6 ms·
Stephen Colbert going down swinging
- rapnie 8mo agohttps://archive.ph/uiF6V https://archive.ph/uiF6V
- poszlem 8mo ago[flagged]
- SanjayMehta 8mo ago[flagged]
- prinzmaus 8mo agoWhataboutism has no place in constructive discourse.
- SanjayMehta 8mo agoWhining about "whataboutism" is the last resort of the hypocrite.
- geenkeuse 8mo ago[dead]
- xracy 8mo agoNo, it's calling out a red herring. It's a valid response in a discussion to say that your comment is not contributing to the topic at hand. Especially when your comment is not really comparable.
- SanjayMehta 8mo agoStrongly disagree. I find it fascinating that USAians can not see that their two political parties are barely any different from each other. Trump is as vile as the previous lot, but with zero attempts at hiding it. Anyway, we have a saying: you can not wake up someone pretending to be asleep.
- xracy 8mo agoI mean, if you think this administration is the same as the last, I recommend reading the news from a different source.
- myvoiceismypass 8mo agoBiden had no "regime" in the Fall of 2020 because Trump was still the president.
- NickC25 8mo agoNot a huge fan of Colbert but respect and agree with what he did. Ellison and his ilk (Weiss included) are greedy, power hungry, anti-American, Israel-first leeches. Tax the hell out of them, already.
- coredog64 8mo ago[flagged]
- mapontosevenths 8mo ago> The Federal government is enforcing long-standing statutes. You forgot the very important word "selectively". They are selectively enforcing long-standing statutes, which is probably illegal and is 100% obvious corruption.
- bryanlarsen 8mo agoStatutes which are widely believed to be unconstitutional.
- juggert2 8mo ago[flagged]
- embedding-shape 8mo agoConvenient that since January 21, 2026 late night talk shows are no longer part of the "bona fide news interview exemption", thanks to the FCC who now has a new role as the censor of political speech. Enjoy your earned freedom of speech :)
- jmclnx 8mo ago> I wish we could have put it on the show, where no one would’ve watched it So true, the Streisand effect in full view. I think it got 95 million views on youtube. If just on the show with no comment from the US admin, probably would not break 5 million. This admin is doing more harm to itself trying to censor people than if they ignored Colbert.
- fwipsy 8mo agoDoes the Streisand effect keep working if censorship continues? Or do people lose interest?
- stop50 8mo agoIt increases. In Germany an ministry wanted to hide an document about glyphosat, this caused many people to request access to it that an judge ordered to make it public.
- bunderbunder 8mo agoI would guess It depends on how thoroughly the organization doing the censorship can exert control over information. For example, I’ve been pretty impressed by the extent to which the Chinese government is able to influence public discourse within its borders when they want to. But China is also home to over 90% of the world’s Chinese speakers, and it has its own domestic social media industry with very few users from outside the country, the Great Firewall, less of a culture of anti-authoritarianism, etc. I’m not sure how feasible it would be for the US to get to a comparable position. The US is nowhere close to being a supermajority of the world’s English speakers, and it might be hard for the government to impose an isolationist policy on the country’s tech industry without inciting a revolt by its tech oligarchs.
- seanmcdirmid 8mo agoThe GFW is real and many people don’t bother trying to jump it anymore. Mostly people in China don’t really care what the rest of the world is thinking, they got 1.4 billion in their own world, it’s big enough. The USA has only 342 million people in comparison, and we have a whole country to the north of us that barely talks with a different accent. Heck, half of our movie stars are Canadian or Australian (it feels like it anyways).
- ChrisArchitect 8mo agoRelated: CBS didn't air Rep. James Talarico interview out of fear of FCC https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47049426 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47049426
- bunderbunder 8mo agoKind of fascinating that the first couple comments to be posted both start with a declaration of the author’s opinion of Colbert. I read it as a pretty straightforward acknowledgment that we’ve reached a point in public discourse where people pay at least as much attention to who is making a point as we do to the actual point being made. I wonder if finding common ground is even possible as long as that kind of tacit ad hominem remains baked into the way we think about public discourse.
