Jon Stewart doesn't understand Capitalism | The Problem with Jon Stewart
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- Subscribe for more video essays: bit.ly/2cxs4Z3
Support me on Patreon: bit.ly/2d46QD6
The Problem with Jon Stewart talks about a lot of issues, but the one thing the show keeps bumping up against is its unwillingness to grapple with the bedrocks of American policy: capitalism and neoliberalism.
Follow me on Social Media:
Twitter: / skipintroyt
#theproblemwithjonstewart #capitalism #jonstewart
I will say, he introduced my centrist liberal mother in law to modern monetary theory. Something that I got nowhere with over years. She works in a high school, and started a discussion among the teachers. Later, she actually had a discussion with me over several things that she thought was ridiculous before. He may be far from perfect, but he does seem to be a bridge from the center for a lit of older voters.
Yeah maybe he's to progressivism what Jordan Peterson is to the Alt Right. Except for way more intelligent and compassionate ;)
@@LC-sc3en that’s an insult to Stewart. Jon has actually done good journalism and activism whereas Peterson wrote a self help book after being famously anti-transgender as he misrepresented a Canadian law.
@@saintsfearful that's a real conundrum, because he's certainly dishonest enough to misrepresent it, while also being enough of an idiot to have misinterpreted it. There's no excusing that he hasn't changed what he said even after it was explained to him though
@@tjmburns what are you talking about?
Modern monetary theory is a scam, a Ponzi scheme.
Learn about sound money and you wouldn’t make that statement.
Your economics classes failed you completely.
"Hes questioning people in power, not power itself" couldn't have said it better man. Great insight
Democrats always do this. Putting brown faces in power is definitely not the answer.
But he does. Talking about how people in power abuse the power is talking about power itself… isn’t it?
Well, Skip should have rephrased it as "He's questioning the people in power in a slightly confrontational way, yet he has never once thought of changing the system that propped up such people."
I feel like he serves as an important middle point. He’s a stepping stone for a lot of people.
@user-en6gs6jr6w yea I wasn't saying this sarcastically
Well this might not be a teardown of Paw Patrol I been waiting for, but this could be fun to watch
I too am eagerly awaiting the day that Paw Patrol gets its comeuppance!
@@two_owls Yeah those puppies have had it too good for too long.
All dogs are good dogs, unless they're goddamn fascists.
It's so close!
Honestly? A cutesy cop show for babies is the pinnacle of sinister copaganda
Dianne Feinstein bragging about perpetuating the same problems for 30 years is not the flex she seems to think it is, and I only wish one of those sunrise kids could have realized that and called her out on it when she said that.
ye she ded
@@cl8804 Hell yeah!
@@AlphaGarg woooooo
The little kids in the clip shown are reminding Feinstein what democratic government really is -- of the people, by the people, for the people -- because they understand what it is.
Feinstein's response is to tell them no, government is where people like me tell you to butt out 'cause 'I know what I'm doing' -- because she does not understand what it is.
Remember a while back, when John Oliver's show was criticized as "explaining the problems with capitalism while avoiding using the word itself"? Maybe this is a similar case. As I'm aware, Oliver is better about it now than he used to be, maybe Stewart will get better over time too? Hopefully? Guys?
Nah. LWT avoiding using the word just helps emphasize to unaware viewers that thinking critically about an episode would more easily lead to them understanding that the *system* is bad. I think using the word ‘capitalism’ can put a lot of people off to the message but saying ‘money do this bad thing’ can lead to a more open audience (and probably skirt around whatever execs at HBO who might squirm if they felt overtly attacked.)
Added-I try to look at ways that centrist and everyone further right can be pulled away from apathy or hatred to seeing what the left is actually saying. In this case John Oliver would be offering some light counter-programming to get those word-averse people to think about *capitalism bad* without realizing it. Jon Stewart is just giving those same people either validation for centrist thought or fuel to stoke the stupid-fires on the right. Ive seen some right criticisms of LWT that tend to devolve from ‘this is stupid!’ to grumbling about the content because there isn’t as easy a way to extract simple taglines from 20 minute actual deep dives with a lot of nuance and solid research. It’s like they can’t really fight actual facts and logic 👀
I just am amazed that adults who pretend to be rational actors can ever say that capitalism is "just the free market". I'd like to see one example of a truly free market that resulted in the accumulation of capital necessary for capitalism to establish itself. As long as a fungible currency exists and there are private entities entrusted with issuing it there is no free market, just a ready-made formula for oligarchy.
@@donaldbarber3829 could you elaborate for an economics noob like me?
@@johndough6225 Capitalism is a system in which a fungible means of currency [i.e. can be exchanged universally for all products and services] allows those with sufficient quantities to acquire on demand the requirements to generate wealth most notably labor, land and large scale means of production. There can be no formal limits on the ability of an owner to accumulate and consolidate this currency, and it will be issued by entities with a monopoly on its production, which means they essentially function as gatekeepers.
For people who aren't majority holders of wealth to maximize the utility of their own capital, they must combine it with other people's capital and entrust it to someone who in turn will likely entrust it to someone else, lessening the control each individual has over its use in exchange for increasing the leveraging power and reducing individual responsibility.
This disbursement and consolidation is also known as investment. A free market without this feature is more reminiscent of a swap meet or a flea market.
To me, the difference between Stewart and Oliver has always been that Oliver knows he can’t get away with arguing against capitalism directly, Stewart wouldn’t even think to do that
John Oliver claims that "Europe" criticises the US military, but that in actuality, "it" is glad that the US protects "Europe". It's not clear what or whom *he* means by "Europe", but it's mostly regular people who hate how the US behaves on the world stage, and not European politicians or European media.
John Oliver is pro-military to the point that he cares about vets and even decided to marry and have children with one. He jokes about how he can't say that he had a hard day at work because it sounds ridiculous given what his wife has done/does. You can't be that pro-US military and at the same time honestly against capitalism.
@@camelopardalis84 Pro-veteran is not even in the same league as pro-military. The US military couldn't give less of a shit about veterans. Pro-veteran positions are markedly leftwing as they usually accompany support for low-income housing and other social assistance programs, decreasing homelessness, funding more effective drug rehabilitation programs, and mental health awareness. Also, veterans are humans just like the rest of us. Most of them are not war criminals and despite the fact they made a poor career choice I don't think we should leave them to terrible fates because of that choice
@@quarkonium3795 In what sense did they make a "poor" career choice? Would you be willing to offer a synonym that's less vague? Not something like "bad" either.
Misinformed would be a good symonym. @@camelopardalis84
@@camelopardalis84 they chose to be part of a fascist death machine what's so hard to understand
I would agree that a capitalist market labeling itself "free" is just pr and branding.
Totally
It's hard for a successful person to be critical of capitalism because in their minds the system worked because it recognised their greatness.
If he was working class Jon would find it easier to be critical of the whole system.
Jon Stewart is an enemy of the working class. He always has been.
Yes
Have y’all watched him or is this just projection
@@Kevin-zf9jh Right. I don't understand the takedown here...
@@Kevin-zf9jh i watched him, but one episode a week i didn't notice the pattern
Really makes you appreciate the teams of writers, researchers, and editors that backed Stewert and still back Oliver.
I think that there’s a disconnect between what Stewart MEANS by free market capitalism and what the reality of that system actually is. When he pines for free markets, I think he’s thinking of “the free market of ideas”. That if a majority of Americans want a thing, then it means the market has spoken, and we need to get corporations to fall in line. But clearly the actual financial markets are completely disconnected from cultural zeitgeist.
I don't think it's that, I think he is looking at regulatory capture as being the big issue.
No, he's talking about libertarian style laissez-faire capitalism, as opposed to the corporate crony capitalism that's taken over in the last seventy years or so in the US. Basically, he's like John Stossel but with progressive social views.
If you take one, honest look at the "free market of ideas", anyone interested in critical examination would find its flaws. The world simply doesn't, and has never, worked that way.
