Jon Stewart’s Team Attempts to Penetrate DNC Epistemic Closure Bubble, Fails

Right Wing Pharisees have the check of the Christian tradition still active in their worldview and universe of discourse, since the Bible is, for them, still a living document that carries some weight in that world. So when they fall into pride there is a means for calling them back and a hope that they will respond and repent. But when Left wing Pharisees like this find themselves snug in their smug, what means do they have for detecting their own asininity and the utterly un-self-reflective nature of their bigotry? Who can call them back to sanity and with what authority?

  • Will

    “You mean *I* should accept Them/;

    I keep thinking “These people HAVE to be ringers. NOBODY can be THAT much of an idiot.”

    Now, as Lewis asked… If it turns out that they are, will we be disappointed? Or think “Thank God, even they aren’t as bad as all THAT

  • Thinkling

    I am almost skeptical myself, you just cannot make this stuff up.

    I would love to know how widespread this behavior of interviewees was. Were these the majority of people spoken to? I am sure not everyone there was this bad, but is this typical or just the more egregious examples?

  • beccolina

    They say gun-toting redneck like it’s a BAD thing.

  • Andy, Bad Person

    It was definitely a hacked-up clip, cutting answers from one question and pasting them onto another.

    It’s still funny enough for the “fake but accurate” file.

    • http://natewinchester.wordpress.com/ Nate Winchester

      There was nothing edited in the “i would never call a redneck a name” bit.

  • Blog Goliard

    I started my collegiate career at an elite Northeastern liberal arts college. Our campus Republican club (there were about a dozen of us, in a student body of two thousand) sent out a mailer one semester supporting President Reagan’s SDI (“Star Wars”) program. Some campus lefties were offended that we’d gone and tried to argue in favor of our position…they could tolerate our existence on campus, apparently, so long as we kept quiet about what we believed while in public. (Gee…that sounds kind of like some folks’ idea of religious tolerance these days…)

    Anyhow, one of the offended students wrote a letter to the editor of the student newspaper that I still treasure. After fulminating a bit about how unacceptable and beyond the pale our views and our advocacy of them were, the left-winger concluded:

    “These conservatives are so closed-minded that I refuse to listen to them.”

    Yes, those words were written down on paper, submitted for publication, and published–on a campus where the average SAT score was north of 1300–all without any sense of irony.

  • http://natewinchester.wordpress.com/ Nate Winchester

    Holy crap! Was that Bill Murry at the 1:30 mark? (and elsewhere)

  • Ted Seeber

    Tolerance- it’s not for Rednecks anymore.

  • Blog Goliard

    “Tolerance”, “diversity”, “multiculturalism”…the more a particular person or entity uses these words, the less likely it is that they actually mean what those words purport to say.

    But we shouldn’t be surprised. What else should we have expected from relativists and post-modernists?

  • http:www.wanderingheretic.com Caine

    Frankly, the Dems are in the situation where their rhetoric conflicts with reality (and I think they know it). They claim to be the big tent party that is open, honors, and includes all peoples, opinions, and cultures. But as the people interviewed illustrate (oh, so easily) THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE. To misquote G.K., you can’t stand for everything at the same time unless you stand for nothing. Tolerance in the past meant I don’t believe what you say or do is valid, moral, or even sane, but I will not persecute you or throw you into prison for saying it (within certain limits–very specified limits for that matter–no Baal worshipping baby sacrificers allowed–oh wait!). But overall, complete tolerance, like multiculturalism, diversity, etc., are all slogans unless an over-riding culture, value system, or philosophy gives it a context and defines those limits. For the Catholic, it is the Church; for the Protestant, the Bible; and for the Liberals….. their opinion? The force of the State? What?

    It is only funny because these people spout these sayings while at the same time illustrating their impossibility. I am not so certain Stewart, et. al., sees the impossibility..yet.

  • Chris M

    Honestly, from what I’m reading, the cognitive dissonance forced into the liberal brain by the concept of “tolerance” has run its course. Now we’re seeing the “I refuse to tolerate your intolerance!” (without any sense of irony) and again, the rest of us just sit here facepalming or shaking our heads in disbelief. “I told you so” seems inadequate when faced with such potentially scary lunacy.

    • Nathaniel

      Yes, we refuse to tolerate legal intolerance. Not that hard to understand.

      Unless you are one of those people who think saying this would be clever: “You’re against killing, but you let police men kill killers! Ha, you hypocrite!”

  • Joannas

    Legal intolerance? As in the intolerance of that which YOU decide of being worthy of tolerating? Shall I presume that “rednecks”, “hillbillies”, people believing in creationism, those who believe that all human life is of equal value – from the moment of conception to the natural death, all those groups would most likely not make the list of “legally tolerable” as defined by YOU. Because what is legally tolerance worthy to you, is not necessarily legally tolerance worthy to me. Oh, how very relative of you.

    And as far as your little “killing of the killers” mighty proof of the Christian hypocrisy… acually serves as a good example of how the Christian doctrine is being shortchnged by the seculars trying to first take our teachings and then offering them back to us in a processed form, where by big-word-throwing (ie. killig,killers, etc.) some seemingly insignificant yet in reality very vital terminology gets lost in the process of secular canning of our dogma. For it is not so much that we are against killing. We are the Church Militant and very much into the business of killing. Killing of sin and all known synonyms thereof, that is. What we are gainst is the killing of the INNOCENT, “innocent” being the term that got conveniently lost in the process of your own philosophical, in-your-Christian-face Duh-Vinci-Coding of our #5 out of 10 how-to’s that we try to build our lives around. Not that hard to understand. Unless you are one of those people who… we just refuse to tolerate!

  • Will

    And when I asked him why he strode
    Thus scowling down the human road,
    Scowling, he answered, “I am he
    “That champions total liberty.
    “Intolerance being, ma’m, a state
    “No tolerant man can tolerate!”

  • JohnP

    This was edited for comedic value. I saw it live and saw John Stewart’s attempt at infiltrating the Republican Convention too. That also was very funny. Did that appear on this blog? No? How did I know that already…??

    The people excluded in the interview likely ARE included somewhere at the Convention or in the Democratic Party. It is a very big and diverse Party.

    My problem, and I believe the problem Jesus would have with the modern Church, is the narrowness the “Right” use for paradigm building. “For Catholics it is the Church, for Protestants it is the Bible.” If God were forced to communicate from outside those avenues because they had completely abandoned the ways of God, how could he be heard?

    If global warming is harming the planet, who is God’s prophet? Not the Church or the Bible. Scientists. And God’s self-professed people the Christian community? They are in complete denial.

    At least liberals and Democrats aren’t the “blind following the blind” and can still hear truth and recognize it when it is revealed.

    Are Dems completely inclusive? No. Do we have room for improvement? Yes. But not one person in the comments has said “The Republican Party is as inclusive as the Democrats.” And that’s letting alone anyone saying “MORE INCLUSIVE” than the Democrats, because even in your own community that would be laughed at.

    You instead rationalize and justify your anger and hatred and separateness. I question that if Jesus were alive today he would have anything to do with the “right-wing” of American Christianity. They’d be the ones he’d be speaking against.

    • Mark Shea

      You probably “knew” that because you are very unfamiliar with this blog. You do, however, do a fine job of unconsciously illustrating the point with this smug rant from deep inside the Bubble.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X