- KittenInABox 8mo agoI think this is an interesting conundrum, because I feel it is also important to critically consider the people who are making points because it can also inform you about why these points are being made. I don't consider this a tacit ad hominem per se, because we must acknowledge the open internet is full to the brim of bad actors and bots and we cannot equally engage with all comments. It is fine and appropriate to identify comments one doesn't want to engage with, not even with the brainpower of reading. This has increasingly forced people to make concessions to avoid misunderstandings due to other people's need to filter comments.
- ddtaylor 8mo agoI was actually thinking the opposite. I sent my wife this text message: Nonsense world when a comedian doing a late night show is the person willing to say something It's not his job I'm glad he's doing it, but this is like watching the McDonald's workers Narcan people as part of their daily tasks For reference she worked as a manager at McDonald's and would regularly have to deal with people ODing in the drive through and there was a "serious" discussion between managers, corporate, etc. about it they should be doing this or if they should be instructing everyone to stay indoors and let them die. Corporate had to say that they must stay inside and eventually it became grounds for suspending employees that didn't want to sit and watch people die. Contact me if you want her information for journalism purposes we have the receipts.
- AnimalMuppet 8mo agoCorporate doesn't realize that forcing people to do nothing and watch others die might be bad for morale? Corporate doesn't realize that people regularly dying in their drive through without assistance is going to be an enormously negative PR hit if it ever comes out? Corporate doesn't even realize that people dying in the drive through is going to leave their drive through plugged for a long period of time? I am appalled. Even ignoring the cold-hearted lack of empathy, I have a hard time imagining that this is even in their best interest.
- josefritzishere 8mo agoFlagged? This is only Voldemort-adjacent.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- -0 8mo agosus, indeed
- embedding-shape 8mo agoLots of people making money during this era of oligarchs, and the more open censorship keeps happening and being discussed, the faster it all might fall down. Hence, people try to suppress it.
- Sohcahtoa82 8mo agoYeah, I feel like this is a case where we should be able to flag the flaggers.
- oliwarner 8mo agoOr at least show them a version of the site that hides political posts to save their techbro sensibilities. I get why some politics is toxic, but this is so indefensible, it isn't likely to start a flamewar.
- xphos 8mo agoYou can use the Active HN link it shows flagged stuff
- oliwarner 8mo agoI can, but it's a little backwards that a handful of antis can flag political posts upvoted by dozens of other HN users, with the rarest of interventions by mods. It would make more sense to just allow users who don't like politics to not see politics. They get to keep their heads in the sand, we get to stay miserable, and the world will keep spinning.
- geenkeuse 8mo ago[dead]
- KevinMS 8mo agoThis is a weird hill to fight and die on. I have no problem with the FCC applying their equal-time rule to late night shows if they run on local television. Seems like its a healthy thing for democracy.
- xracy 8mo agoApply it to conservative talk radio first, and then we'll talk. As applied now, it's clearly the gov't chilling speech.
- KevinMS 8mo agoWeird how you are against giving another democrat equal time.
- xracy 8mo agoRead my comment again, and then think about it. Who do you think would need to be given equal time on conservative talk radio? What would be the other outcome of the change to the rule that I am proposing? Also I am not even against the rule being applied to talk shows, I just want to see it applied non-hypocritically.
- KevinMS 8mo agoSo you see general entertainment TV shows as the same as literally conservative radio? If a conservative radio show gave equal time to Jasmine Crockett who would even listen? If Hannity gave equal time to Joe Biden, probably hours of equal time, who would even want that? Or take it seriously? That's like a Mosque giving equal time to a Rabbi. That's not the spirit of the rule. Late night entertainment shows were getting around the rule by claiming they were news shows that are exempt.
- xracy 8mo agoyou're asking them to enforce the rule. I'm asking them to enforce the rule consistently if they're going to enforce the rule. Otherwise it's a first amendment violation. I'm opposed to violations of the first amendment. I don't care "who is going to listen to it?" if it's a rule, it's applied consistently or not at all. No "special case" for conservatives.