@@crimsonmask3819 laissez-faire capitalism is just crony capitalism with no regulations. "guys image how much better things would be if wallstreet was even less regulated"
never seen anything quite as relatable as yelling "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS IN A FOR-PROFIT MEDIA ENVIRONMENT!!!" at the tv
I feel like Jon Stewart is trapped in the time period when most Americans would've gotten most of their news through other Americans on TV. I'm Canadian, and I used to watch The Daily Show at its peak for fun, but I always felt some form of disconnect because his opinions were so heavily based on the U.S. being so fundamentally unchangeable. Meanwhile, I lived a mere 30-minute-drive away from the U.S.-Canada border, and, just for being born in that lucky position, I got universal healthcare. Of course, Canada isn't anywhere close to perfect, but having that outsider perspective made Stewart's limited takes always feel primarily defined by whatever other (usually pro-status-quo) American sources fed him and his writing team.
Now, through the internet connecting entire populations across borders so easily, the bubble has popped, and Americans who once would've be in Jon Stewart's target audience can so easily compare and contrast themselves to other systems.
This is why Gen X (and however many boomers are left) is so pro status-quo. They are stuck in their bubbles.
I'm honestly getting frustrating how many times I have proven to my mother that she believes things based on her emotions by bringing irrefutable facts that contradict her stance. She regularly concedes she was wrong. And yet time and time again she falls right back into her logical fallacies, despite having been demonstrated repeatedly that simply looking up the facts of the matter would contradict her assumptions on the matter.
It's the definition of willful ignorance.
Yeah, the moment you make one international friend online tends to be the moment you figure out how limited a lot of the stuff Jon says really is
Oh, you're Canadian? No one cares about your opinion then.
@@ZachJ-0 You can't fix stupid.
For TDS talking around the status quo was the perfect gimmick-newscasters reporting the news but with sarcastic commentary to contrast the inevitability that you are doing the establishment’s work. This new show is spectacularly unaware of why Jon Stewart flourished. He had great news commentary but as someone doing a themed episode show focussing on issues? Jon, your centrist is showing.
To be fair, with his work to help 9/11 first responders and his work holding media and political figures’ accountable more than they had previously in a format accessible to young people (introducing a level of critical thinking that has been developed upon since to a mass American audience), Stewart has made a more valuable contribution to society than the majority of media celebrities.
But he’s an old millionaire now and he has the same approach to societal problems and the same level of effectiveness as Bono.
Jon Stewart has never held any one truly accountable because he doesn't have the power to do so. He just offered fake leftists lip service and got rich doing it. Jon has always been an enemy of the working class, just look what he did to destroy OWS, the first socialist movement in the US in over 70 years.
Virtue signalling is a common tactic for narcissists and their enablers.
Except what, 3 times now? He has changed things
What I find so frustrating about Stewart is that his outdated, incomplete view of the modern world invalidates what I would argue is a genuine and impressive amount of compassion, intelligence, and sense of duty. Stewart, more than nearly anyone of his generation, seems to truly care about marginalized individuals and the problems that affect them, which led to a strict adherence to incrementalism. As you stated in the video, incrementalism has its place and is arguably more effective in forging immediate responses for people who can't wait, and Stewart's successful lobbying for first responders likely solidified this as the most effective, valid approach to problem-solving to him. His consistent skepticism towards big ideas and "re-training" stems from a pessimism towards pie-in-the-sky social revolution that eats into time and effort he could spend on tackling individual symptoms of systemic rot. This limited framing compels him away from even the causes he's directly advocated for, such as free universal healthcare and demilitarization.
His refreshingly earnest perspective on racism gives me hope that he's aware of his potential biases and surrounding himself with smart, diverse people who can steer him into more directly addressing capitalism - and consequently recognizing the absurdity of moving America towards free-market capitalism instead of a mixed-market interpretation - but there's also nothing invalid with him staying focused on exposing individual issues that need immediate attention. His show (perhaps by design) demands a higher degree of critical and independent thinking because - unlike Last Week Tonight - Stewart insists on letting the other side present its argument regardless of its absurdity. The Problem expects you to know that the CEO of Shell is going to downplay the realities of climate change and champion the easiest potential solutions, whereas LWT carefully crafts a narrative around its issue, its fallacies, and how to get involved. It's essentially "The Problem with Jon Stewart" vs "The Solution with John Oliver", a lecture vs. an open forum.
The problem with the "left" is acting as if he's the enemy. Obviously he is an ally, and with the platform he has... the "left" should be promoting left wing ideas.
@@nickf7313 Progressives do have a certain predilection for "purity tests" i.e. anyone to the right of Democratic Socialist need not apply. Rather than recognizing the concerns and sympathies they have in common with Social Democrats and Liberals, Progressives are quick to label outsiders as "lost causes" when they aren't fantasizing about guillotines or powering the entire manufacturing industry with solar panels.
As someone who aligns firmly in the left, it's deeply frustrating how poorly our platform is presented to others. The alt-right, by contrast, doesn't have this bad habit. They welcome anyone remotely conservative into their ranks and quickly get to work indoctrinating them into their worst belief systems.
The only thing Stewart ever cared about was his bank account. He's the "leftist" version of Tucker Carlson. Neither of them believe what they're saying and only say it to make more money. Evidence of this is shown when Jon did everything he could to destroy the OWS movement. Jon is rich and he doesn't care about the working class. Pointing out legitimate problems doesn't make a person virtuous. Jon is literally someone standing on the shore pointing out that someone is drowning while doing nothing to help them and actively stopping anyone else that tries.
@@chinafuture6484 So you think Stewart retired to purchase and run an animal hospitality farm because it was the best thing for his bank account? Is that also why he dedicated several years of his life lobbying with first responders? If so, the dude should at least be commended for finding such unusual angles to diversify his investment portfolio.
@@siphillis That farm and what Jon has done for the first responders does absolutely nothing to fix the root of the problem and he knows it. He's just a rich guy doing as he pleases. He is not your ally no matter how hard you simp for him.
This really indicates more about purity politics than understanding the strange/rare position Stewart occupied and what he did with that opportunity. It disappointing. The meta importance of Stewart isn’t that he didn’t go hard enough on condaliza rice or call out so and so politician; it’s that he was a late night comedian, a late night news show; and with basically zero expectations from a comedic show that rounds up the news in a half hour on a secondary cable channel, he executed that show with such soul and honesty that he became one of the most trusted voices in media. As a comedian! He wasn’t a journalist. He wasn’t an interviewer or some position of trust and respect ; his job was to tell dick jokes and make the news funny. What makes Stewart important and legendary isn’t that his every opinion was right, or that he exposed someone or whatever; it’s that he had a small position of power, and even though there was ABSOLUTELY NO expectation of him using it responsibly, he did. He took something meaningless and made it meaningful, engaging people otherwise engaged and bringing to light issues that had been swept under the rug. Individual viewpoint in that context are less important, because it’s about the context more than him as a person.
More than 1 thing can be true at the same time.
i think you would benefit from watching the first vid on jon stewart he does adress these points you’re bringing up
I appreciate this comment. As someone who doesn’t share a similar viewpoint as the creator of this video, Jon Stewart has introduced me to major concepts derived from compassion towards marginalized communities. He bridges a gap towards maybe more republican minded people by not condescending or claiming moral superiority. And while I’m certain there’s merit in some people having strong views about the ineptitude of Jon Stewart’s bases, I don’t think that merit lies at the end of every segment where Skip Intro puts his hand on his head and jokes sincerely about how Jon is idiotically not anti capitalist enough. Rather, the merit lay in the well produced, intelligently narrated explanations of the earnest and agreeable outlook he posits.
Even if you think he doesn’t go far enough
Thank you dude. There’s a really good interview with him & Chris Wallace from back in the day where he talks about this & where he explains how his voice became a trusted voice & how its actually fucking ridiculous that people trust him because their interest in him isn’t because he’s some super politician for the people.. but it’s because of the abject failure of the mainstream media & the establishment in general that has pushed the American people to him & because he has no reason to lie & because he has no skin in the game (in terms of him needing to appeal to the people or to gain said trust) his voice became one that the American people wanted to hear & sought out. So I think it’s so fucken stupid when ppl criticize him as if he’s a politician & as if he has some kind of obligation to the American people to be someone or something other than what he is… a comedian. He’s the reason that I started caring about politics. He’s the reason why I started voting. He’s the reason why I started paying attention & standing up for my beliefs. He’s the reason why I stopped trusting the media. He’s the reason why I don’t subscribe to either party (I am not a centrist though) & he’s the reason why I learned that I don’t have to agree with everything the left does & I don’t have to blindly support them just because they’re not the right. So ppl can say whatever they want about him & talk as much shit as they want about him but at the end of the day he still has one of the most important voices on the left & he has helped sooooo many people, especially young people open their eyes to the truth about this country & has inspired them to pay attention to wtf is going on & how we are being fucked everyday by both the left & the right.
