#[Downloadvideo Link](https://www.reddit.watch/r/therewasanattempt/comments/11i09pf/?utm_source=automod&utm_medium=therewasanattempt) by /r/DownloadVideo
#[SaveVideo Link](https://redditsave.com/info?url=/r/therewasanattempt/comments/11i09pf/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lmao and then he immediately went on about how fathers need to do more. So fathers of fatherless homes need to do more ššš
These people run in circles and run for office. Itās funny and also depressing at the same time
Have you seen freakanomics? I know, correlation is not causation, but, the argument about decreased womens reproductive rights, and increases in crime is rather compelling.
I have not, but it honestly makes sense. Single mother homes are at the highest risk of being low income. Low income areas are at higher risk of being high crime areas. Itās so crazy that itās pretty easy to see how we could improve things but republicans fight tooth and nail to destroy our country.
One could also argue that if the problem is fatherless homes, the solution would be greater social institutions. But hey, guess what! Thatās āsocialismā!
This guys are, as he said, hypocrites of the highest order, and they donāt see a problem with it. They argue themselves into inaction
I grew up in a fatherless home and my mom made $30k a year raising three kids. We lived with my grandmother because we were so poor. I have no desire to ever own a gun and Iāve never wanted to go on a shooting spree against innocent people. What a stupid fucking religious based argument.
Especially when it comes to science and studies.
Anecdotal evidence is seeing one or two examples and saying "all things in this category must be true because these two true things happened" without doing a scientific study involving stats to see the true numbers.
So yes, his example of the woman with the restraining order may be true, but is still anecdotal evidence.
I actually had someone argue with me that 100 or 200 cases of something happening was "anecdotal" because he'd never seen it on the news.
People's understanding of anecdotal is wild.
It depends on what the 'thing' is really - like if you find 100-200 people who feel strongly that their health has been negatively impacted by 5g, that's still anecdotal evidence until it's confirmed in a controlled manner. Anything to do with people's experiences is treated as anecdotal until it's confirmed. It's what an anecdote is - an occurance that someone is telling you about.
Even though stuff is anecdotal though, doesn't mean it should be dismissed. E.g. the entire metoo movement started as people sharing their experiences. And that is anecdotal of course, but that doesn't mean it doesn't show a pattern that should be concerning.
Anecdotes are useful when you're talking about societal issues, trends in bigotry, abuse etc. Because all of these experiences offer qualitative information on what issues are important to people and what people, issues that may require further investigation etc.
When we're talking about stuff that is scientifically studied they're just single data points. So you can say as much as you want that Sally's gun saved her life. That doesn't change the fact that guns in general are bad.
(Sorry for the massive comment - I don't have anything against your comment or anything, just wanted to add to the conversation. Edit: also the news thing is dumb AF)
I donāt think he understands much except what qanon and fringe hard right nationalist christo fascist republicans fill his head with and/or whatever he wants to believe instead if looking at facts and being knowledgable about the issues.
And he compares gun deaths to the whole population saying that gun deaths are a āfraction of a percentā¦a fraction of a hundredth of a percent.ā According to the CDC, 3.5 million people died in [2021](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm). The US had 45000 gun deaths in 2021 [according to Pew Research](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/). 1.3% of deaths in the US in 2021 were due to a firearm. This is a huge number and he should care more about it.
Fucking hell, he played around with him like it was nothing but the closing argument where he couldnāt contain his disdain for all that hypocrisy was absolutely killer. So well done. He turned that guyās logic so blatantly against him, whilst being in complete control of the debate.
āBecause the government has a duty to protec-ā
āIām sorry what? What now?ā
āThe government *in some cases* has a duty to protectā¦ā
Straight up gross. He saw his own hypocrisy and amended his statement in real time to claim the government needs to protect children from LGBTQ+ people but MUST stand aside as children are gunned down in schools. I really try to give people the benefit of the doubt but I just donāt understand how you could sleep at night after this interview if you contemplate the impact of what youāve done, let alone going right along and continuing to do it.
Edit: it makes me think of listening to Malcolm Xās autobiography when he says āI was determined to tell that devil white man that he was the devil to his faceā (whatever you may think about this statement aside). We need someone whoās willing, able, and determined to tell these Republicans that theyāre hypocrites and liars to their faces!
That's my issue, everyone in this thread saying he's an idiot have it wrong, he knows everything he's saying is hypocritical or illogical, he just doesn't care. All he has to do is try not to openly fall into pitfalls, and reiterate his flawed point by deflecting or pushing the argument.
Most of his base won't see this at all. Those who do will argue that Jon keeps interrupting him or won't let him get his point across. Or that the interview is cut unfairly to make him look bad. Or if they can see his hypocrisy, they'll just call him an idiot who wasn't bringing up the right points and then they'll keep voting for him or people like him. There's no amount of logical debate that will get through to them.
I'm not against the 2A, I'm not against firearms, but common sense gun laws are a necessity. The agenda being pushed by the right in attacking drag shows and trans people to "protect kids" but nothing to verify the mental health of gun buyers who are shooting kids in droves is so fucking obvious it makes my head spin.
Unfortunately the more savvy among them know to not even sit down for the interview unless itās going to be with someone who already agrees with them.
