Jonah Goldberg and Jon Stuart go at it on Daily Show

[Charla]

Again, Jon didn't have to make this guy look stupid - the guy thinks that the organic food movement is closely related to fascism.

Well it could be! How do you know that the unquestioned popular consensus about the nature of fascism isn't completely wrong?

[Correction]

A quick look (okay I looked it up on amazon and read some reviews) at the content of the book and I think Goldberg is less of a crackpot.

However, that doesn't fully excuse the bullshit he wrote in his book. He looks at the current state of American domestic politics and equates the 'national interest over personal liberty' tenet of fascism with the 'overrule the majority on moral/environmental grounds' arguments that drive the american left. And somehow this lets him get away with the term 'Liberal Fascism.'

Which isn't 100% inaccurate. But why is he tarring environmentalists and organic farmers with this brush? And why is he scoping his book exclusively on domestic policy? Neither Germany nor Italy were content to limit their business to within their own borders after all. Is it perhaps a convenient dodge of the aggressive 'we know better than you' imperialism exhibited by the original (and needless to say, staunchly conservative Republican) architects of the post-9/11 wars? (answer: yes) Why is it when the current issues are: the war, the economy and health care reform this man wants to sell a book that says 'the progressive path is the path of the world war II fascists?' I think this is at least some part of what Stewart was challenging him with and it turned into a verbal shoving match.

[Quicklet]

However bad this guy's book may be, I'm sure it can't be any worse than MuscleHead Revolution lol.

[Khamsin]

Again, Jon didn't have to make this guy look stupid - the guy thinks that the organic food movement is closely related to fascism.

Indeed it is.

[attachment=0:2flixb7c]fascorange.JPG[/attachment:2flixb7c]

Only the pure, the righteous Aryan fruit is worthy of being eaten by our enlightened society.

[Conrad]

It makes you wonder if Stuart actually did read his book or if he relies on his writers to scan the book for him and find points of contention.

What writers? >_>

[Zanz L. Barre The 3rd]

rofl @ organix food and mustaches = fascism

[Khamsin]

If the guest came back at Stewart for making some extremely shallow attacks, people would just say he got mad and lost his cool. It's a one-sided deal and the guest is SUPPOSED to keep cool as Stewart just takes his potshots because he can.

He doesn't lose his cool, he takes his potshots coolly. If a guest came back at him the same way he jabs at his guests, nobody would say he got mad and lost his cool.

It's not like he's sitting there yelling at his guests or telling them what an outrage their views are. He asks ironic questions and pokes fun at his guests in a calm, cool, disarming way.

So yes, if he riles his guest up and they get flustered and yell at him, then they've lost their cool. But if they respond to him with ironic questions of their own, and poke fun at him in a calm, cool, disarming way, then nobody would think they got mad and lost their cool.

[sephir]

I watch the Daily show every time I can and saw this last night. Jon Stuart rarely goes at it like this with guests but this one just seemed like he didnt know what he was talking about. Some of the funniest interviews I find are with Jake Gillenhaul(I have no idea how to spell his last name, dude from Zodiac).

And in the statement "but this one just seemed like he didnt know what he was talking about" you were referring to Jonah Goldberg, correct? Because Jon owned the living shit out of him and strangled him with his own asinine arguments.

Yes I was refering to Jonah.

[finale23]

what i don't get is that why jonah so hung up on hillary and what she said. hillary doesn't represent liberalism, and she speaks with an agenda all the time. someone above already metioned, jonah had some really weak examples to back up his statements.

[BRP]

No, there's a difference, troublemaking dipshit. He obviously hates on Jon Stewart because he doesn't like him and it doesn't help that Quick's probably a conservative. Nobody is hating on the author just because who he is, they're hating on him because he looked like an ass on TV.

Let me just compliment you in how sound your logic is. Quicklet is hating on Jon Stewart because.... he looked like an ass on TV.

Jon Stewart has admitted himself his show isn't to be taken seriously. His job is to make people laugh and that's it. Jon has control over what parts of the interview got cut and what stayed in. He may be funny(at least to me) sometimes, but one-sided jerking threads are vomit-inducing. He has made good points before, but this simply isn't one of them. He just came off as someone who is teasing in place of any argument. He literally made fun of the guy for using big words. Why? Because his target demographic aren't as smart as they like to pretend they are. They will eat it up.

May I remind you one of the daily show's main sources of material is taking things out of context? How about that.

Just in case: I'm mostly a liberal hurrr hurrr.

[Deftscythe]

When did he make fun of him for using big words?

[Charla]

He literally made fun of the guy for using big words. Why? Because his target demographic aren't as smart as they like to pretend they are. They will eat it up.