@@lefty3128 I absolutely hate that argument “well he’s not anti capitalist enough” “well he’s not ________ enough!” “Well he’s not doing enough!” ……. But he’s a comedian who has done MORE than enough & continues to speak out about important issues, issues that don’t even have a personal effect on him.. he continues to give voices to marginalized communities, he continues to educate & inspire young ppl to get involved in politics & to start giving a fuck about important issues. He has used his fame & voice in order to not only educate the American people but to also shed light on some hard topics that makes it all a little bit easier to cope with.. ya know? I just hate stupid ass people who look at what isn’t being done rather than what is.. but then at the same time they don’t hold that same energy towards our ACTUAL government or the ACTUAL politicians or the ACTUAL people in power & instead they waste their time bitching about comedian/political commentators instead of shedding light on more important topics… one could say his critics that use this same argument are also…. NOT DOING ENOUGH! Lol.
Interestingly enough, we were asked to create a rehabilitation strategy for Shell in Nigeria in our political communications class and that was the moment I realized I will never go into pr or politics
PS thx for your videos, they are always very easy to understand and entertaining to watch and I don't want them to end!
Props to you for having a soul. Next time go one step farther and document the experience, but those fuckers on blast. If you can. I mean, take care of your safety, then do what you can for the world.
@@gsgaming6976 A lot of the Southern hemisphere countries are in terrible situations from deals with greedy corporations. Look into what Nestle or Coca Cola are up to there.
@@michaeladkins6 Preaching to the choir.
The worst thing about liberals AND conservatives in this country is the conservatives force me to be on the same team with the liberals.
Edit: no, the worst thing about conservatives is the whole “stanning for fascism” thing. But I’m not crazy about the other thing.
I think the worst part about it is more the fact that both sides hate each other, despite the fact that the leaders we end up electing are a lot more similar than we like to admit regardless of party
@@gameb9oy the leaders only look the same if you have no investment in who wins. For a lot of people who wins us the difference between a situation being stable or even better or devolving into something way worse
@@coldfrost3 It really doesn't matter whom won because what gameb9oy said is right. We NEVER had been stable it simply got worse in 3D plane. America been in some sort of war since WW1 IF I really want to deep cut since the civil war. No pres made it better and only one that kinda did JFK they popped him. Nothing got better, what you did Obama and Biden did better than W. Bush and that man?...
@@coldfrost3 you tell him buddy.
@@gameb9oy both sides are the same and if you don’t think so you’re a racist right wing centrist nazi
Honest Jon Stewart’s conflation between human nature and capitalism feels almost nihilistic. It’s like he doesn’t believe we can create a new system and have to work with what we got even though what we’ve got is shit. I definitely agree I admire his attempts to find solutions but it’s still missing pieces of the equation..
I think that's exactly what he believes.
But Jon's thinking makes sense; there is no country around that does not have a form of capitalism. We have been down the roads of socialism, communism, feudalism, etc., many times throughout history. What we need to do is expand the welfare state, much like they have done in Europe, but keep ideas that Americans love, i.e., you pay into Social Security and Medicare, through working.
@@drewengel7073 except it doesn't and you're wrong. Vietnam and Cuba are both states that don't use capitalism within themselves, and don't forget every other state that doesn't has been intentionally destroyed by those who do, just look at Catalonia.
@@drewengel7073 you cant reform a system that is inherently built on exploiting someone else. Products in industrial countries arent cheap for no reason, since most of the production sites are poverty striken countries cause the labour is cheap. also alot of the richest countries in europe were directly profiting of imperialism and can ride out on that or they have a ton of oil like norway
@@casteanpreswyn7528 Vietnam has a form of capitalism so does Cuba
Would be nice if someone in that group had told Fienstein that she obviously doesn't know what she's doing since she's been failing for those 30 years. Or that she hasn't been doing the right thing for those 30 years.
I do feel like it's giving people a bit too much credit to expect that they'll arrive at the anti-capitalist conclusions on their own after watching Jon Stewart. Some of them will, sure, but most people are going to need a little bit more nudging to consider questioning the entire status quo. And unfortunately most of them won't see any of the more progressive or left-leaning shows that were inspired by Jon Stewart.
It's very easy to assume that other people will see the same things we do, because it seems so obvious what the next step is, but I've realised that this is not something you can ever rely on. I've been exposed to a lot of leftist ideas so it's a natural instinct for me to question capitalism, but a looot of people still don't have that context. A looot of people don't know what capitalism even means, they sort of just assume it means the concept of economy or literally any form of trade, and they think that capitalism is part of human nature and is an inherent part of civilisation itself. That's just how it's presented in the media and in schools and so on and so forth, especially in the US from what I can tell, and it's hard not to learn that mindset if that's the only one you ever see, if even the "leftists" (read: liberals) accept that framework.
So people DO need someone to say it a bit more directly before they can do their own work. Doesn't necessarily have to be super in depth or anything, but at least they have to be pointed in the right direction before they can even know where to look for more information to make their decisions.
I mean that said I do think that we are making progress on this front, it's just that I don't think it's "not giving Jon Stewart enough credit" to say he's kinda outlived his relevance and doesn't have much to add to the conversation anymore, and at worst provides a distraction from systemic issues. It really does feel like we kinda just don't need his input anymore, not that there's better shows out there that could use that attention instead.
Capitalism works better than whatever dream scenario you have set up in your head.
@@DSPHistoricalSociety
capitalism is one of the most efficient systems ever designed by human beings for rendering the planet as we know it uninhabitable and causing a loss of biodiversity equivalent to the event that killed the dinosaurs.
Its based on the genocidal destruction and mass murder of third world liberation movements in living memory to keep them economically subservient on the imperial core
the us itself has the worlds largest prison population, over 22% of worlds incarceration population (use is 4.25% of worlds population
people in the us die because they can;t afford insulin every day
us had worse child malnutrition rates than Vietnam and Cuba, has lower infant mortality and similar life expectancy than Cuba.
Read the Jakarta Method, 6th extinction, and the new Jim Crow.
@@chriss780 Naw I'm good. I was born in the US
@@DSPHistoricalSociety cool, makes sense as anticommunist state indoctrination was intense in the us for some 100 years, as it was communisms arch enemy
@@chriss780 Communism didn't last for 100 year rip
Jon Stewart isn't perfect, but he's not bad. Like other people have pointed out, he is a good start. He's the André Rieu of progressives, a gateway drug into the really good stuff.
Agreed! I honestly think that is an issue in progressivism. We have very few good gateway progressives while there are a ton of gateway conservatives.
Oh *PLEASE* tell me what the "good stuff" is
@@DSPHistoricalSociety David Graeber
How is Jon Stewart a good start? He's not a true progressive any more than Tucker Carlson is a true conservative. They're grifters. They tell their audiences what they want to hear so they can get rich. Jon is an enemy of the working class and always will be. He went out of his way to derail OWS because he doesn't believe in class equality.
@@chinafuture6484 Whatever you say sing song ding dong- _China Future_ 😂🤣 China has no future other than stealing tech breakthroughs from the west. Way to like your own comment, clearly the Chinese way
After we've heated the planet up and melted all of the ice sheets in this half of the 21st century, we can just build really big freezers (plugged into the oil-guzzling electricity grid yum yum) and make new ice sheets. Idk why people think that that's unreasonable? #problem #solved (/s)
I'm sad you had to put /s on that, but I know it's all too necessary
So glad you gave props to John Oliver. I saw a late towards him in part 1 and it blows my mind. He's gotten more left as time goes on and is the perfect gateway to the left
John Oliver? The deeply anglo-centric imperialist is your version of left?
COINTELPRO & McCarthyism have permanently damaged the brains of Americans.
Fuck markets, all my homies HATE markets.
Even farmer's markets, though? I guess a co-op would be better.
@@kat8559 farmers market... otherwise known as the dreaded wet market
All your homies will be rebelled against
Yeah fuck….markets…..
Jesus Christ….
