- 4,572
- Moscow
- Rage_Racer_VOLK
- RageRacer48
He wanted to divide Syria, now he got himself divided into pieces.
What an irony...
What an irony...
A salutary lesson in what may befall when meddling in the affairs of others.He wanted to divide Syria, now he got himself divided into pieces.
What an irony...
He wanted to divide Syria, now he got himself divided into pieces.
What an irony...
Yes that is my opinion and I stand by it. Why did you quote it and why is it funny to you?Gasp. Another comedian who "thinks being kidnapped, tortured and dismembered makes for good comic fodder while the case is still actively being investigated." How monstrous!
Yes that is my opinion and I stand by it. Why did you quote it and why is it funny to you?
He'd have been poisoned. A Saudi journalist, US resident. In Turkey. By Russia.I guess it’s a shame Russia wasn’t at the receiving end of his criticism, that way instead of being tortured to death, he’d only have been poisoned... /shrug
Your lack of reaction to the Colbert sketch after taking time to call John Oliver out as a "buffoon" made me think the embargo had somehow been lifted and it was okay to laugh at comedy again. Guessing this is not the case.Yes that is my opinion and I stand by it. Why did you quote it and why is it funny to you?
What embargo are you talking about?Your lack of reaction to the Colbert sketch after taking time to call John Oliver out as a "buffoon" made me think the embargo had somehow been lifted and it was okay to laugh at comedy again. Guessing this is not the case.
What embargo are you talking about?
Perhaps the Colbert sketch received a pass because it was posted by a more right wing poster than was Oliver's report.I'm not speaking for @UKMikey but I think it's the time buffer between a horrendous event happening and the point where it becomes acceptable to begin humour or satire towards it.
Perhaps the Colbert sketch received a pass because it was posted by a more right wing poster than was Oliver's report.
Sure... then he came online to respond to my post after ignoring yours. That must be it.Or he didn't see the post, wasn't online or couldn't be bothered to post his thoughts twice.
And then you went fishing for a reaction.
Fishing for a reaction is certainly what it seemed like to me. Quoting someone and then laughing seems doesn't seem like a constructive way to forward a discussion.Or he didn't see the post, wasn't online or couldn't be bothered to post his thoughts twice.
And then you went fishing for a reaction.
I'm not speaking for @UKMikey but I think it's the time buffer between a horrendous event happening and the point where it becomes acceptable to begin humour or satire towards it.
I don't think anyone is capable of establishing such definitions, as the matter is complicated by myriad variables including, but by no means limited to, the nature of the event being made light of and the manner in which that is accomplished. Biases (certainly not merely political leanings, though they obviously must be included, but how each individual ranks things by importance) undoubtedly come into play when weighing these variables against what is "appropriate" to determine how far on which side of that mark the material being examined sits.Thing is who defines how long?
When will events from the titanic be funny?
When will events from WWI or WWII be funny?
When will events from 11/9/2001 be funny?
Austrlians don't make fun of Steve Irwins death.
South park did but they're south park they don't give a rats ass.
I must say I am quite impressed by how much room my thoughts seem to occupy in your head. If I had to pay rent for that space I'm not sure I could afford it.I don't think anyone is capable of establishing such definitions, as the matter is complicated by myriad variables including, but by no means limited to, the nature of the event being made light of and the manner in which that is accomplished. Biases (certainly not merely political leanings, though they obviously must be included, but how each individual ranks things by importance) undoubtedly come into play when weighing these variables against what is "appropriate" to determine how far on which side of that mark the material being examined sits.
What's odd in this instance is the fact that someone considered only the amount of time passed and the source of the commentary (and likely even the source of the source, which is to say the individual who presented the commentary to be viewed by others) before opting to openly condemn remarks as being inappropriate, having not, for whatever reason, observed the commentary itself. How can one make a reasonable judgement without considering all pertinent variables necessary to do so?
Now I'm not a fan of John Oliver's show--the language used is often off-putting and he talks entirely too fast--but having finally observed the commentary in its entirety myself, I'm taken aback by how little time was devoted to addressing Khashoggi at all, let alone his slaying. If you disregard a clip from a news broadcast (and perhaps even if you don't--it wasn't that long), less time was spent talking about Khashoggi than was spent talking about WWE. That's right, "professional wrestling". By and large, the piece was about the United States' awkward relationship with Saudi Arabia.
Frankly, if anyone should be offended, it ought to be the folks over at Wyndham Hotels over how Days Inn was humorously portrayed:
View attachment 776956
Does anyone know of any rightwing satire comedy by the way?
There's no current shortage of conservative comedians, humorists and satirists, if you want to look them up and enjoy them.Does anyone know of any rightwing satire comedy by the way?
I believe it's called the Republican Party
There's no current shortage of conservative comedians, humorists and satirists, if you want to look them up and enjoy them.
A few from the past that attracted my attention: H.L. Mencken, Bob Hope, Jackie Gleason. Gore Vidal wasn't a conservative - I'd say he was libertarian, and his satire was deadly.
I really enjoy Tucker Carlson and his frequent guest, the exceedingly funny Mark Steyn.Any modern ones who specifically satire the left?
Don't be silly, right wingers are not allowed in the entertainment industry.Its interesting though that the right is often criticising political correctness. And satire is basically the opposite of that.
Does anyone know of any rightwing satire comedy by the way?
This appears to be flame bait.I must say I am quite impressed by how much room my thoughts seem to occupy in your head. If I had to pay rent for that space I'm not sure I could afford it.
Aww, damn!I believe it's called the Republican Party
Ew. Just...Rob schneider
The great President Ronald Reagan was very good at telling humorous stories and jokes often at the expense of communists, Democrats and liberals.There's no current shortage of conservative comedians, humorists and satirists, if you want to look them up and enjoy them.
A few from the past that attracted my attention: H.L. Mencken, Bob Hope, Jackie Gleason. Gore Vidal wasn't a conservative - I'd say he was libertarian, and his satire was deadly.
Does anyone know of any rightwing satire comedy by the way?
several tens of people
How about Chad Prather? His rather humorous take on America has me coming back for more.Any modern ones? I looked at this list and only know Jeff Dunham, Rob schneider, Adam sandler, Tim allen, norm mcdonald and joe Rogan. Bar Tim allen, adam sandler, schneider, norm mcdonald arent that conservative and I dont understand why Rogan is on the list. He is libertarian at best. None of them do any political satire though or do they? Maybe Dunham's achmed, but I never heard criticism from the left of him being unsensitive potraying a suicide boming terrorist.
The majority seem old though. Any modern ones who specifically satire the left?
Be fair. You ever try firing a missile or shell though a door like that?All those weapons Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States sell to Saudi Arabia and they do an extrajudicial political killing by hand.