7 ms·

Colbert's funny as hell and as likeable as they come. But despite his reputation, he's not exactly an "outside the box" thinker. He's a deeply religious catho

Colbert's funny as hell and as likeable as they come. But despite his reputation, he's not exactly an "outside the box" thinker. He's a deeply religious catholic, is patriotic and apparently believes in the rule of law.

existencebox 13y ago
I think our problems come when we start looking for any more than entertainment in our entertainers. He attributes the "greatest threat to security" to not voting and not watching political money. I would politely disagree. Our "greatest threat to security" is that our people take their opinions from the mouths of celebrities and politicians, and not through careful consideration of the facts.
- yellowbkpk 13y ago
  Nowadays, the most reliable way to see (at least more of) the facts on television is by watching comedy shows. "Real" television news programs are in the business of advertising to their viewers, not informing them. How can you blame our people for taking their opinion from celebrities, entertainers, and politicians when they are more informative than the avenues that are supposed to inform us?
  - cjfont 13y ago
    Can you support this? So you don't think comedy shows have any advertising agenda simply because their main purpose is to entertain? I would suggest that they have an additional tool at their disposal (humor) to help put a spin on matters.
    - yellowbkpk 13y ago
      My theory is that most of the comedy shows (The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, etc.) make jokes out of showing the opposite end of extreme viewpoints or stories that show up on news. You might be laughing at the absurdity, but you're more informed.
  - existencebox 13y ago
    I can't, I do the same thing. (use comedy shows as one tool to expose myself to "what's going on in the world"). It's a really sad statement on the current state of things; but there's a degree of personal responsibility in not taking this narrative unilaterally, we have these amazing tools of message boards and other channels with which to chat with people firsthand around the world, and while I can't say it's any substitute for proper reporting, it is certainly "another tool" for constructing a more accurate picture of things.
  - nmrm 13y ago
    I understand the sentiment, but disagree with the conclusion. There are some unbiased and quality sources of reporting, even on television. E.g. PBS's Newshour does a good job. More importantly, there is a lot of useful material outside of television land. For instance, Foreign Affairs does a good job covering both sides of defense issues. HIR, Brown Journal of World Affairs, and similar publications are also high-quality. I think the real problem is that we want our news to be entertaining (or at least not work-like), but truly understanding any given issue in the news requires consuming large quantities of evidence prepared and presented from various perspectives. And that's not always as fun as watching (or making fun of) Fox/CNN/NBC/etc. In fact, sometimes it's pretty boring.
- dkrich 13y ago
  Our "greatest threat to security" is that our people take their opinions from the mouths of celebrities and politicians, and not through careful consideration of the facts. No they don't, they take their opinions from their parents and friends at an early age, then spend the rest of their lives choosing to listen to celebrities and politicians who confirm those beliefs.
  - existencebox 13y ago
    There's certainly some truth in that; the environment someone is brought up in during their most plastic developmental period sets the tone for their approach. This essentially reduces the problem down however, saying that the twisted narratives of media are resultant of a system where early education teaches you to simply accept that message. (I speak in what would be hyperbole in most cases for the situation you suggest, where the parents and friends advocate taking narratives "as faith"), and at that point it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem. The parents and friends lived in a system that perpetuated their narratives, so they communicate this to their children, to create a new generation of etc. So where do you break the cycle? I'm not going to be sticking my nose into someone else's parenting, as much as I think it might do them good. Maybe I should, but I haven't been convinced yet. At this point the best approach I've come up with is just trying to _talk_ to more people. Prompt them to think; and be communicative.
    - dkrich 13y ago
      I don't know that there is a great way to break the cycle, which is why MSNBC and Fox News have very different but fiercely loyal audiences. Certainly there are exceptions- I've had certain issues that I've changed my mind about after hearing some very convincing arguments (opposition to the death penalty is one example), but most people come to certain conclusions about hot-button issues and then have a very difficult time changing course because they want to convince the other person why they are wrong before listening to the other person first. I think a certain amount of that is simply human nature.
rosser 13y ago
That smells uncomfortably like an ad hominem to me. What does his Catholicism have to do with his abilities to think vis-à-vis the confines of the notional "box"? And since when is the rule of law a bad thing? You do know what that term means, don't you? Speaking for myself only, if the US were truly governed by the rule of law, I'd think Snowden should come home and face trial, too. Of course, I also think that if the US were truly governed by the rule of law, his acquittal would be as foregone a conclusion as a conviction currently is.
- michaelmcmillan 13y ago
  Religion is a set of rules people abide by, primarily ethical rules. Of course that has an influence on how "out-of-the-box" you can be. The authority of law does not necessarily reflect the ethical thing to do, as I am sure you know.
  - dalke 13y ago
    By that argument, everyone who follows ethical rules has limits to how "out-of-the-box" one can be. If I am a pacifist, then that places limits on me. If I am a vegetarian, then that places limits on me. If I am a teetotaler the that places limits on me. If I don't believe in using murder to settle parking disputes then that places limits on me. If I don't believe in dumping untreated waste water into the city's water supply then that places limits on me. If I don't believe in tripping people just to see them fall, then that places limits on me. I am well inside the box on a huge number of things. I hope you are too.
    - sirsar 13y ago
      A notable difference between your examples and "religion" (or at least some subset of that widely scoped word) is that religion, at least in the context of this conversation, is someone else's large set of loosely-correlated rules. If one takes the Torah to the literal extreme, they build a fence on their roof, because it was common thousands of years ago to let neighbors sleep on one's roof. Blind adherence to someone else's rules is certainly much more restrictive; it makes the box a lot stronger and less holey.