Fuck markets ok. You want central planning in full effect? Soviet union, Venezuela, China. Didn't work out so well for them and before you go blaming anything else aside from the actual Command economy that created its mess, Think to yourself "Am i being disingenuous". In case you dont want central planning in full effect, rather Regulation and Mixed-market economies... Its the status quo..... You are living it, Problem? Maybe its the Status quo...
Agree with everything in the video so far with one exception. I'm currently studying economics at Berkeley and many extremely loud voices (Nobel prize winners even) absolutely are saying every country needs to slash emissions no matter how developed they are. It is a real issue that the US and other imperial core countries have been able to use so much of the carbon emission budget to develop themselves while poor countries are just expected to accept a less developed economy or pioneer a new, less emissions intensive path. There are a lot who want to kick away the ladder, so to speak. It's not just about transitioning to net zero, it's about how we have a just transition which doesn't screw over poor countries specifically (like we always have). Tons of people who are, rightly, concerned with the climate are ignoring this issue. Stewart is right that we need to have a better answer for developing countries. For example, we have waited too long and been too inactive to solve climate change without China, for instance, massively cutting its emissions. This is unfair. Developing countries are now unfortunately required to use far less emissions than the west has used to become rich. We've waited too long to avoid this, but we do have to call out how fucked up it is.
Edit: Sorry if this is rambling. I'm lying in-bed with covid and feel like shit lol.
Then endorse nuclear
@@Dan16673 Nuclear is awesome.
@@samquattrociocchi4427 my man!
We shouldn't turn up our nose at nuclear for the sake of it, but it's important to note that renewables are easier to roll out in terms of speed and cost, and their costs are to this day still dropping, while the cost of nuclear plateaued a decade ago.
There's an interesting paper by an Oxford research group which goes into this in more details
"Empirically grounded technology forecasts and the
energy transition"
By Rupert Way et al
After their first episode on the Burn Pits, the Jon Stewart podcast asked for people to call in with feedback and questions on the show for them to discuss. I called in with two questions that I think each basically summarize your two videos on Stewart:
1) How is it that you can continue to consider yourself a comedian first and foremost after putting out an episode that's deeply researched, includes hard-hitting interviews with the people in power, and is being followed up with a trip to Congress to address the issues discussed? It's hard to avoid the conclusion that you're a journalist or even an activist first and foremost at that point, with comedy simply being the delivery system.
2) Why, in all of your discussions about how to fix the problem with burn pits, did you not once bring up universal healthcare? The cancer caused by burn pits is obviously awful and should be treated, but I think all cancer that anyone gets for any reason is awful and deserves to be treated. While Jon's approach may lead to more immediate change (which is good!), this is just going to become a continuous battle of tackling treatment for condition after condition with the VA until we find a way to universally address these issues at the root. We need a long term solution too.
My question wasn't addressed on the podcast (no ill will there, to be clear), but it's nice to see these videos that really put all the evidence in one place to reinforce how I was feeling after his first episode back. I like Jon Stewart, I think he does a lot of good, and he was a huge influence on me, but he does feel a bit like a man out of time at this point - and I wonder if the younger writing room he has on his new show is too starry eyed over their hero to really push him into the present as much as he needs. The incremental solutions he proposes and his hard held belief that civility and respectability is of utmost importance just doesn't fly anymore.
It's kind of wild to see the guy who made so much noise about jailing bankers after the 2008 financial crisis basically rollover for oil execs when it comes to addressing climate change. He was a real progressive back in the day; the war on terror was a popular idea after 9/11 and Jon stood strong against it, shined a light on its issues. These clips reminded me that he was very funny while doing it too!
I hope he can pivot the direction of his show in the ways you talked about here.
I've been binging Deep Space 9 on Netflix, and every time I click "Skip Intro," it makes me want to go back and rewatch some of the Copaganda vids. And that (not the busted algorithm) is why I saw this vid was uploaded. Was this your secret plan all along? Nefarious.
Dude DS9 rules so hard.
Seeing the deeper action John Oliver has done when addressing issues on his show was really nice, makes me wanna actually watch him now lol
I grew up among aspiring comedians in Los Angeles of the 1970's. Here is what I have to say about Jon Stewart. He has managed to do anything at all with his opportunity, and such opportunities are rarer than hen's teeth. If he gets a drop of quality out of it, he's doing better than most. I spent my adult years as an executive in a software firm. Jon Stewart gets capitalism to a very great degree. What he doesn't 'bother' to do is the exposition to this, where we learn which way is up and which is down. From our skewed perspective in a heavily propagandized reality tunnel, there is much to learn before we can even recognize the truth. Also, people have been trained to expect big drama from a story (Stewart talks about this a lot) and yet our reality tends to change incrementally. There won't be a climate macho boss battle with tsunamis of sharks battering down our cities. No, not like that. Think of it like this. Every gallon of gasoline you burn is stolen from the future, and they NEED it.
I strongly disagree with so much of this video (I still left a like though, because the video is very well put together!). This is a problem I have with a lot of the left. So many issues are framed as large-scale systemic issues and every every solution is so daunting that many people just become either angry or depressed. Neither option leads to action.
Say what you want about Jon, but he has _actually_ acomplished things. He has _actually_ gotten things done. Something that just can't be said for most of the people critisizing him. Yes his solutions aren't as deep-reaching as you might want, but they are actually achievable. It puts a better world within reach for most people.
As much as I agree with the left on policy, I have many issues with how we frame issues for others.
The bigger statement that needs to be made is that comedy is not effective activism on immediate and important issues.
Stewart recognised this when he fought for vets. No comedy used. Result achieved in good time.
You can use comedy when the issues aren't urgent and you want to raise awareness. But awareness isn't action. It's just awareness.
We all need to grow up and stop waiting to be entertained into knowing about the issues and instigating solutions.
Patriot Act was the best Daily Show spiritual successor. I was pretty sad it got canceled.
I think it is admirable of you to want him to address larger issues. But it is a balancing act. Changing American military policy or eliminating plastic is likely to be futile in the short term. But there are pieces we can change to make it better. Starting with small achievable goals and working your way up is more realistic.
Man I want Problem Areas With Wyatt Cenac to come back that show was amazing
The bit with Diane Feinstein is so cringe inducing. "You're telling me that it's my way or the highway". Yes, that's (theoretically) the way democracy works. You do what your constituents want you to do. "And I don't respond to that." Which is a huge part of the problem, laid bare pretty explicitly.
This video reminds me of the Jacobins during the French Revolution. For those that don't know, the Jacobins was a French political club which sought to influence the nation's path through the Revolution. But they got so caught up in deciding the details of future France that they forgot to make any progress at all. Instead of strengthening institutions and helping the millions of people starving as a result of the Revolutions instability, they squabbled over who was the most revolutionary and which type of revolutionary was the best. Eventually, the revolutionary's biggest enemy was other revolutionaries. They fought amongst themselves so much that the Old Elite was able to regain much of their old positions of power.
In other words. We need to stop going after people who are fighting on the same side as us, just because they dont agree completely with us on every count. Wait to purge the revolution until the war is won!. Jon Stewart may not be perfect, in your eyes, but please realise that he is doing good.
Interesting so you are mad that john stewart attacked the occupy movement? The center is allowed to attack the left ad nauseum but when the left fights back suddenly we are the bad guys, come off it
John Oliver is my effing hero.
Also is nearly impossible to convict offenders of domestic and sexual violence. I was abused by a boyfriend, and the cops took *me* to jail because I was hopped up on adrenaline from being put through a wall and "look kinda crazy." Of course I look crazy. A guy just put me through a wall. ACAB
And yes, I watched the entirety of your Copaganda series. Loved it.
I think I understand why Stewart is doing what he's doing.
I, who understands ALL these things, can only watch a few minutes of this at a time before I need a pallet cleanser of, oh... abandoned puppies.
What we have done is crushing
The power of companies like shell is unfathomable.
and yes, Stewart needs to push harder, but one feels like Sisyphus.
I’m willing to bet that you actually understand close to nothing
So I don’t know where to post this but it feels relevant to this in many ways: Can you did a piece on Severance???
It’s a tv show about capitalism and labour and it’s really good and I feel like it’s right up your alley
Lol, in an effort to show off how a conversation should go with white people about race and fixing it, Jon Stewart creates a panel that shows off the reality show nature of modern cable news and does the very thing he hates about it. Lord... I hope he figures this shit out quick.
