Opinion of Samantha Bee

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Mega FF

She's talented, but the brand of politics she's desperately pushing for is beyond awful.

Only talking about your economically liberal views sometimes is not "beyond awful".

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

She's talented, but the brand of politics she's desperately pushing for is beyond awful.

Only talking about your economically liberal views sometimes is not "beyond awful".

What does this even mean?

Basically, she often talks about things that aren't economics, and I was guessing that antonio doesn't like her for "identity politics" or something.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

She's talented, but the brand of politics she's desperately pushing for is beyond awful.

Only talking about your economically liberal views sometimes is not "beyond awful".

What does this even mean?

Basically, she often talks about things that aren't economics, and I was guessing that antonio doesn't like her for "identity politics" or something.

Where does Antonio even imply that his disdain for her is rooted in her choice to "talk about things that aren't economics"? And what does "identity politics" have to with this, either? I can't speak for Antonio, but as someone whose worldview is generally aligned with his, I dislike her show because a. the ideology she espouses is contrary to mine and b. "News Satire" (I think that's what they're called?) shows like hers are cringe-inducing/painfully unfunny*.

*Besides Last Week Tonight, of course.

It was a guess based on personal intuition. Maybe it didn't quite hit the mark, but I fail to see why she should be so out of step with a reasonable leftist other then some vague "smugness" BS or something. (I personally watch it more for the news then the jokes, which are often just whatever but occasionally are really good)

If she is vulgar and hyperpartisan, so what?  She still isn't the left's equivalent of Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.  It's not that level of vitriol.  Not that the left shouldn't have that equivalent.

Especially now that the Republicans have a man in the White House who is overtly vulgar and vitriolic--and is determined to squash anyone who gets under his skin--the left needs people who are not afraid to mock and ridicule the lunatic and his enablers who causing the country and the world so much destruction.

I still haven't heard liberal comedians like Bee mock the small children of politicians who don't ask for attention.  Fox News and freerepublic, on the other hand, can go after the Obama kids, and Rush Limbaugh infamously called Chelsea Clinton "the White House dog".  Yet, in this thread, we have Democrats and left-leaning independents eager to criticize the "smugness" or whatever of left-of-center comedians.  Republicans, however, are not so inclined to call out the crudeness of people like Limbaugh.  Enough double standards.

Speaking from personal opinion, smugness is worse than crudeness.

What kind of a person do you have to be to consider "smugness" worse then calling a young girl a f**king dog?!

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

If she is vulgar and hyperpartisan, so what?  She still isn't the left's equivalent of Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.  It's not that level of vitriol.  Not that the left shouldn't have that equivalent.

Especially now that the Republicans have a man in the White House who is overtly vulgar and vitriolic--and is determined to squash anyone who gets under his skin--the left needs people who are not afraid to mock and ridicule the lunatic and his enablers who causing the country and the world so much destruction.

I still haven't heard liberal comedians like Bee mock the small children of politicians who don't ask for attention.  Fox News and freerepublic, on the other hand, can go after the Obama kids, and Rush Limbaugh infamously called Chelsea Clinton "the White House dog".  Yet, in this thread, we have Democrats and left-leaning independents eager to criticize the "smugness" or whatever of left-of-center comedians.  Republicans, however, are not so inclined to call out the crudeness of people like Limbaugh.  Enough double standards.

"Both sides do it!"

You literally censor trumps name like a swear word, derogatorily talk about "yuppies" in a way that's isn't much different from the attitudes you criticize towards the working class, have claimed that libertarians all want the poor to die and suffer, implied Clinton didn't have a right to do anything but sit down and retire, etc. You have no right to whine about people not being nice.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

If she is vulgar and hyperpartisan, so what?  She still isn't the left's equivalent of Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.  It's not that level of vitriol.  Not that the left shouldn't have that equivalent.

Especially now that the Republicans have a man in the White House who is overtly vulgar and vitriolic--and is determined to squash anyone who gets under his skin--the left needs people who are not afraid to mock and ridicule the lunatic and his enablers who causing the country and the world so much destruction.

I still haven't heard liberal comedians like Bee mock the small children of politicians who don't ask for attention.  Fox News and freerepublic, on the other hand, can go after the Obama kids, and Rush Limbaugh infamously called Chelsea Clinton "the White House dog".  Yet, in this thread, we have Democrats and left-leaning independents eager to criticize the "smugness" or whatever of left-of-center comedians.  Republicans, however, are not so inclined to call out the crudeness of people like Limbaugh.  Enough double standards.

"Both sides do it!"

You literally censor trumps name like a swear word, derogatorily talk about "yuppies" in a way that's isn't much different from the attitudes you criticize towards the working class, have claimed that libertarians all want the poor to die and suffer, implied Clinton didn't have a right to do anything but sit down and retire, etc. You have no right to whine about people not being nice.

If I were a public figure, that would be somewhat tactless behavior, yes. As it stands, I'm just some guy on the internet.

Niceness begins with ordinary people. Our politics are nasty because ordinary people are nasty to each other. The republicans refusal to be even remotely reasonable with Obama was what their voters wanted.

I did get a bit emotional last night, but I really can't stand this kind of hatred that seems to be more because she's different culturally or something then for concrete objections.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

If she is vulgar and hyperpartisan, so what?  She still isn't the left's equivalent of Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.  It's not that level of vitriol.  Not that the left shouldn't have that equivalent.

Especially now that the Republicans have a man in the White House who is overtly vulgar and vitriolic--and is determined to squash anyone who gets under his skin--the left needs people who are not afraid to mock and ridicule the lunatic and his enablers who causing the country and the world so much destruction.

I still haven't heard liberal comedians like Bee mock the small children of politicians who don't ask for attention.  Fox News and freerepublic, on the other hand, can go after the Obama kids, and Rush Limbaugh infamously called Chelsea Clinton "the White House dog".  Yet, in this thread, we have Democrats and left-leaning independents eager to criticize the "smugness" or whatever of left-of-center comedians.  Republicans, however, are not so inclined to call out the crudeness of people like Limbaugh.  Enough double standards.

"Both sides do it!"

You literally censor trumps name like a swear word, derogatorily talk about "yuppies" in a way that's isn't much different from the attitudes you criticize towards the working class, have claimed that libertarians all want the poor to die and suffer, implied Clinton didn't have a right to do anything but sit down and retire, etc. You have no right to whine about people not being nice.

It's especially funny because I would guess that Scarlet is the sort of person who assiduously (and, to be fair, correctly) makes the "punching up/punching down" distinction about everything except socioeconomic status.

Hating a group of people unironically is always unacceptable. Punching up doesn't change this. Snarky jokes about a hierarchically higher class are one thing, but unironic, undisguised, and fairly nasty prejudice against a group of people based on a set of demographic traits is quite another. The vitriol against "the rich" in the "opinion of billionaires" thread was disturbing for me. Before that thread, I would never have said that prejudice against rich people is a big deal (though I would have considered saying hp about them in a poll stupid), but seeing that triggered some horror at the level of dehumanization and hatred present. Not because of the targets, but regardless of them. I'm not exactly rich(middle class and fairly comfortable, but that range is all about talking about how terrible and greedy "the rich" are while ignoring their own miserliness), so an image macro of a cartoon character who's rich being a cartoon character who's rich designed for a cartoon mainly aimed at people who are not rich is not the smartest way to talk about this.