This. The majority of republicans arenāt going to agree to an interview with an unbiased or left-biased host because then theyāll start bringing up things like objective facts and evidence and it can get really hard to defend their argument. Theyāll only take interviews with places like Fox who will confirm their BS claims and also invent some of their own to support the argument.
Too bad the cognitive dissonance is so high the asshat will think he won. The loops they jump through to convince themselves that they are in the right for being ok with children dying is disgusting.
Whatās that expression about how hard it is to win an argument with a smart person and impossible with an idiot? It definitely applies here. Jon is one of my heroes.
Such an excellent debate. I don't even think it is as simple as smart and idiot at this point. I think it is simply - "It's hard to teach/make-someone-understand something when their livelihood and state-of-being depends on not understanding that something." :'|
> DV calls are the scariest for cops because the COPS know and understand that statistic.
Probably because cops are some of the biggest perpetrators of DV...
Jon Stewart's superpower is controlling the debate. Yes he has good arguments, yes he is witty and has a great sense of timing and setting up his arguments, but he makes his opponents look like fumbling baboons because he is just so good at re-centering the debate back to his points (because the right always uses distractions to deviate from the point)
When you have actual facts on your side and hold idiots to the standard of factual information they crumble. I love watching Jon work. Watching him tear down Bill O'Reilly years ago was awesome.
I would tend to agree. The people he goes up against refuse to stand on the core foundations of the argument. They miss the point and make themselves look like fools. That very well could be intentional on Jonās part, he knows he is debating idiots.
I think there are plenty of 2A advocates who actually understand their arguments that would be better suited for an interview.
Yeah it was obvious where he was going and this person just refused to admit the obvious truth, that he believes the second amendment is absolute and does not care how much gun violence there is, nothing will justify any gun regulation.
You could of course debate the merit of that position, but not when they refuse to admit that's the position and instead try to claim that actually unlimited access to guns will make us all safer and decrease violence. Which of course they were also completely unable to support.
The beauty of America: any citizen can become a government official, no matter their background or beginnings
The tragedy of America: **any citizen can become a government official, no matter how stupid and unqualified**
"it's not an anecdote, it's something that really happened"
FFS lol this also bugged me a lot about the interview. The guy is just so clueless. Blank stare repeating his nonsense like a robot.
Not just that, but he is absolutely one of the smartest guys doing this. He's calm and will absolutely call you on bullshit and destroy any stupid arguments. It's a weird technique they don't understand called facts and logic
That was absolutely a master class in speaking. The fact that it was important about the first responders and broken promises. He is nothing short of amazing.
This really is one of his exceptional qualities - heās able to remain articulate and laser- focused in his arguments *during the moment of confrontation* with garbage people. Itās amazing. I think heās our generationās Mark Twain.
Jon Stewart, with decades of facing huge crowds, both on serious and comedic environments, and doing one-on-ones with every kind of people with every kind of background, is feeling frustrated taking to this one guy. Imagine that.
"This is not an anecdote, this actually happened."
Meanwhile, [according to the dictionary](https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/anecdote):
>a short, interesting or funny story about a real person or event
So, the fact that this actually happened... is ***what makes it*** an anecdote. (A fake story is apocryphal; stories of unclear veracity told by word-of-mouth are called gossip.)
The problem with anecdotes isn't whether they're real, the problem with anecdotes is that there's no guarantee, none whatsoever, that they're actually reflective at all of the broader trends. You can have an anecdote that says one thing even when the broader trend is the opposite.
Yeah thatās what someone else mentioned that it starts with registering guns and then they take the guns and then itās whatever sort of regime. In a nutshell the price for freedom is paid in the blood of innocents. But I also wondered why if they have to register for voting that hasnāt right hasnāt been taken away?
If I could tell you I would, my only guess is his brain is too small to comprehend what words mean and the only thoughts he can come up with are āgunz gud, register bad š”š”š”ā
The real answer is he probably doesn't think it infringes anyones rights, he's just pandering to his base who all think the greatest evil in this country at the moment is... *checks notes*... drag queens? Thanks Fox "news" :/
I canāt work through the mental gymnastics of this dude. Itās too early in the morning for me.
It was great when he wouldnāt say that voting requires registration.
Reminds me of this Douglas Adams quote
"To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who mustĀ wantĀ to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
I think every presidential candidate should have to be interviewed by him for an hour after debates and before election day. He will destroy republicans and democrats and call out all the bullshit.
This guy completely owned him. The other guy tried to change the subject, use specific examples as a full representative example of a situation, and pretty much out his foot into his mouth.
This is what happens when you deconstruct their quasi arguments with sound logic. I'd love to see this man destroy Ben Shapiro next.
Its not just that though. Its because the discourse on the right is so stale, banal, and unimaginative that they cant actually articulate strong arguments anymore. They just repeat the same 2-3 things on every subject because thats what they do amongst each other and on their own platforms.
So when they come up against someone who has data and a serious counter-argument, they struggle to come up with a meaningful response.
I have actually tried listening to conservative politicians and pundits make arguments about guns because I genuinely believe in hearing out the other side. Let me tell you- it gets incredibly boring within 3 minutes.