That panel was such a mess. I really feel like it needed a second half with only productive, good faith participants willing to actually engage with the topics without red herrings or equivocation
@@empatheticrambo4890 yeah. Presentation as it stands presents an argument that we must include those in the community even if they are looking to be disruptive and not participate in good faith, and then settle for the, "you're entitled to your opinion" ending at best.
Yeah that's the episode that ended my interest on that show.
Er, wasn't that the whole point of that panel?
A producer on Wisecrack mentioned recently that the issue for comedy and capitalism is that stand-up comedy is almost purely entrepreneurial in spirit. So you often end up seeing all of these hyper capitalist comedians. John Lovitz also comes to mind.
as someone who loves Jon Stewart, these were hard to get thru. but I'm glad I did. kudos, great work
i still enjoy stewart, because at least he acknowledges certain basic truths about american society, but it is always good to be reminded that he’s not showing you the whole picture. great video!
I think that Jon Stewart is the most honest show host. Maybe he can he wrong but his honest approach Also Led him to acknowledge mistakes and Open important conversations. He really is invilved in his causes and That's parte of his appeal. I love him but Also I understand and appreciate This análisis. Great video.
He'd spit on you in real life but okay lol.
I’d argue that media polarization, etc. isn’t due to companies acting in a purely profits-driven way. It’s a small distinction, but I don’t think media polarization directly equates to the most views and best profits for a company. What polarization DOES equate to is the best modality for news media companies to follow in order to prevent a populace from organizing for change.
I think this is a distinction worth making: companies are not only operating to maximize profits, but also organizing to maximize power and control over people and society.
If we ignore this distinction, then we miss the insidious ways companies are operating to erode our democracy and freedoms. From Hollywood making movies and shows where bad guys pantomime arguments for progressive change while heroes are cops who maintain the status quo, to social media companies looking to gather all our personal information and eliminating privacy while pretending it is only for innocuous advertising, to financial companies actively screwing middle class instead of the rich, to many companies being anti-union and anti worker instead of seeing them as a valuable partners to care for and cultivate. The leaders of companies are at odds with a free society, and if we pretend it’s all just amoral profit seeking, we will miss the danger until it is too late.
While you raise a good and valuable point, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the profitability of the "polarised" (if you can call less than half of the political spectrum "polarised") model. It ensures that all media corporations taken together cover a wide spread of the population, while also minimising competition. Meanwhile, the existence of rightwing shows means that centre-right shows will always have something to pretend to be outraged about and vice-versa. And of course the "moderates" between the far right and centre-right will watch both.
You can think of it similarly to the two-party system in that the parties are set up to maximise coverage (thus preventing the emergence of a viable third party) and minimise competition (each party has at most one competitor, and most states get written off as "red" or "blue" states with no meaningful competition at all).
@@Salsmachev conspiracy community calls that Controlled Opposition
Kendra interview gave me optimism. I feel like my generation has been knocked out of our optimistic view of the future out if us by the status quo. John tries to keep the status quo. The problem with white people is a good special.
I actually hope he sees this. It's a very fair and helpful critique.
I think you’re mistaking presenting a compelling argument from scratch and you’re not there. I mean no disrespect but your demographic comes from copaganda and that’s radically left leaning Caucasians who are already well versed in the subject “why our civil defense system sucks” and “American exceptionalism is a lie”. We aren’t Stewart’s audience. They have never been the people to take their time to read 15 articles, look up Chomsky etc. and then make an informed opinion (I count you and myself among them), they’re left leaning used-to-be Joe Rogan listeners who thinks “being gay is fine but pride-parade is taking things too far” and laughs if someone catcalls but would never do it themselves. Coors light liberals as I like to call them.
Stewart is condensing these vastly difficult discussions where years of negligence has created power structures with what seems only fixable by a radical change in our government, our judicial- and our financial system. Basically a complete overhaul (which I think the vast majority of this community would agree with). To come to this conclusion you need to do the in-depth analysis of research that fits our demographic but not the coors light liberals. We enjoy learning about these things, they want people to stop being so greedy, be nicer to people and be more considerate of others and feels like that isn’t too much to ask. We’re not the same people and Stewart’s success in highlighting these things does at least shift the Overton-window to the left way better than any Buzzfeed article about Manspreading ever did.
I agree with nearly everything you say but I do see value in John Stewart as an on-ramp for apolitical people or naive libs to get introduced to left of center ideas and that hopefully some of them seek out further media that will move them further left. I'm older and have been involved in leftist politics for 2 decades and it was John Stewart who was largely responsible for politicizing me as I began watching The Daily Show in high school so I definitely see value in him as an entry point in a leftist media pipeline, as long as content creators such as yourself continue to course correct would be libs before they settle into the comfortable assumption that we can maintain the status quo if we can just figure out the right tweaks for capitalism.
if Jon Stewart or Jon Oliver pointed out that Capitalism is the problem, they'd lose all of their funding in 5 seconds. They'd be put in more controversy than even they - ingrained cornerstones of political comedy - could handle. I've noticed they tiptoe around it a whooole lot, as you've pointed out. There's no way they don't know, there must be some sort of block in saying it. Especially in regards to Jon Oliver, where it's an even more obvious pattern.
Socialism is still a super dirty word, and "socialism is evil" is an insanely ingrained pattern of thought in the average citizen's worldview. People just simply cannot imagine another economic structure working, and obviously the media obviously propagates this line of thought. If the Jons pointed out capitalism, they'd be accused of wanting to spark the revolution - i.e. "inciting violence," which would for suuuure lead to investor backouts, even if it weren't true - they'd be accused of being ridiculous or silly, or just outright being socialist, or communist evildoers.
Capitalism isn't the problems it's is the government
@@poptraxx418 The source of a government's power is the people's collective decision to allow that government to have power. Largely, the reason the people allow the government to have that power is because they have the most money. That's generally how almost all governments in recorded history have worked. You are rich and therefore people obey you, because it benefits them to do so. Either because you're rich enough to afford soldiers that will kill, rape, and pillage on command, or because you pay them to obey you. None of that changed with modern times. And we're even seeing it now, as individual companies start to rival the economic might of governments, they challenge the authority of governments... and win, often.
Capitalism *is* the government. It always has been.
@@poptraxx418 Capitalism requires a strong government just to function.
Loved how you laid out in your comparison between Stewart and his successors what consistently effective and meaningful progressive change can look like, and in so doing, gave a shoutout to so many of the progressive content creators I already watch.
I love this series. Thank you
i really liked this video. however your assertion that john oliver goes farther and addresses the real issue is wrong. he might assert that capitalism is at fault, but he never puts forth any solution (socialism) or reform past what is possible in the current capitalist society. so yeah oliver is more advanced in his thinking but for all intents and purposes he is more similar to stewart than different. if anyone disagrees, just watch literally any last week tonight segment dealing with foreign policy and you'll see that oliver falls in line with the US state department nearly every single time.
Oh yeah. Oliver clearly isn't interested In critiquing capitalism and he has his issues. There is no denying that. But he at least has clear suggestions for what can be done in the immediate future and either does something himself or rallies his fan base to try to effect some type of positive change. If I have the choice between Stewart and Oliver I will choose Stewart.
You're mad that he doesn't use the magic word on HBO?
Old John making Libertarian and Conservative arguments. There's a lot of capitalist libertarians that use that line: "Oh, we don't have true capitalism. Not free market capitalism. That's the problem!" Even though they're benefiting from it while deflecting.
We don't have free market capitalism. That's the problem with *capitalism* though, not the problem with our system. Capitalism's foundations rely on a set of fundamentally impossible assumptions.
Note: Not that it can be fixed now, but it's worth stressing that at 22:30, he misspeaks about the oil industry having been covering up climate change for "almost half a decade" while showing a headline that makes it clear they've been doing this for almost half a CENTURY.
I will say, to defend Jon with the burn pit thing, he can't stop America from going to war and he can't stop America from killing Iraqis. I think it's the smart move to focus on one specific thing that he might be able to have an effect on.
I can't stop climate change, but I still try to do my part. Does that mean I'm not doing the right thing because I'm not trying to stop issues out of my reach?
I think that's not an apt comparison.
If you do whatever you see your part as, that's good. Maybe you can do better, but no harm so far.
If someone else starts suggesting solutions to the problem, and you shoot them down as impossible or unhelpful (even if they're not), then that's the wrong thing to do.