Also because Mister Goldberg isn't as smart as he was trying to pretend.

edit: @Deftscythe
At right around halfway through the clip, when the timer thingy on the player says 3:15 left, John says "do you think you might a little hung up on labels and -isms, because I don't know what you're saying..."

That could be taken either as an accusation that Goldberg is relying too heavily on the widespread preconceptions evoked by the words fascist and progressive, or as an accusation of trying to make himself sound smarter by talking broadly about expansive concepts without defining them in the proper contexts (namely the '20s and the present, as the meanings of both words has changed a great deal in the intervening time).

[Khamsin]

edit: @Deftscythe
At right around halfway through the clip, when the timer thingy on the player says 3:15 left, John says "do you think you might a little hung up on labels and -isms, because I don't know what you're saying..."

But what about when he accused him of using big words? Labels and -isms aren't big words, and I don't recall him specifically complaining about "big words" as if he couldn't understand the words themselves. Instead, it sounded like he couldn't see how his argument fit together.

[BRP]

If it makes thing smoother, I think Jonah looked pretty dumb. I do think that may be because Jon was giving him such a hard time. It's easy to look stupid with so much pressure with an entire room being against you.

[Correction]

He literally made fun of the guy for using big words. Why? Because his target demographic aren't as smart as they like to pretend they are. They will eat it up.

'His audience isn't smart so they'll be bullied into believing Jon Stewart because it makes them feel smart and informed.' Hollower words are seldom spoken, BRP.

He made fun of his 'isms' because Goldberg was trying to start a list war. Stewart was taking him to task for try to redefine fascism with questionable leaps of logic and Goldberg came back with 'fascism, progressivism, liberalism.' Jon's remark amounts to 'stop throwing words at me and start saying something meaningful.'

[Deftscythe]

He literally made fun of the guy for using big words. Why? Because his target demographic aren't as smart as they like to pretend they are. They will eat it up.

Also because Mister Goldberg isn't as smart as he was trying to pretend.

edit: @Deftscythe
At right around halfway through the clip, when the timer thingy on the player says 3:15 left, John says "do you think you might a little hung up on labels and -isms, because I don't know what you're saying..."

That could be taken either as an accusation that Goldberg is relying too heavily on the widespread preconceptions evoked by the words fascist and progressive, or as an accusation of trying to make himself sound smarter by talking broadly about expansive concepts without defining them in the proper contexts (namely the '20s and the present, as the meanings of both words has changed a great deal in the intervening time).

That's pretty much what I was getting at. I think it was pretty clear that Stewart was doing the former; saying Goldberg was so caught up in how to label people and groups that he was losing sight of what the individuals message was. Making fun of him for using big words is something very different.

[Beckwin]

Goldberg really is a hack. I actually saw him on cspan/booktv a few nights ago, fielding questions about his book at the Heritage Foundation (or something like that). He actually linked nationality/genetics to the ability to pursue a mean version of fascism. Americans? We're incapable of it by nationality alone. Italians? They didn't persecute Jews like the Germans did, and neither did Franco's Spain. Germans? Those are just mean people and it showed in their persecution of the Jews.

He also admitted, in response to a question, that his book is basically and partially a giant "no u" because he's tired of people calling conservatives Fascists (even though conservatism taken to the extreme is Fascism; it's not like conservatives don't throw around the term Communist). He somehow thinks that the modern liberalism born out of the post-war era is strongly tied to the progressivism of earlier times just because of the mainstream party name.

And yeah, explicitly saying organic food is fascist because the Nazis were into it is amazingly hilarious.

[Stumblingdrunk]

what i don't get is that why jonah so hung up on hillary and what she said. Hillary doesn't represent liberalism

The reason for the focus on Hillary is that she could potentially be our next president and as such is a rather valid target for criticism. Also, as someone with a viable shot at winning the role of democratic candidate it can be argued that she speaks for the party, or that they share her views

[Plow]

Interesting conversation about John Stewart here:


http://youtube.com/watch?v=OvLS4Jv6Tpw

[Heian]

I watch the Daily show every time I can and saw this last night. Jon Stuart rarely goes at it like this with guests but this one just seemed like he didnt know what he was talking about. Some of the funniest interviews I find are with Jake Gillenhaul(I have no idea how to spell his last name, dude from Zodiac).

And in the statement "but this one just seemed like he didnt know what he was talking about" you were referring to Jonah Goldberg, correct? Because Jon owned the living shit out of him and strangled him with his own asinine arguments.

You have to forgive Aedan, he is Canadian and gets confused easily.