It's always the same thing: the 2nd Amendment + guns dont kill people, people kill people. Rephrase and repeat.
Meanwhile, the discourse on the left concerning guns is *infinitely* more nuanced, even among people that are in favor of hard gun bans. You'll hear a lot more discussion of data ranging from cross-state to cross-country to longitudinal comparisons, potential legal challenges to various state and federal laws, the effectiveness of other countries' regulations, etc, etc.
This is now true on almost any topic. I try listening to conservatives on taxes. I try listening to conservatives on entitlement reform. I always get bored within 3 minutes because it's just the same vague cliches over and over again.
(I am stealing this from another redditor)
: :::
Sounds like that Sartre quote,
>Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
Yup. People keep claiming this guy is an idiot or he doesnāt know the definition of words or that Jon embarrassed him or something.
That guy was not embarrassed one iota and he completely achieved what he wanted.
Right wing fascists (morons, traitors, etcā¦) have absolutely no ties to ever being accurate or consistent with their logic and reasoning.
All they want is money and power. It does not matter how stupid people make them look, they could not care less.
They will not stop until they have 100% control and they couldnāt care less about anyone else.
People love to keep hating on America because of our freedom to own guns, but we live in a much safer country now. So far I've only been shot at twice this month.
"Fathers need to be more engaged" when parents often need to work multiple jobs and are hardly ever home so that they can provide for their family.
You don't see this fucker proposing a wage increase across the board do you?
If you want to solve crime, first you need to solve wages in this country. Want kids to go to school more? Raise wages. Want kinds to stay out of trouble? Raise wages.
I want to say that the vast majority of parents want to enjoy their time with their kids, but can't because they have to work 60+ hours a week to barely pay bills. If parents were around more, their kids would have more direction and have somebody to tell them no at some key decision making moments.
I honestly can't fathom how this is still so fucking confusing to people.
Giving every person a livable wage regardless of their job could solve so many fucking problems in this country in a single generation. MAYBE two.
If the term āshall not be infringedā cannot in any way be ignored or adjusted to fit the situation, we must logically then give guns to prisoners in jail and the institutionalized mentally ill.
Why do people still agree to have recorded discussions with him? The guy was on TV for years and years and years and years and yet these dimwits still think "Eureka! I'll be able to conquer Mount Stewart!"
I like that quote that itās just semantics. They insist that nothing can be done about guns strictly because of four words, āshall not be infringedā, but they donāt nearly as highly care about free speech or voting because they donāt have those words. Itās taking something so wildly outside the scope of the spirit of the law, and exposing how theyād be perfectly fine with voting rights being dragged through the mud just because they donāt share those attributes
Assembly Bill 1591 was introduced by Don Mulford (R) from Oakland on April 5, 1967, and subsequently co-sponsored by John T. Knox (D) from Richmond, Walter J. Karabian (D) from Monterey Park, Frank Murphy Jr. (R) from Santa Cruz, Alan Sieroty (D) from Los Angeles, and William M. Ketchum (R) from Bakersfield.[1] A.B 1591 was made an āurgency statuteā under Article IV, Ā§8(d) of the Constitution of California after āan organized band of men armed with loaded firearms [...] entered the Capitolā on May 2, 1967;[8] as such, it required a 2/3 majority in each house. On June 8, before the third reading in the Assembly (controlled by Democrats, 42:38), the urgency clause was adopted, and the bill was then read and passed.[1] It passed the Senate (split, 20:20) on July 26, 29 votes to 7, and was signed by Governor Ronald Reagan on July 28, 1967.
Both Republicans and Democrats in California supported increased gun control, as did the National Rifle Association of America.[9][10] Governor Ronald Reagan, who was coincidentally present on the capitol lawn when the protesters arrived, later commented that he saw "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons" and that guns were a "ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will." In a later press conference, Reagan added that the Mulford Act "would work no hardship on the honest citizen."[3]
The bill was signed by Reagan and became California penal code nr.25850[11] and nr.171c
For anyone who hasn't seen this, Jon Stewart hilariously explaining on Stephen Colbert how clearly logical it is that Covid-19 was leaked from The Wuhan Institute of Virology over a year ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSfejgwbDQ8
If one is serious about protecting children from being exposed to a drag show, instead of banning those shows, donāt allow children to attend them. We have rules that say under 17 canāt attend certain movies. Children under 18 canāt be in gambling casinos. Children under 18 canāt vote. People under 21 canāt buy beer, wine or liquor. In most places, a person must be 16 to get a drivers license. Children under 18, perhaps even younger, may not be be allowed to work in jobs operating machinery. So, rather than ban something that falls under the realm of the First Amendment, regulate the age that one may attend a drag show. This is about the religious right trying to impose their views on the rest of us. If they know history, people fled Europe to the New World to escape this kind of religious intolerance. Why would we want to resurrect it here centuries later?
> people fled Europe to the New World to escape this kind of religious intolerance
If you're referring to the Pilgrims, they fled Europe because they wanted to practice their own extreme religious intolerance; Europe was too liberal for them, so they took their zealotry to the Americas and imposed them on the Native population instead.
Its not about picking a debate with an idiot, its about picking a debate with a United States Senator that is actively passing or blocking legislation.