existencebox 13y ago

I think our problems come when we start looking for any more than entertainment in our entertainers. He attributes the "greatest threat to security" to not voting and not watching political money. I would politely disagree. Our "greatest threat to security" is that our people take their opinions from the mouths of celebrities and politicians, and not through careful consideration of the facts.

yellowbkpk 13y ago
Nowadays, the most reliable way to see (at least more of) the facts on television is by watching comedy shows. "Real" television news programs are in the business of advertising to their viewers, not informing them. How can you blame our people for taking their opinion from celebrities, entertainers, and politicians when they are more informative than the avenues that are supposed to inform us?
- cjfont 13y ago
  Can you support this? So you don't think comedy shows have any advertising agenda simply because their main purpose is to entertain? I would suggest that they have an additional tool at their disposal (humor) to help put a spin on matters.
  - yellowbkpk 13y ago
    My theory is that most of the comedy shows (The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, etc.) make jokes out of showing the opposite end of extreme viewpoints or stories that show up on news. You might be laughing at the absurdity, but you're more informed.
- existencebox 13y ago
  I can't, I do the same thing. (use comedy shows as one tool to expose myself to "what's going on in the world"). It's a really sad statement on the current state of things; but there's a degree of personal responsibility in not taking this narrative unilaterally, we have these amazing tools of message boards and other channels with which to chat with people firsthand around the world, and while I can't say it's any substitute for proper reporting, it is certainly "another tool" for constructing a more accurate picture of things.
- nmrm 13y ago
  I understand the sentiment, but disagree with the conclusion. There are some unbiased and quality sources of reporting, even on television. E.g. PBS's Newshour does a good job. More importantly, there is a lot of useful material outside of television land. For instance, Foreign Affairs does a good job covering both sides of defense issues. HIR, Brown Journal of World Affairs, and similar publications are also high-quality. I think the real problem is that we want our news to be entertaining (or at least not work-like), but truly understanding any given issue in the news requires consuming large quantities of evidence prepared and presented from various perspectives. And that's not always as fun as watching (or making fun of) Fox/CNN/NBC/etc. In fact, sometimes it's pretty boring.
dkrich 13y ago
Our "greatest threat to security" is that our people take their opinions from the mouths of celebrities and politicians, and not through careful consideration of the facts. No they don't, they take their opinions from their parents and friends at an early age, then spend the rest of their lives choosing to listen to celebrities and politicians who confirm those beliefs.
- existencebox 13y ago
  There's certainly some truth in that; the environment someone is brought up in during their most plastic developmental period sets the tone for their approach. This essentially reduces the problem down however, saying that the twisted narratives of media are resultant of a system where early education teaches you to simply accept that message. (I speak in what would be hyperbole in most cases for the situation you suggest, where the parents and friends advocate taking narratives "as faith"), and at that point it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem. The parents and friends lived in a system that perpetuated their narratives, so they communicate this to their children, to create a new generation of etc. So where do you break the cycle? I'm not going to be sticking my nose into someone else's parenting, as much as I think it might do them good. Maybe I should, but I haven't been convinced yet. At this point the best approach I've come up with is just trying to _talk_ to more people. Prompt them to think; and be communicative.
  - dkrich 13y ago
    I don't know that there is a great way to break the cycle, which is why MSNBC and Fox News have very different but fiercely loyal audiences. Certainly there are exceptions- I've had certain issues that I've changed my mind about after hearing some very convincing arguments (opposition to the death penalty is one example), but most people come to certain conclusions about hot-button issues and then have a very difficult time changing course because they want to convince the other person why they are wrong before listening to the other person first. I think a certain amount of that is simply human nature.

rosser 13y ago

That smells uncomfortably like an ad hominem to me. What does his Catholicism have to do with his abilities to think vis-à-vis the confines of the notional "box"? And since when is the rule of law a bad thing? You do know what that term means, don't you? Speaking for myself only, if the US were truly governed by the rule of law, I'd think Snowden should come home and face trial, too. Of course, I also think that if the US were truly governed by the rule of law, his acquittal would be as foregone a conclusion as a conviction currently is.

michaelmcmillan 13y ago
Religion is a set of rules people abide by, primarily ethical rules. Of course that has an influence on how "out-of-the-box" you can be. The authority of law does not necessarily reflect the ethical thing to do, as I am sure you know.
- dalke 13y ago
  By that argument, everyone who follows ethical rules has limits to how "out-of-the-box" one can be. If I am a pacifist, then that places limits on me. If I am a vegetarian, then that places limits on me. If I am a teetotaler the that places limits on me. If I don't believe in using murder to settle parking disputes then that places limits on me. If I don't believe in dumping untreated waste water into the city's water supply then that places limits on me. If I don't believe in tripping people just to see them fall, then that places limits on me. I am well inside the box on a huge number of things. I hope you are too.
  - sirsar 13y ago
    A notable difference between your examples and "religion" (or at least some subset of that widely scoped word) is that religion, at least in the context of this conversation, is someone else's large set of loosely-correlated rules. If one takes the Torah to the literal extreme, they build a fence on their roof, because it was common thousands of years ago to let neighbors sleep on one's roof. Blind adherence to someone else's rules is certainly much more restrictive; it makes the box a lot stronger and less holey.