acesfull86
Well-known member
Also a good reminder to those bemoaning the Colbert cancellation that he could’ve tried, I dunno, being funny?
TRHLIM
- Thread starter cajunrevenge
- Start date
Tapate50
Well-known member
Or as the View called it "trampling on the first amendment"
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Late Night Television has been declining for ages. But COlbert's had the highest ratings. But young people aren't watching late night television anymore.
sturg33
I
Highest ratings does not mean profitable business
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Never said it did. Just pointing out the amusement because by that standard no late night TV is likely making money or CBS's sales department really sucks and NBC and ABC can get better deals than they can.
To be somewhat fair here, Colbert’s brand of late-night talk show was doing better than the competition, so it’s not like he just personally performed poorly. But the outrage over it was largely nonsensical posturing. Yes, if it were to be discovered that someone within Trump’s orbit actually compelled Paramount to axe Colbert in order to secure their merger, that’s a pretty big issue. And I don’t even necessarily doubt that Paramount thought it would be beneficial to that end. But short of a pressure campaign from the White House, this is just a business making a financial decision that’s no different than something like Disney firing Gina Carano.
The silver lining is even if Colbert is performatively clutching his pearls over it, he’s a much better comedian when he has some edge to him, and this does set up some potentially very funny television.
Credit where it’s due, there are some on the left that have been very dense about what South Park does. When Eric Cartman or Mr. Harrison is saying or doing something offensive, there is a portion of the audience on both sides that deeply misunderstand what the fuck those characters are there for. Cartman isn’t just a mouthpiece for the creators, he’s more often than not very intentionally a villain. Whether a person finds that brand of humor interesting or not is up to the viewer, but it should not be interpreted as the show blindly agreeing with what the character is doing or saying.
When it comes to certain cultural things? They can hang with us on that. But again, JD Vance is a silly mouthpiece for this argument because he’s probably even more extreme on it. To wit:
J.D. Vance: Ban Porn To Save Families
The Ohio Senate candidate told a Catholic magazine in 2021 that porn should be restricted to help an "isolated" generation thrive.
sturg33
I
Its not new for politicians to want to ban things thimey think are harmful to humans. Like.cocaine and meth. Porn has obvious very bad co sequences from multiple angles.When it comes to certain cultural things? They can hang with us on that. But again, JD Vance is a silly mouthpiece for this argument because he’s probably even more extreme on it. To wit:
J.D. Vance: Ban Porn To Save Families
The Ohio Senate candidate told a Catholic magazine in 2021 that porn should be restricted to help an "isolated" generation thrive.www.huffpost.com
Do I support banning it? No. I also.support making heroine legal.
That doesnt compare in my opinion Europe arresting people for making memes on Facebook
Sure, but that’s not really at play here. I’m saying the OP is being dumb, because he’s explicitly discussing an anti-adult content bill and calling on JD Vance as a contrast.