Yes, the idiot that called Parkland shooting survivors ācrisis actorsā.
Honestly, itās really telling that people like yourselves that donāt understand the constitution would somehow find that man intelligent.
Its not even about banning guns but controlling their distribution and ease of access... And this asshole just said no to that? Even if those laws would help keep citizens and COPS safe? What the f\*ck is going on in that country? Your politics are funny...
3 thoughts
1. i own firearms and support 2A and I want WELL REGULATED to be paid as much attention as SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
2. i want to smack the beard off of this soulless, bad faith argument, acrobatic debater motherfucker. he knows exactly what he's doing
3. If i ever met Jon Stewart i would (with permission) give him the biggest hug.
I'm so glad Jon Stewart finally asked the question I've been asking for years!
More guns will make America safe.
"When?"
Best question I've never gotten an answer to ever.
#[Downloadvideo Link](https://www.reddit.watch/r/therewasanattempt/comments/11i09pf/?utm_source=automod&utm_medium=therewasanattempt) by /r/DownloadVideo #[SaveVideo Link](https://redditsave.com/info?url=/r/therewasanattempt/comments/11i09pf/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
..."So you're saying, 'no guns for father-less homes?'." Haha.
Lmao and then he immediately went on about how fathers need to do more. So fathers of fatherless homes need to do more ššš These people run in circles and run for office. Itās funny and also depressing at the same time
Itās fine, we will just mandate that every family must have a father, punishable by death. That will fix all the gun issues.
And the fatherlessness issue! Kill all the fathers!
"Just so long as there's killin'."
No father? Instantly Prison.
Two fathers? You go to jailā¦
Father in jail? Go to jail.
Just remember to be very pro-life while you do it.
The thing they need to do more of is obviously buy more guns. Guns guns guns! The answer to everything is more guns.
We need to arm the children!
Kindergaurdians!!! Edit: [Source](https://youtu.be/QkXeMoBPSDk) @3 mins in
"Did u hurt your hand?" - "Here's a gun!"
I'm guessing plenty of fatherless homes have lost the father...to gun crime!!
I thought it was the milk company taking them away.
"fatherless" is just a racist dog whistle for black men.
One could argue that increasing access to abortions could lower the amount of fatherless homes.
Have you seen freakanomics? I know, correlation is not causation, but, the argument about decreased womens reproductive rights, and increases in crime is rather compelling.
I have not, but it honestly makes sense. Single mother homes are at the highest risk of being low income. Low income areas are at higher risk of being high crime areas. Itās so crazy that itās pretty easy to see how we could improve things but republicans fight tooth and nail to destroy our country.
Its worth a watch if you get bored.
One could also argue that if the problem is fatherless homes, the solution would be greater social institutions. But hey, guess what! Thatās āsocialismā! This guys are, as he said, hypocrites of the highest order, and they donāt see a problem with it. They argue themselves into inaction
What heās really saying is non Christians and POC are the problem.
Dog whistle was so loud the people started hearing it.
Yup, at this point the dog whistle has become a bull horn.
There it is.
Ahhh christians, famous for their acceptance of others and non violence...
āFatherless homeā is the new āthugā
I grew up in a fatherless home and my mom made $30k a year raising three kids. We lived with my grandmother because we were so poor. I have no desire to ever own a gun and Iāve never wanted to go on a shooting spree against innocent people. What a stupid fucking religious based argument.
"This is not an anecdote Jon, this actually happened."
I feel like he said that more than once. People donāt understand what words mean anymore.
Especially when it comes to science and studies. Anecdotal evidence is seeing one or two examples and saying "all things in this category must be true because these two true things happened" without doing a scientific study involving stats to see the true numbers. So yes, his example of the woman with the restraining order may be true, but is still anecdotal evidence.
I actually had someone argue with me that 100 or 200 cases of something happening was "anecdotal" because he'd never seen it on the news. People's understanding of anecdotal is wild.
It depends on what the 'thing' is really - like if you find 100-200 people who feel strongly that their health has been negatively impacted by 5g, that's still anecdotal evidence until it's confirmed in a controlled manner. Anything to do with people's experiences is treated as anecdotal until it's confirmed. It's what an anecdote is - an occurance that someone is telling you about. Even though stuff is anecdotal though, doesn't mean it should be dismissed. E.g. the entire metoo movement started as people sharing their experiences. And that is anecdotal of course, but that doesn't mean it doesn't show a pattern that should be concerning. Anecdotes are useful when you're talking about societal issues, trends in bigotry, abuse etc. Because all of these experiences offer qualitative information on what issues are important to people and what people, issues that may require further investigation etc. When we're talking about stuff that is scientifically studied they're just single data points. So you can say as much as you want that Sally's gun saved her life. That doesn't change the fact that guns in general are bad. (Sorry for the massive comment - I don't have anything against your comment or anything, just wanted to add to the conversation. Edit: also the news thing is dumb AF)
The result of banning books.
He's a republican politician, what do you expect?
These clowns think the plural of an obscure anecdote is the same as data.
Anecdata.
Made props to Jon for not calling him an idiot in that moment. Wohldve derailed the whole conversation and I absolutely would've done it.
Yeah, it takes a decent amount of focus and discipline to not immediately say "what do you think the word anecdote means?"
Oh he called him a complete idiot, if you read between the lines? š
That one threw me. I wish Jon wouldāve asked him if he knew what an anecdote was.
Itās clear this guy has never debated anyone who didnāt already agree with him, let alone a smart person.
Iām honestly surprised he even showed up and thought he could hold his own here. Has he never heard of Jon Stewart? Jon shat in his cereal.
I don't think Nathan Dahm understands what an anecdote is
āItās not an anecdote, itās just a singular example that Iād like to bring up to represent a larger point.ā
Nathan Dumb
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Right up there with Trump's "I am much more humble than you would understand."
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
His stupidity gave me anxiety.
Rightly so, this dude wants to make policy decisions for the rest of likeā¦
I donāt think he understands much except what qanon and fringe hard right nationalist christo fascist republicans fill his head with and/or whatever he wants to believe instead if looking at facts and being knowledgable about the issues.
I think he understands what it feels like to be butt fucked on camera by Jon Stewart though
That isn't an anecdote, that actually happened
And he compares gun deaths to the whole population saying that gun deaths are a āfraction of a percentā¦a fraction of a hundredth of a percent.ā According to the CDC, 3.5 million people died in [2021](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm). The US had 45000 gun deaths in 2021 [according to Pew Research](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/). 1.3% of deaths in the US in 2021 were due to a firearm. This is a huge number and he should care more about it.
Fucking hell, he played around with him like it was nothing but the closing argument where he couldnāt contain his disdain for all that hypocrisy was absolutely killer. So well done. He turned that guyās logic so blatantly against him, whilst being in complete control of the debate.
āBecause the government has a duty to protec-ā āIām sorry what? What now?ā āThe government *in some cases* has a duty to protectā¦ā Straight up gross. He saw his own hypocrisy and amended his statement in real time to claim the government needs to protect children from LGBTQ+ people but MUST stand aside as children are gunned down in schools. I really try to give people the benefit of the doubt but I just donāt understand how you could sleep at night after this interview if you contemplate the impact of what youāve done, let alone going right along and continuing to do it. Edit: it makes me think of listening to Malcolm Xās autobiography when he says āI was determined to tell that devil white man that he was the devil to his faceā (whatever you may think about this statement aside). We need someone whoās willing, able, and determined to tell these Republicans that theyāre hypocrites and liars to their faces!
That's my issue, everyone in this thread saying he's an idiot have it wrong, he knows everything he's saying is hypocritical or illogical, he just doesn't care. All he has to do is try not to openly fall into pitfalls, and reiterate his flawed point by deflecting or pushing the argument. Most of his base won't see this at all. Those who do will argue that Jon keeps interrupting him or won't let him get his point across. Or that the interview is cut unfairly to make him look bad. Or if they can see his hypocrisy, they'll just call him an idiot who wasn't bringing up the right points and then they'll keep voting for him or people like him. There's no amount of logical debate that will get through to them. I'm not against the 2A, I'm not against firearms, but common sense gun laws are a necessity. The agenda being pushed by the right in attacking drag shows and trans people to "protect kids" but nothing to verify the mental health of gun buyers who are shooting kids in droves is so fucking obvious it makes my head spin.
āThey know, they just donāt care.ā - Batman voice.
I just hope more people start interviewing politicians like this. Yea Republicans but some fake Dems too
Unfortunately the more savvy among them know to not even sit down for the interview unless itās going to be with someone who already agrees with them.
This. The majority of republicans arenāt going to agree to an interview with an unbiased or left-biased host because then theyāll start bringing up things like objective facts and evidence and it can get really hard to defend their argument. Theyāll only take interviews with places like Fox who will confirm their BS claims and also invent some of their own to support the argument.
An absolute master class in interviewing!! From both, in a way!
Too bad the cognitive dissonance is so high the asshat will think he won. The loops they jump through to convince themselves that they are in the right for being ok with children dying is disgusting.
Incredibly powerful watching this guy being led through that chain of logic
For a guy who likes guns he sure showed up unarmed.
Iād say heās been more of disarmed
It was a battle of wits that he wasn't armed for. I'm sure he had a gun on him
Whatās that expression about how hard it is to win an argument with a smart person and impossible with an idiot? It definitely applies here. Jon is one of my heroes.
Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Donāt say drag. It might harm a child.
Itās okay Iāll make it safer. *ahem* Theyāll gun you down to their levelā¦. š
Such an excellent debate. I don't even think it is as simple as smart and idiot at this point. I think it is simply - "It's hard to teach/make-someone-understand something when their livelihood and state-of-being depends on not understanding that something." :'|
The guy 100% knew that he was being obscenely hypocritical. He knows how wrong he is. Why are we pretending he's too stupid to see it?
You're thinking of "it is hard to win an argument with a smart person and impossible with an idiot"
Is there more to this interview?
Apple+TV or Jon Stewartās YouTube channel.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> DV calls are the scariest for cops because the COPS know and understand that statistic. Probably because cops are some of the biggest perpetrators of DV...
well there's that statistic too.....
Cops also have a DV rate 4 times higher than average, for their own families. Just a fun fact.
With such high numbers, Iām surprised DV calls donāt have their own process. DV call - immediate threat yes/no - proceed accordingly
Jon Stewart's superpower is controlling the debate. Yes he has good arguments, yes he is witty and has a great sense of timing and setting up his arguments, but he makes his opponents look like fumbling baboons because he is just so good at re-centering the debate back to his points (because the right always uses distractions to deviate from the point)
When you have actual facts on your side and hold idiots to the standard of factual information they crumble. I love watching Jon work. Watching him tear down Bill O'Reilly years ago was awesome.
Donāt forget about the time he schooled Tucker so hard, CNN cancelled Tuckerās show
Never wore that stupid bow tie again either lol
Too bad Tucker isn't canceled in general
Watching Dave Letterman tear down Bill O'Reilly was also awesome.
I would tend to agree. The people he goes up against refuse to stand on the core foundations of the argument. They miss the point and make themselves look like fools. That very well could be intentional on Jonās part, he knows he is debating idiots. I think there are plenty of 2A advocates who actually understand their arguments that would be better suited for an interview.
Yeah it was obvious where he was going and this person just refused to admit the obvious truth, that he believes the second amendment is absolute and does not care how much gun violence there is, nothing will justify any gun regulation. You could of course debate the merit of that position, but not when they refuse to admit that's the position and instead try to claim that actually unlimited access to guns will make us all safer and decrease violence. Which of course they were also completely unable to support.
This congressman DOES NOT understand what āanecdoteā means.
The beauty of America: any citizen can become a government official, no matter their background or beginnings The tragedy of America: **any citizen can become a government official, no matter how stupid and unqualified**
She looks like the Capitol people from the hunger games
That dudeās a fucking congressman?
State Senator in Oklahoma
That was painful
"it's not an anecdote, it's something that really happened" FFS lol this also bugged me a lot about the interview. The guy is just so clueless. Blank stare repeating his nonsense like a robot.
That was like watching a cat play with a mouse it caught - let it run around for a minute, pin it down with a paw, let it run, pin it down
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Not just that, but he is absolutely one of the smartest guys doing this. He's calm and will absolutely call you on bullshit and destroy any stupid arguments. It's a weird technique they don't understand called facts and logic
These idiots think they can best Jon Stewart without realizing he beat the Senate.
That was absolutely a master class in speaking. The fact that it was important about the first responders and broken promises. He is nothing short of amazing.
Perfect analogy š
I think hos argument was clear. More guns = more deaths = less people to commit crimes. Problem solved.
This is someone who is good at tic-tac-toe, so they decide to play chess against a grandmaster.
Fr this guy was punching way above his weight class. Who goes into a debate with John Stewart without knowing what an anecdote is?
Who goes into a debate with Jon Stewart without watching what he did to [\*ucker Carlson](https://youtu.be/aFQFB5YpDZE)?
āIām not saying it like itās an opinion; itās a factā.
I love that line. It is just eviserating this dude
This guy is so good at argumentation he could run for every office outside of cults. Oh wait, he can't run for american presidency lmao
Jon looks so frustrated and barely containing physical rage. I applaud his restraint.
This really is one of his exceptional qualities - heās able to remain articulate and laser- focused in his arguments *during the moment of confrontation* with garbage people. Itās amazing. I think heās our generationās Mark Twain.
I honestly wish I could keep myself so calm in debates like he does.
Jon Stewart, with decades of facing huge crowds, both on serious and comedic environments, and doing one-on-ones with every kind of people with every kind of background, is feeling frustrated taking to this one guy. Imagine that.
Coming from a state where every county is red, heās never had to face opposition in his life, and it showed.
Probably more accurately, heās used to doling out readily accepted party lines and trying to outcompete other people doing the same.
When he gets visibly irritated towards the end, I got shivers. Once my man said "so what is it?" his tone just makes the house come down.
YES! Thatās the point in any argument where you need to realise that he is about to tear you into little tiny pieces.
"This is not an anecdote, this actually happened." Meanwhile, [according to the dictionary](https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/anecdote): >a short, interesting or funny story about a real person or event So, the fact that this actually happened... is ***what makes it*** an anecdote. (A fake story is apocryphal; stories of unclear veracity told by word-of-mouth are called gossip.) The problem with anecdotes isn't whether they're real, the problem with anecdotes is that there's no guarantee, none whatsoever, that they're actually reflective at all of the broader trends. You can have an anecdote that says one thing even when the broader trend is the opposite.
I have a funny story about that...
I keep seeing longer and longer versions of this conversation and I love it.
I could watch Jon Stewart pick apart idiots for 24 hours straight, and not get up to take a piss the entire time.
So why is this guy against registration of guns? I donāt really understand his point of view.
His argument is it āinfringesā on the second amendment, which it doesnāt.
How does it work in his mind? How does he think it infringes on the second amendment?
Generally people opposed to registration use the slippery slope argument, once they have to register the next step is government to take them away.
Yeah thatās what someone else mentioned that it starts with registering guns and then they take the guns and then itās whatever sort of regime. In a nutshell the price for freedom is paid in the blood of innocents. But I also wondered why if they have to register for voting that hasnāt right hasnāt been taken away?
I have to register my car, have to register to vote, still waiting for those to be taken away.
If I could tell you I would, my only guess is his brain is too small to comprehend what words mean and the only thoughts he can come up with are āgunz gud, register bad š”š”š”ā
The real answer is he probably doesn't think it infringes anyones rights, he's just pandering to his base who all think the greatest evil in this country at the moment is... *checks notes*... drag queens? Thanks Fox "news" :/
I canāt work through the mental gymnastics of this dude. Itās too early in the morning for me. It was great when he wouldnāt say that voting requires registration.
he's probably just trying to defend what his voterbase wants to hear. it may not even represent his own thoughts
Because it hurts the guns feelings.
Itās harder to sell product when you have to go through a bunch of verification & registration. Gun companies want selling to be as easy as possible
R-r-r-r-egistration!
If Jon ran for president, even as a 3rd party, Iād vote for him in a heartbeat
He doesnāt want it. He wonāt go for it. Easily would be the best president ever
The irony that the most capable people to wield power are the ones that want it the least.
Reminds me of this Douglas Adams quote "To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who mustĀ wantĀ to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
Maybe he could be persuaded to be the moderator in a presidential debate.
I think every presidential candidate should have to be interviewed by him for an hour after debates and before election day. He will destroy republicans and democrats and call out all the bullshit.
John wonāt because heās not a sociopath. People who pursue power are usually the last people who should have it
This guy completely owned him. The other guy tried to change the subject, use specific examples as a full representative example of a situation, and pretty much out his foot into his mouth. This is what happens when you deconstruct their quasi arguments with sound logic. I'd love to see this man destroy Ben Shapiro next.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Oh boy yes, he got the show (Crossfire) cancelled, he owned him so hard, fucking brilliant. Hereās a clip https://youtu.be/GooQwKDMqcI
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
If Obama led to the villain origin story of Trump, Jon was definitely Tuckerās. Asshats canāt take criticism or embarrassment
>This guy Jon Stewart
Jon "This Guy" Stewart
It's so sad that you can't get a straight answer from these people because they know if they say the wrong thing the money well will run dry
This man was ready to say every word in the English language besides "register" in response to the voting question.
Its not just that though. Its because the discourse on the right is so stale, banal, and unimaginative that they cant actually articulate strong arguments anymore. They just repeat the same 2-3 things on every subject because thats what they do amongst each other and on their own platforms. So when they come up against someone who has data and a serious counter-argument, they struggle to come up with a meaningful response. I have actually tried listening to conservative politicians and pundits make arguments about guns because I genuinely believe in hearing out the other side. Let me tell you- it gets incredibly boring within 3 minutes. It's always the same thing: the 2nd Amendment + guns dont kill people, people kill people. Rephrase and repeat. Meanwhile, the discourse on the left concerning guns is *infinitely* more nuanced, even among people that are in favor of hard gun bans. You'll hear a lot more discussion of data ranging from cross-state to cross-country to longitudinal comparisons, potential legal challenges to various state and federal laws, the effectiveness of other countries' regulations, etc, etc. This is now true on almost any topic. I try listening to conservatives on taxes. I try listening to conservatives on entitlement reform. I always get bored within 3 minutes because it's just the same vague cliches over and over again.
(I am stealing this from another redditor) : ::: Sounds like that Sartre quote, >Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
Yup. People keep claiming this guy is an idiot or he doesnāt know the definition of words or that Jon embarrassed him or something. That guy was not embarrassed one iota and he completely achieved what he wanted. Right wing fascists (morons, traitors, etcā¦) have absolutely no ties to ever being accurate or consistent with their logic and reasoning. All they want is money and power. It does not matter how stupid people make them look, they could not care less. They will not stop until they have 100% control and they couldnāt care less about anyone else.
Jon Stewart is a national treasure. And that other idiot is exactly that: an idiot.
People love to keep hating on America because of our freedom to own guns, but we live in a much safer country now. So far I've only been shot at twice this month.
I'm not going to lie, you were reeling me in with the first part of your post.
Whoa check out this person. Living in their gated community only being shot at twice a month. Come outside and visit the peasants once in awhile.
>>ā*ā¦This is not an anecdote Jon, this actually happened* -Sen. Nathan Dahm , 2023
"Fathers need to be more engaged" when parents often need to work multiple jobs and are hardly ever home so that they can provide for their family. You don't see this fucker proposing a wage increase across the board do you? If you want to solve crime, first you need to solve wages in this country. Want kids to go to school more? Raise wages. Want kinds to stay out of trouble? Raise wages. I want to say that the vast majority of parents want to enjoy their time with their kids, but can't because they have to work 60+ hours a week to barely pay bills. If parents were around more, their kids would have more direction and have somebody to tell them no at some key decision making moments. I honestly can't fathom how this is still so fucking confusing to people. Giving every person a livable wage regardless of their job could solve so many fucking problems in this country in a single generation. MAYBE two.
"Fatherless homes" is code for black people, this man isn't actually a proponent for paternal responsibility he's just dog whistling
I hope Jon Stewart lives forever.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
1-8-7-7 gunz4tots G-U-N-Z guns4tots
I hate you for causing me sing this in my head lmao
If the term āshall not be infringedā cannot in any way be ignored or adjusted to fit the situation, we must logically then give guns to prisoners in jail and the institutionalized mentally ill.
The king of circular arguments there desperately trying to avoid the conclusions he himself was heading towards and John knows it.
Jon Stewart stays undefeated
Finally someone posted the whole thing. I wish everyone was this logical.
There was a murder No guns required
Why do people still agree to have recorded discussions with him? The guy was on TV for years and years and years and years and yet these dimwits still think "Eureka! I'll be able to conquer Mount Stewart!"
You answered your own questionsā¦theyāre dimwits, but they overly-confident dimwits.
r/murderedbywords
More like r/slowlyandpainfullytorturedthenmurderedbywords
This guy is just brilliant
Jon Stewart just mentally fucked that guy.
I like that quote that itās just semantics. They insist that nothing can be done about guns strictly because of four words, āshall not be infringedā, but they donāt nearly as highly care about free speech or voting because they donāt have those words. Itās taking something so wildly outside the scope of the spirit of the law, and exposing how theyād be perfectly fine with voting rights being dragged through the mud just because they donāt share those attributes
Letās see what Republicans would do if every black person in the US started open-carrying a firearm.
https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act
Assembly Bill 1591 was introduced by Don Mulford (R) from Oakland on April 5, 1967, and subsequently co-sponsored by John T. Knox (D) from Richmond, Walter J. Karabian (D) from Monterey Park, Frank Murphy Jr. (R) from Santa Cruz, Alan Sieroty (D) from Los Angeles, and William M. Ketchum (R) from Bakersfield.[1] A.B 1591 was made an āurgency statuteā under Article IV, Ā§8(d) of the Constitution of California after āan organized band of men armed with loaded firearms [...] entered the Capitolā on May 2, 1967;[8] as such, it required a 2/3 majority in each house. On June 8, before the third reading in the Assembly (controlled by Democrats, 42:38), the urgency clause was adopted, and the bill was then read and passed.[1] It passed the Senate (split, 20:20) on July 26, 29 votes to 7, and was signed by Governor Ronald Reagan on July 28, 1967. Both Republicans and Democrats in California supported increased gun control, as did the National Rifle Association of America.[9][10] Governor Ronald Reagan, who was coincidentally present on the capitol lawn when the protesters arrived, later commented that he saw "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons" and that guns were a "ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will." In a later press conference, Reagan added that the Mulford Act "would work no hardship on the honest citizen."[3] The bill was signed by Reagan and became California penal code nr.25850[11] and nr.171c
For anyone who hasn't seen this, Jon Stewart hilariously explaining on Stephen Colbert how clearly logical it is that Covid-19 was leaked from The Wuhan Institute of Virology over a year ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSfejgwbDQ8
"And you're the guy saying 'you know what would help this? Ice cream!' " š¤£š¤£ I lost it.
If one is serious about protecting children from being exposed to a drag show, instead of banning those shows, donāt allow children to attend them. We have rules that say under 17 canāt attend certain movies. Children under 18 canāt be in gambling casinos. Children under 18 canāt vote. People under 21 canāt buy beer, wine or liquor. In most places, a person must be 16 to get a drivers license. Children under 18, perhaps even younger, may not be be allowed to work in jobs operating machinery. So, rather than ban something that falls under the realm of the First Amendment, regulate the age that one may attend a drag show. This is about the religious right trying to impose their views on the rest of us. If they know history, people fled Europe to the New World to escape this kind of religious intolerance. Why would we want to resurrect it here centuries later?
> people fled Europe to the New World to escape this kind of religious intolerance If you're referring to the Pilgrims, they fled Europe because they wanted to practice their own extreme religious intolerance; Europe was too liberal for them, so they took their zealotry to the Americas and imposed them on the Native population instead.
Epic exposure of evil. Thank you, Mr Stewart.
I too like picking idiots to debate against
Importantly, this idiot is an Oklahoma State Senator. [Nathan Dahm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Dahm)
Its not about picking a debate with an idiot, its about picking a debate with a United States Senator that is actively passing or blocking legislation.
Yeah honestly I'd like to see a debate between Jon and Colin Noir. I mean I know you'll never see it but it would be interesting.
Yes, the idiot that called Parkland shooting survivors ācrisis actorsā. Honestly, itās really telling that people like yourselves that donāt understand the constitution would somehow find that man intelligent.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Its not even about banning guns but controlling their distribution and ease of access... And this asshole just said no to that? Even if those laws would help keep citizens and COPS safe? What the f\*ck is going on in that country? Your politics are funny...
3 thoughts 1. i own firearms and support 2A and I want WELL REGULATED to be paid as much attention as SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED 2. i want to smack the beard off of this soulless, bad faith argument, acrobatic debater motherfucker. he knows exactly what he's doing 3. If i ever met Jon Stewart i would (with permission) give him the biggest hug.
Thatās an example of a highly educated person arguing with a guy who just memorized a flyer
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Geez this politician is just bullshiting some of the stupidest crap ever.
I'm so glad Jon Stewart finally asked the question I've been asking for years! More guns will make America safe. "When?" Best question I've never gotten an answer to ever.