I always try and do the small things, but I also try to draw attention to the big things at the same time.
My problem is Jon being on apple instead of going solo, patreon and such, so he can go harder in the paint. Why put a leash on yourself?
But I still love him.
Even if he was on Apple he would still be the same.
This is kinda hard to watch cause pretty much every clip of Stewart he's using the tone, rhetoric and complete ignorance that I've learnt over the years to tune out.
Tune out the ‘ignorance’ and get all in with this crowd.
For sure the opposite of counterproductive…
I don’t think Jon is a problem, if anything at most he seems misguided at times, maybe a bit dated in his way of challenging things, but there always room for improvement.
Plus, all those blunders he makes seems honest enough, I didn’t always have the best papers in school, my concern is complacency or trying to appeal to humanity and common ground and all that.
Jon: "No industry is ever going to cut its own throat and take away its profits. How do we..."
Me: "cut their throats and take their profits from them"
Jon: "B R I B E them"
The hilarious part is... he's wrong. Most industries do that all the time, as a natural course of business. That has become the norm in neo-liberal economies, because they'll just get free money from the government. Can't have the "job creators" go broke now can we?
It sounds like YOU don’t understand what the phrase “free market” means. Jon isn’t wrong. He points out that we aren’t living in a free market. We are living in a neo-gilded age pseudo-feudalistic society. That’s the point he makes. He dismantles the people claiming to like “freedom and free markets” by pointing out that these people aren’t actually supporting a truly free market, but rather neo-feudalism.
It's helpful to understand Jon's issue with perspective and framing to zero in on his genuine surprise at the idea that not all people think the way Americans think. So here's a thing - I have encountered many (MANY) Americans of both the baby boomer generation and the following generation x, who are possessed of a strange and curious belief about humanity. Regardless of political leanings (quite a few see themselves as liberals - even progressives), they have grown up conditioned with a phenomenally cynical view of human nature. Often times, they don't even seem to realize just how misanthropic they are towards the human race.
This attitude leads them to assume as a bedrock principle that humanity is inherently ONLY competitive, that cooperation and collaboration are only every trained and conditioned, even if admirable goals to be pursued. They believe that babies are essentially born yearning to get cracking on trading futures and tots are eyeing up their rivals in kindergarten to find the weak marks and begin selling them product and capturing their labor.
I think that this ultra cynical and toxic viewpoint has been reinforced by a combination of predatory capitalism as a culture, and the later half of the 20th century in the context of the cold war. Americans particularly lived with a culture of creepy nihilism - a doomsday belief that nuclear war and the end of the world loomed just over the horizon. There was no hope, no future, and only the mad rush towards "power" and the acquisition of status and wealth were real. Own enough land, with a deep enough basement, to hide out the end of the world. There is a reason why Americans are obsessed with nihilistic apocalyptic fiction and particularly zombies. (Playing out the subconscious fear that their own fellow citizens are just brain-eating cannibals waiting to descend upon them. Finally, a morally defensible excuse to shoot them all.)
Finally, this cynicism is mixed in with the narcissistic American tendency to view itself as the cap on top of human progress - the leader of the world, center of humanity, and the standard against which everyone else is measured and gauged. It's hard for many Americans, even well-meaning ones, to stop and realize that no - not all of the other 6+ billion people on Earth think like Americans. Or value what Americans do, or have the same beliefs about the nature of life, and human beings. Even the nice Americans are really fucking arrogant.
So we find otherwise perfectly nice folks like Jon who don't realize they're approaching life from a really warped, damaged, crippled mindset and point of view. They have only ever seen through a mirror darkly and have confused the reflection with reality.
The interviews with Rice and Rumsfeld made me breathless with rage.
While this is generally a great critique of surface-level liberalism, I think you overestimate the "anti-capitalist power levels" of John Oliver and Patriot Act and others like them. Just because someone is aware that these issues are systemic, doesn't mean they're going to start advocating actual literal system change. Getting the rich to "pay their fair share" in taxes and guaranteeing access to universal public services is not a shift away from capitalism; in fact those things can operate comfortably within the confines of capitalism for a while. Capitalism is defined by private ownership of the means of production for the purpose of profit accumulation; it is a system where the capitalist class firmly holds the reins of power because they firmly hold the means of production. Until the progressive/left-of-center talking heads are actually going as far as to question the very fabric of the economic system -- until they start advocating a more specifically mapped-out form of post-capitalist economic democracy, in other words -- they'll forever be stuck running in circles trying to make a "capitalism for the 99%" that will just inevitably be unraveled by ruling class interests a couple decades later. You need to cut off the rot at the source, and the source is class-based economics.
Jon Stewart is like the mechanism on the roller coaster, he takes you slowly to the top showing you the view that you can't see from the ground, but he doesn't push you over the edge; he relies on you to take the plunge into action or get off.
He really can't come straight out and call himself a socialist without losing his position.
1:01:40 who are those two youtubers after some more news I would like to check out their channels
I know it's a year late, but I saw that no one got back to you, so on the off chance you see this and haven't found them,
The first after Some More News is We're in Hell, followed by Hbomberguy (the dude that did that RUclips plagiarism thing that's been making the rounds).
Hope this helps.
@@xBrakit I found them both a while ago but thanks anyway, your kind effort really brightened my day and I mean that sincerely 😊
What Jon Stewart needs to do is team up with John Oliviar and become vocal social democrats. The US will not become socialist, not anytime soon. But we CAN make Housing, healthcare, education and public transportation universal and then move on from there. Once we do that the rest of the world can follow suit and we can tackle the profit motive eating itself.
Housing, healthcare, education and transportation. For all. That's it. It will cost nothing compared to our war budget and IT WILL PAY DIVIDENDS IMMEDIATELY, a rising tide raises all ships. After we do that then we can push for more radical change. But at this point in 2022 if you want to advocate for capitalism it's not "free market capitalism" it's "socially democratic capitalism"
There's a lot of fine work to be done picking the low-hanging fruit of politics; you just need to acknowledge that there's so much more work up there to do otherwise.
Jon Stewart's brother is Larry Leibowitz, is COO of the NYSE. This maybe why he can't go for the Jugular of Capitalism !!!!
One piece of constructive feedback:
I think it would have been good to add one more piece of explanation as to why capitalism concentrates wealth over time, on top of Chomsky's quote.
Namely that having wealth allows you to absorb risk, which allows you to make investments that can make you more money over time, whereas poorer people are forced to make false economies, spending less in the short run because they have no option otherwise, but ultimately being costed more in the long run.
Capitalism advantages wealthy people in their accrual of wealth, and disadvantages the poor, and that's BEFORE they rig the system with lobbying and union busting and on and on and on...
John Stewart represents reform and not revolution
Missed the opportunity to call the vid "The Problem with The Problem with Jon Stewart with Jackson"
At min 22 you say that these companies have been covering up climate change data for nearly half a decade but the article you threw up references the 1980's, do you mean to say half a century?
I can say for a fact that scientists knew about global warming for decades before the general public had even heard the term, so yeah he probably meant century.
He must have simply used the wrong word, either misspeaking or thinking that the term for "100 years" is "decade" instead of "century".
The higher you prioritize the popular maxim "buy low, sell high", the higher you prioritize a zero-sum cannibalism in which one person must lose in order for another to gain.
But I suspect cannibalism is evolutionarily selected in as a population-size stabilizer (to reduce probability of extinction/severe setback due to severely exhausted biological resources due to explosive growth), especially in the absence of predators (e.g., how wolves help stabilize deer populations); so anti-socials (psycho/socio-paths) tend to rise to the top and ruin things regardless of social/political structure.
And that's a tough puzzle to solve, not just coming up with sustainable, more ethical alternative such stabilizers, but then also overcoming the resistance to such alternatives by the anti-socials whose importance such alternatives would undermine.
Hmm, I dunno about that ending. I think it's important to have people like Jon around to keep starting people on the path. Yeah, the overton window has shifted for younger generations, but he's there to talk to other moderates like himself who might be more right leaning. It's not the group it used to be, specifically because of his legacy. I don't think it's right to throw people away and call them shitty just because they're not going as far as we want them to. Maybe it's okay that a range of ideas exist, and that his show will shove people more toward Minhaj and Oliver, and maybe further still. Removing those in the center removes the ability to move through the political spectrum in a way that isn't as destructive as, say, Vaush and the others like him who brought right wing approaches to issues into left wing spaces and made them almost indistinguishable.
Okay, I’m not saying that Stewart knows capitalism exactly, but it could be argued that capitalism’s inherent profit motive isn’t an existential crisis because capitalism is not a governmental system, a democratic governmental bodies role is intended to regulate financial systems to serve the public equally and fully. The financial system is supposed to be regulated by the government not the other way around. So I believe that he is saying that since ‘free market capitalism’ is supposedly a financial system that is always open to competition and thus consumer choice and governmental regulations to safeguard the public can work together to overcome the faults of capitalism. The reason Jon Stewart would propose government policy intervention rather than total dismantling of our financial institutions is that less people would suffer in the transition to proper regulation of financial systems by government, than dismantling of the financial system currently in place. If could somehow ban lobbying and limit campaign contributions to something like $10 per voting human person, and if we could then prosecute politicians who vote in opposition to their campaign promises, then the politicians would be far more likely to pass regulations on all industries which would protect citizens and the environment, foster competition in markets, and limit the capacity of greed to flourish. So we could keep capitalism and have a safe equitable society, rather than having a revolution that we don’t ultimately know the end result of.
Retraining is really interesting, because Stewart is implying that we all have some sort of training to begin with. Maybe he has training he would have to unlearn, but the younger people who are pushing for these changes don't. It's like he's projecting his own unwillingness (not inability) to change onto everyone else despite concrete evidence to the contrary. And it wouldn't be a huge issue, except that people like Stewart are actively impeding the people who want to change how our society works, making this whole "retraining" thing a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I’m sorry but what? Please tell me how he is actively impeding people who want change.
@@gabefae By shutting down and dismissing any suggestion of substantial change. He's not just saying he won't/can't help, he's arguing against anyone who says they want to support this stuff.
@@Salsmachev I’m sorry but I disagree. I think stewart is trying to bring about change the best way he knows how, by appealing to middle with very left leaning ideology but in a way that will get them questioning the very systems that are causing all the problems we see today. I see all these comments and criticisms of stewart here and they all seem to be that he isn’t going hard enough, that he isn’t radical enough. I don’t know where you are living but where i am the right radicalism is definitely dominant and i can see where a less radical approach from the left can be appealing to a larger amount of people. Idk i just don’t see the value in discrediting someone who is earnestly trying to start a dialogue to bring about change
@@gabefae If that's your perspective I think you must not have watched the video. The whole point is that Stewart isn't really trying to challenge the underlying systems because he is accepting baseline assumptions that are not only in line with the problems but which actually produce the problems.
"Radicalism" is so dominant that the five centre-left social democrats in congress can't even pass the green new deal and Bernie Sanders can't even win a democratic primary. I didn't know barely existing was the new standard for dominance.
@@Salsmachev you misunderstood me, i said the radicalism of the right. Who would you say is worse? Tucker carlson or jon stewart? Who is more in the way of active change?
15:15 This clip almost brought me to tears. Stewart's attempt to remain composed, still leaking emotion - especially the impact of the word "time" at the very end there - is truly harrowing to watch.
17:29
being a leftist former imperial soldier (ie: Americans, Israelis, etc).
It is possible. But first, absolutely not if you joined the military AFTER already being politically engaged. In that case, you knew full well what you were doing but did it anyway. You can't plead ignorance.
If you were just ignorant, then you need to actually acknowledge your own responsibility for what you did. This is where most supposedly 'leftist veterans' fall over at the first hurdle.
They insist on presenting themselves as victims of something they had no control over, even though in practically every situation possible today, even in militaries with actual conscription, you have other options.
But they are not the victims. They joined up to be hitmen for racist imperialism, hoping to benefit from it. The only victims are those on the other end, not you because you chose to kill or support killing in the name of imperial expansion for free college rather than... Just working a normal job and not killing anyone. That's the same arrangement that any common contract killer has (murder for personal advancement), and that you're doing it for the empire is worse. As an imperial soldier, you were little more than a common murderer, or at very best the accomplice driving his getaway car. Like the murderer, you can be reformed, but not if you keep insisting you did nothing wrong. The tragedy of American military imperialism is not that American soldiers died, it is not that American taxpayer dollars were spent. It is that they - you included - committed mass murder & genocide, destroying entire countries and the lives of countless millions, all for the sake of imperialism.
So, let's say you're an ex imperial soldier and you acknowledge this: you know you're not a victim, you know you in fact were the victimizer. You know that what you did was bad, that you absolutely bare personal responsibility for it, and that it's a miracle you will never be punished for it. Cool.
Let's move on to step 2: Stop identifying as a 'veteran'.
Especially in societies like the USA where military worship is common, 'leftist' ex imperial soldiers still flaunt the label just like right wing soldiers do. They identify proudly as 'vets', putting it into every bio they have, mentioning it at every opportunity, and even forming communities of 'leftist vets', practically frothing at the mouth for a chance to bring it up. They still use their status as imperial contract killers for personal advancement at every opportunity, getting their discount and the benefits the government gives them for killing people for oil (most 'leftist vets' seem infinitely more concerned with, for example, political activism for 'helping veterans' than for 'helping their victims'). All while also throwing the label around proudly in 'leftist' communities, expecting to be held up on a pedestal and entitled to extra clout and importance for it.
If you were truly remorseful for being an imperial hitman, you wouldn't be doing this. You wouldn't be using the fact that you committed awful crimes for awful reasons - and yes, they are crimes - as a core part of your identity, a cudgel to beat others over the head with as if it makes you special. Anyone who didn't do what you did is more credible than you - obviously, as they haven't done something heinous for personal gain.
The way you think this works is actually the exact opposite, and it is genuinely ridiculous to see supposedly 'leftist vets' flaunt the fact that they went and invaded other countries for an empire but now feel 'sad about it', clearly seeking clout and status in doing so. 'Leftist hitman' would be a ludicrous way to identify, and you are one and the same, whether you killed yourself or helped others do so.
You aren't even remotely reformed if you still identify so strongly and positively with your status as a criminal, using it to gain as much personal benefit and status as possible.
Leftists who happened to do something very bad in their past which they acknowledge and now deeply regret? Fine, whether you were an imperial soldier or most other things.
'Leftist veterans'? No. Never.
if u r a lib or hog vet then u r a disgusting weight on the earth and a nightmare for your victim's relatives in the victim's nations(third world nations)
Hi, i got stuck at the quote: "bigotry can't be defeated with logic, because it's something ive been thinking lately, whether it would be better to discuss problems even with bigoted people or it's a better solution to ignore that bigotry.
Does anyone have any studies, papers or articles on this topic?
Because, as much as i think the better think would be to adjust to the person you're talking to, it would be very meaningful to know how often are bigoted discourses defeated by confronting them.
Yay I love the channel 'we're in hell' I was so excited to see you clip him :)
I don't like the title. It should be "Jon Stewart's activism softballs the status quo" (a very fair criticism) Not Jon Stewart doesn't understand capitalism because I couldn't find a whole lot of talking about capitalism.
He is as progressive as you could be and stay on corporate cable, 20 years ago. He seems to still think inside that box.
Love the Some More News shout-out. That channel is great
I don't know if it was all just one episode but to hear him say "the largest polluters campaigned to fool regular-ass people into thinking they're equally responsible for climate change" and then goes on to.. spend time telling chiding people for... being concerned over industrialization in developing countries(?) is pretty chilling.
Maybe there's someone saying that- there's always someone saying SOMETHING- but that's the exact same redirect as the fossil fuels companies. If a developing country started spewing coal like the English industrial revolution, they'd still be a tiny blip compared to the US military's pollution. Even if a sizable bunch of people were focused on industrializing nations that it'd still be just further proof of corporate misdirection, but rather than saying that to insinuate "don't lose focus", I think this was desperately trying to figure out a way to show that climate change activists are unreasonable, too.
I think the reason Jon approaches these subjects in a relatively centrist way or a tackling of self-interest is that self-interest is the problem.
Capitalism is a system based around self-interest, but whether or not that system was in place, self-interest is the driving factor for why someone will do something that may be harmful to others while knowing that is the case or not bothering to care that it is. If you can appeal to that in a way that also compensates for the harm done or avoids it entirely, that is likely the best we will get as humanity at this point in time.
We cannot simply make people not think about the world in a way that does not benefit them directly. That is the predominant worldview and it is the most logical one when it comes to an individual experience. We have a long way to go before we can think less myopically as a species.
The ironic part about self-interest as a motivator, particularly in economics, is that the course of action that generates the most individual benefit is the one that provides the most benefit to society as a whole. We actually see this when analyzing the theoretically perfectly competitive capitalist free market. Even more interesting is that the theoretical perfectly cooperative communistic approach matches the exact outcome of this theoretical perfect capitalist approach. Their ideals are the exact same thing, being approached from opposite directions. Further still, economic models show us that cooperation achieves significantly superior results to competition, to the extent that firms being allowed to cooperate with each other represents a threat that cannot be competed against, because the cooperators will simply win.
@Dont Misunderstand So the exploitation of third world countries is a net benefit to them is your arguement?
I am asking in good faith to make sure I understand what you are saying. The other possible interpretation I see is to say those being taken advantage of are not acting self interestedly enough. This reminds me of my economics class where the idea behind economic theory tends to say that a high GDP is indicative of people working harder. However, this seems to ignore sweat shops and entire cultural economies that have been manipulated into accepting their lot as lower wage earners and collectivists for the sake of external powers and ownership of the profits generated. That is to say, the self interest of one party seems to directly cause problems for another party because of the nature of self interest in systems based around the idea of scarcity.
@@Kilmoran I don't understand how you arrived at those interpretations. Nothing I said could prompt a response like yours in any way. I don't get it, and I don't really know how to clarify for you because it comes so far out of left field that I cannot see any connection whatsoever.
Instead, I'll simply re-state what I already said. A person acting in their greatest self-interest will choose to be selfless, because doing so in the long term achieves the maximum possible personal gain.
@@dontmisunderstand6041
TL;DR: I misunderstood your wording due to reading too much into the first few words.
In your original statement you said
"The ironic part about self-interest as a motivator, particularly in economics, is that the course of action that generates the most individual benefit is the one that provides the most benefit to society as a whole. "
This read to me as the most self interested courses of action generate the most individual and societal benefits. However, I think that you instead said (as the wording changed at that point) that the motivation of self interest (not the act per say) can cause a course of action with said benefits.
The reason why I responded as I did was I read the self interest into the latter part of the point. Self interest in and of itself is essentially how systems tend to get corrupted when they become the sole pursuit in an economic system. That is why I brought up exploitation of others for your own economic gain. That is how things currently work with self interest at the root of it.
But, I now see what you were trying to say was that actual self interest, long term and big picture, is not selfish. I agree. We tend to look at things too myopically and too short term to see the bigger gains we would have otherwise as a whole. The problem there is... some people don't want to have roughly what everyone else does. They want to have more than others, specifically and competitively. But you did say in a perfect version of the systems, so I am not saying that you did not understand that.
@@Kilmoran Yeah, for sure. Some people have that "king of the ashes" mindset, where they don't care how horrible their life is as long as they can see others suffering even more.
So I didn't learn a lot a lot about Jon Stewart but I did learn a lot about your views.
This opening, “…is Jon Stewart viral all the time” - eh?
His 2020 election movie was so terrible. Astoundingly bad, and thanks to your videos, I am able to verbalize why it is just so bad. Keep up the great work!
Minor point, but when that cop said that officers are afteaid of 4th amendment lawsuits against officers confiscating weapons from domestic abuser, that isn’t really how that would work. Assuming that the law was that these weapons would be confiscated, there would presumably have to be a court order and warrant in order for a police offer to go and take them if they weren’t voluntarily surrendered. The warrant would presumably be subject to the same, incredibly lax, standards as most are, so I can’t imagine the cops actually facing legal consequences, especially if their argument is that they are removing weapons from a dangerous individual.
Basically that’s a very bad faith argument that ignores how difficult it actually is for a cop to face 1983 suits or any legal consequences from a 4th amendment violation.
I originally wrote that I thought you were being unfair or biased towards him...but by the time you conclude you episode...I believe I more or less agree 100%. I have found that J.S. does not quite go far enough...he just misses the obvious elephant in the room every.time. BUT, his show is still good...but now I am more aware of the short fall...thanks for the content.
well here it is 4 months later, and a lot of bread tube consumption since...and several books. And I ran across this video again. I have to say. Yeah. You are 100% right, and I cannot believe I was ever pissed that you were criticizing him so hard. He runs right up to the edge but won't take the leap. And it is a completely logical leap. He will criticize Capitalism then suggest small things that might fix it but he won't call it what it is...newage feudalism...wage slavery...unfair.
It is nice coming back around full circle and seeing where I was before I knew what I know now.
lefties unite
When our corporate media starts digging into these topics honestly, the way that Stewart does, I will agree that we may not need him anymore. But we still do. Obviously.
John Stewart is corporate media.
31:52 as a therian, I took literal psychic damage hearing that
For a very, embarrassingly long time, I thought competition pressured corporations to treat people better, the free market led to more competition, and that economic prosperity will benefit everyone... because that's how it affected me. The problem is that those assumptions are only true in very specific circumstances and specific ways, for specific people.
Privileged people tend to be exposed to the "pretty" side of capitalism, and as such can easily believe in an idealized version of it.
i dont find this video good.
you say he doesnt blame capitalism but blames specific people (not power but the people in power) but capitalism isnt a boogeyman working on its own, it is not an entity, its specific people in power that exploit it. you went on yourself to blame the "united states" for stuff they did, do you think the united states is just one thing and a system, or is it made up by people, an administration who decide such things like a war?
you also pick on pedantic stuff such as "the problem with war, jon? just one problem?" and that feels disingenuous, its literally just the name of the show, im sure in his show jon didnt claim theres just one problem with war
in your excerpts as well he goes on to blame lobbying, large corporations, the "free market" capitalism, reading between the lines that is specifically blaming capitalism, free markets or lobbying or large corporations are absolutely a characteristic of a capitalist system, he doesnt have to outright say it, do you know of any socialist large corporations? does socialism have a free market?
i dont think your critique is valuable, interesting, or of nuance, and i dont even see the point youre trying to make.
you dont have to 100% understand something to critique it, i dont have to be a cook to say a certain food is bad in my opinion.
another thing i dont see the point in is, so what if he doesnt blame capitalism and instead blames people in power who specifically exploit and create these problems? how would it be helpful or more productive to throw the ball to "the system". what does that achieve? the system creates exploits, but at the end of the day its people who enforce those exploits.
is communism an objectively bad ideology just because people did not enforce it correctly? communism or capitalism are not inherently bad, its the people who make it bad.
edit: you mentioned medicare for all. ok? have you not heard of capitalist societies having universal healthcare?
on guns, domestic violence is not his single argument, as far as im aware. and even if police are behind not allowing that, how does that make it a bad argument?
you also dont understand his argument on free market capitalism. a state is not supposed to intervene in the market, that is literally the definition. when he mentions that the state constantly bail out banks or corporations, this is what hes referring to.
after 40 mins im done, your video is not good.
I feel like we're at the age now where you can probably just bother this dude on social media until he agrees to an interview and then ask him all these questions to change his mind yourself.
Would really love to see more people with a built platform put in that sort of work.
Just realized, with you talking over a video clip from This Is Hell, that you and he have *very* similar voices. You should do a collab where you each lip sync one another's parts.
I agree generally with your points. Jon Stewart’s function isn’t to talk to the people who already understand the structural and economic issues though. His function as I understand it is to take the position they already stand on and apply sound logical principles to the things they say they believe. It’s just deradicalization. He makes people with platform positions consider whether they hold water. He’s a bridge, not the destination. It’s what he did for me when I was growing out of a tiny backwoods GA town with a Bush loving, racist family and no understanding of what else the world could be. He let me see the absurdity I took for granted. I have come much farther now, done my own reading and learning, and I’ve landed in a place my 18 year old self never would have dreamed of because a few people (Jon Stewart included) taught me to actually look and think. I believe, given genuine hope of a humanitarian overhaul away from capitalism, Jon Stewart would be on the right side of it. I think his positions stem from a long grueling fight and the pessimistic pragmatism that comes out of that experience.
As a fan of Stewart, I like you criticisms. You should be invited to be a writer on his show.
The problem with the free market should be an episode, where he realizes it is not and can not be stable, and will always find ways to co opt the rest of society.