Is Playing Game of Thrones and Were Playing Downton Abbey
I don't even know how to feel about this.
I don't even know how to feel about this.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked