I found an article on npr helpful in adding some subtext and meaning. But I have no idea how or if I can link it here. So google it if so desired.

Nothing is ever simple. I'm just not properly explaining what I was saying -- Jon Stewart went off and did his public speaking, crowd organizing thing with this belief in something that he couldn't quite define. He lost his mojo, in a way, saw that he was naked, bereft of his staff. Any talking/figure head with a staff of writers or information feeders can be comparable to other leaders of a similar make up. Trump and Stewart are reality tv stars of a similar make up.

Dag suggested that the writers of the Daily Show are what created Jon Stewart as we know hom, and so I ran with the idea that he, like the figurehead and reality star, Donald Trump, are products of other people's opinions -- this, when left to their own devices, while successful entertainers, they realize the emperor's clothes are transparent and now they have to rely on their own smaller slice of knowledge. Not that Stewart is dumb, but Stewart without writers and correspondents, is a similar archetype to Trump. Stewart's writers and correspondents, including the man whose show he is on in this clip, are akin to the media that Donald Trump treats like his writing staff. But instead of leaving the Daily Show, Trump is leaving *most* of the media, revealing he is not as knowledgeable without his sources.

Anyway, I was following the logic as laid down by dag's logic for why Jon isn't as funny or put together. I also know that good leaders put themselves in other people's shoes before giving advice to other leaders. Stewart MUST do this because he is a decent figurehead, but Trump doesn't -- that's why the media questions him on what biographies he is reading; leaders are supposed to put themselves into their rivals AND heros shoes as a matter of critical self analysis -- so, Stewart is speaking to the media almost as if he is also putting himself in Trump's shoes and speaking about how his own writing staff and correspondent's left him and succeeded.

Stewart has a 4 year contract with HBO. He will have the structure and writing teams he needs. Trump should utilize the media, including books and newspapers, and follow the subtext Jon laid out here.

Edited for spelling, grammatical errs and additional context. Done editing.

This is nothing, wait until you get triple secret probation with a side of condescending subtext.


I still have scars.

...wtf did I just watch? I'm assuming these are parodied lines from actual novels (with presumably male authors)? I don't get the subtext here though... as if female novelists don't ever write shitty cliched lines in their fiction?

@enoch

No, no, no, man, I would never downvote something because the speaker held an opinion about a certain topic that I disagreed with. Rather, I downvoted this because the subtext of the video is clear: you don't have to listen to what SJWs say because they are self-important blowhards who were coddled as children. Doesn't matter what the argument is that they are proposing. They are SJWs and therefore their ideas cannot be worth listening to.

And more specifically, if you pay attention to the images he is showing as he narrates his stance: you don't have to listen to what Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn, etc. say about games (he's showing their pictures while decrying SJWs).

This is classic GamerGate tactics. Rather than actually debate the issues, which are the representation (or lack thereof) of women and other minorities in video games, he wants to dismiss the argument out of hand. You see it all the time in GamerGate supporter comments:

"Anita is a con artist looking to scam Kickstarter supporters out of their money."
"Anita is the feminist equivalent of a TV evangelist."
"Anita has hijacked feminism."
"Anita isn't even a real feminist."
"Anita's not really a gamer."

And so on.

They are desperate to get people to dismiss Anita's criticisms out of hand, mostly because even the most ardent haters can't deny there are problems with the representation of women and other minorities in ALL media, some of which are specific to video games.

It's all a big distraction from the issues. So what if everything GamerGate supporters allege is actually true? So what if she were stealing kickstarter money? So what if she is pushing some kind of feminist agenda in games? So what if she has appointed herself as a spokeperson for feminism?

Even if it were all true, the only important question is whether her arguments about the representation of women in games are valid and well-founded.

So, I downvoted this because essentially the author is advocating judging arguments on the basis of the arguer's reputation (for example, as an SJW) rather than on the merits of the argument itself. I see it as more blatant GamerGate propoganda trying to justify attacking the argument makers rather than dealing with the argument itself. Fuck that noise.

SJW is such a useless label at this point. It is now used purely as a cop out these days, a pejorative that supposedly gives you a free pass to ignore what someone is saying because clearly they are an coddled idiot (otherwise they wouldn't be an SJW).

I absolutely agree with you that justice, freedom of speech, freedom of dissent, etc. are important. And it is troubling that people in recent days are abusing the system to shut down dissenters. But this is the world we live in now and it really only reflects the political situation in Washington that has been going on nearly a decade now--lines drawn in the sand and ideas shouted down merely because they were spoken by someone on the wrong side of the line. I guess it isn't surprising that public debate is mirroring what we've been seeing in the capitol, only with the anonymity of the Internet allowing people to take it to a whole new level with doxxing, swatting, etc.

Wow, Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and Doomsday.

...this film is about a fantastic four. Subtext intended.

Poor George, doesn't really get it even now.

It wasn't the fantasy/family subtext that drove your fans away, if anything that's part of the reason Starwars has such universal appeal.

It was that you quickly became a psychopathic alien toad-man overlord with an ego visible from space!

Episode 4, Written and directed, but not produced by GL. Good.

Episode 5, neither written nor directed nor produced by GL.
Outstanding.

Episode 6, mostly-written but not directed or produced by GL. Passable. (half baked script that gave us a glimpse of what was to come IMHO)

Episode 1,2,3, almost entirely written, directed and produced by GL.
Dogshit.

The subtext of this video is that music is also overlooked and iconic to film. Please, please, pleeeeease -- I believe it's magick.

You are saying I ignored the subtext, but that would infer that what you interpret is in fact what is being written between the lines. Perhaps someone should ask Stewart what his position is on polygamists marrying prior to attacking him based on a subjective interpretation of what he said?

I have no cards in the game so to speak, I'm straight and "conventionally" married (for whatever that is worth), but I 100% support the right to marriage equality for people able to legally consent. I'm not a Stewart fanboy and I don't believe he is infallible, but I just do not see your interpretation in what was said (and what wasn't). We obviously have a difference of opinion, and think each other incorrect, but that's cool as well, we aren't required to agree. But saying 'it's completely obvious and if you don't see it my way, don't bother replying' is a cop out... Never mind adding Nazi's and an inferred cocksucking insult. You going for a world record of logical fallacies in one post? \= )

Irt marriage in general, my point wasn't that the institution itself was perfect, it's that every couple should be allowed to define their relationship on their own terms without anyone else stepping in to define it for them. Yes, it's a contract, but like any contract we choose to enter in to, we have to be satisfied by the terms of it. That it can be toxic is stating the obvious, but that's neither here nor there irt the topic at hand.

As to whether monogamy is a natural state, that's kinda irrelevant to the topic at hand.

And my naughtiness? \= )

"but monogamy is inconvenient for damn near everyone who practices it."

How is this not defining other people's relationships? That statement is pretty unequivocal. Not really much to be inferred there. ; )

Would you feel more comfortable if he wore a white hood? Maybe talk about 'gang lifestyle'?
I prefer my racists in white hoods and displaying swastikas, so I don't have to wade through subtext to id them. Open racism is stupid but at least honest. I despise political correctness and its ability to sugarcoat hatred. I'd rather engage a Neo-Nazi or white pride, god-hates-fags biblethumper than a Rick Santorum or Bill O'Reilly who are too much of a coward to say what they believe because they know how the broad public reacts.
The notion of not publicly voicing those idiotic, inhuman opinions because its offensive is more offensive to me than the opinion itself. I'd like to know if you're an idiot.
I believe in freedom of speech, even if that proves you're a terrible idiot. You have a right to be.

And now wake me up from that strange dream where I defend @lantern53.

Guys, this ain't so hard...
You're a racist when you assign more or less value as a human being to people of a certain race (ethnical group) than you assign to yourself because of their ethnicity. There's a difference between saying "Stalin is less worth than M.L. King" (personal opinion) and "white people are worth less than blacks". The latter would be racism.
Prejudice is when you have opinions about people before knowing the facts about them.
Walking up to Mike Tyson and saying "You must have a giant cock because all black men are giants" is a prejudice that may be racist but it assigns positive values. Sure, it's offensive, like telling asian people they must be great at math, but somewhat forgivable. You're an ignorant cunt, yeah, but at least you said something flattering. You racist.
Walking up to Mike and telling him "All black men are criminals" is not only prejudice but also racist. Why? Because calling somebody a criminal is a negative judgement. A generalized negative prejudice towards an ethnic group is a racist way of thinking. Mike was convicted for raping his girlfriend. He is a criminal. Not all black men are Tyson. And if they were, I'd prefer the science variant. You're plain wrong.
Now saying "I bet all black people like listening to R'nB music" is just prejudice. There's no judgement here. Right? Unless you consider "he listens to R'n'B" an insult. How about "all polish people love ice cream"? Did you just imply polish people are all fat?
The difference between prejudice and racist prejudice lies entirely in subtext and context. It's not what you say, it's what you mean.
Prejudice is a tightrope made of blurry lines spanning over a pit of outrage. That's why politicians should not walk that way.
Being aware of differences between race, ethnic groups and talking about is simply being hones and probably not giving a shit about political correctness. We ARE different. That's the interesting part.
What we sadly forget is this: to focus on what we have in common. But somebody already said that way more eloquent than I ever could:
"Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with
the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, healed by the same means,
warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer
as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us,
do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?
If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.

Speaking to kids as though they are idiots is a terrible approach, and people really shouldn't do that. Even as young as six or so, most of them are much more intelligent and thoughtful than they're usually given credit for.

Granted, I wouldn't want to dictate the way other people raise their kids, but the years I spent volunteering with children taught me that they will be a lot more open, honest and comfortable with you if you converse with them with all the seriousness and respect that you would an important adult, but of course all the while understanding and having empathy for their necessarily limited set of experiences, egocentricity and smaller view of the world. For example, "my best friend hates me" seems trivial to an adult ("make new friends"), but could be a kid's whole world crashing down.

Even though the people in this video are doing an admirable job (even those who screwed up earlier by inventing a fairy tales to avoid a brief moment of embarrassment), the underlying subtext that the kids are likely picking up from their parents obvious uncomfortableness is that sex is a shameful thing and that discussing it (such as if they have questions in the future) will be painful and is best avoided.

There is so much subtext between the woman who introduces him and Weird Al, himself. The way she sweats when reading his introduction, and the way he looks at her, and the difference between the two. Insightful.

I think I get the subtext but it's still factually incorrect.

I mean if you ask everyone if they want to be robbed 100% of people will say no I don't want to be robbed. So we all know robbing is BAD. But robberies still happen.

It's the same thing for rape, I've never met anyone that wanted to be raped. Yet it still happens. So everyone knows rape is wrong, but they still do it anyway.

I love your and this demostrat's optimism for humanity but some people ARE beyond salvation.