Your thoughts on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver.

[Souplex]

He never wowed me while he was on the Daily Show, but I am thoroughly enjoying Last Week Tonight. I don't know if it's the lack of censorship, or the ability to fully commit to his bits, but it works.
Wish I could say the same for the Nightly Show. Larry Wilmore never wowed me. Jessica Williams should have taken the slot.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

After watching the Online Harassment segment, I find my self slightly appalled by it, for it's blatant sexism.

Here was my take away because of how it was worded:
Online harassment, threats of violence, and death threats: Only happens to women, only perpetrated by men.
Revenge porn: Only women are victims and by extension can be victims of this, this is only ever done by men.
Generally: If you're a white cisgender heterosexual male, you're completely safe from all online harrassment. Period.

No. No no no... No no! NO! NO! NO! This is all wrong, every last bit of it because it limits who can be harassed by their gender and race, that is a blatant pack of lies... Only because it assumes that men don't get harassed especially white men.

Now while women might be a smaller percentage of the offenders and men might be a smaller percentage of the victims, nobody is immune from internet harassment. Nobody. There are plenty of women who use revenge porn against the girls that their boyfriends cheated on them with. There are plenty of women who post revenge porn of their ex-boyfriends. Women can and do send death threats, even disturbingly detailed ones. Men can just as easily be the targets of harassment online as women.

Just to say it's a problem for minorities, but especially a problem for women, yet white males are immune, plus it's to imply that these are crimes committed exclusively by men. That's sexist, it's racist, and it's totally incorrect, not to mention dishonest.

Why does John Oliver do something great, then always turn around and do something that is so intellectually dishonest it makes it nearly impossible for me to watch anything else he does? Why John, why?

 

[Zontar]

GG is just shitting their pants at the idea that they're an obscure hashtag that's already being forgotten, and someone like Wu is on HBO, even for a second.

It would be funny, if they weren't so sad.

Ah yes look at that obscurity, it's like it never existed at all.

http://topsy.com/analytics?q1=gamergate&via=Topsy

I think what people, both those who are and are not part of GG (and the later where legion) who took issue with that video was that there was virtually no research put into it and that it pushed the already long debunked narrative that women are singled out for harassment online when that not being the case has been demonstrated to be how things are in reality beyond a reasonable doubt.

Though as for 'someone like Wu' getting mentioned on HBO, I think you need to catch up on things since Wu has basically abandoned Anti-GG for good due to the harassment she was getting form them. Can you spell 'irony'?

OT: I watch his videos when someone links to them, but I treat him like I treat Jon Steward, a comedian who very often has no idea what he's talking about pretending to be a news pundit.

 

[Lord Garnaat]

Speaking as someone who has voted Democrat in every election I've participated in, John Oliver's show is too liberal for my tastes. It's not really to do with the content of the actual views expressed, but rather with the very mean-spirited attitude that it takes. It's seems like less of a comedy show, and more of an hour-long rant in which anyone that disagrees with the all-powerful John Oliver is derided as automatically being an idiot or a bigot of some variety, and emphasizing that no other viewpoint ever, ever has anything to contribute. Even when I agree, it just comes off as grating and self-congratulatory.

I understand that it is not meant to be full-on, hard-hitting journalism, but it does make the claim of being "edu-tainment," and personally I don't see it living up to either. It's very obvious that what testimony and information is brought in concerning what the "other side" thinks is just truncated sound-clips that are carefully selected and edited to be as easy to mock as possible when largely out of context, and ultimately the "edu-" side of it largely turns to profane preaching. As for entertainment, this is obviously a purely subjective call, but most of the humor seems to just come from shouting and swearing loudly, which is mostly just tiring.

So, not a huge fan. I did like his work on the Daily Show, though, and I admit that the sketch he did some time ago with the Dog Supreme Court was very funny.

 

[Zontar]

Cool story, but you can't actually debunk something just by declaring it, "Long-debunked". Great read otherwise, I almost believed it.

You're right, but I'll just leave this here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/04/men-are-harassed-more-than-women-online.html

In one news article there's more sources provided and evidence presented on this one issue on the side of "women aren't harassed more" then the total evidence provided claiming they are.

Have a nice day.

 

[Zontar]

LOL! Oh shit, that was great, thanks buddy.

We get the opening

The difference in abuse between the sexes online isn?t in the amount but the type. Data shows men get more hate, while women say they get it because they?re women.

and then into polls that were conducted and didn't correct per capita. Guys get killed more in gunfights too, ya think it has something to do with other activities they were involved in at the time?

Ah, so we're shifting the goalpost already?


You claimed that women getting harassed more then men has not been debunked, I showed you otherwise, now you're claiming women get more hate because they're women. Sorry, but that's not how it works, you can't change what the whole argument is about just because you've been shown to be wrong.

 

[Zontar]

LOL! Oh shit, that was great, thanks buddy.

We get the opening

The difference in abuse between the sexes online isn?t in the amount but the type. Data shows men get more hate, while women say they get it because they?re women.

and then into polls that were conducted and didn't correct per capita. Guys get killed more in gunfights too, ya think it has something to do with other activities they were involved in at the time?

Ah, so we're shifting the goalpost already?


BZZZT

Sorry, I don't play the cherrypicking game.

How is stating exactly what you did without missing anything cherrypicking?

You made a claim, it was the entirety of your argument, I proved it wrong, you moved the goalpost. That's what happened, it's not cherrypicking, it's an observation of facts.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Why does John Oliver do something great, then always turn around and do something that is so intellectually dishonest it makes it nearly impossible for me to watch anything else he does? Why John, why?

See...this is the problem I'm currently having with a lot of my old heroes like Stewart, Colbert, and now Oliver.

They do some great stuff. Some genuinely great, interesting, and thought-provoking work.

Then they pull crap like that and it just throws everything else into question. >_<

 

[Zontar]

Snip

I'm not sure if you think my point didn't apply to your whole argument, but it did given what we where talking about. You may be wondering if I'm joking, but you aren't the only one here asking himself that.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

See...this is the problem I'm currently having with a lot of my old heroes like Stewart, Colbert, and now Oliver.

They do some great stuff. Some genuinely great, interesting, and thought-provoking work.

Then they pull crap like that and it just throws everything else into question. >_<

After watching the Online Harassment segment, I find my self slightly appalled by it, for it's blatant sexism.

I'm assuming you're both commenting on the "congratulations on your white penis" joke? I couldn't find anything else in the segment that asserted that online women suffer from online harassment. The segment was definitely primarily focused on women as a demographic, but that is not the same as establishing that they are the only demographic to encounter a problem.

On the subject of the joke itself...is the argument here that the joke was offensive/in poor taste? Keeping in mind that the show is also a comedy piece and he has riffed on subjects ranging from drone warfare to the death penalty.

 

[Zontar]

That's disappointing, I thought you were a really funny Poe, not a really unfunny GG'er. I guess I shouldn't be shocked that after a year and what everyone knows about GG, that only a really hardcore type would still be around.

I don't see why, the false narrative aGG created has only been falling appart over time, not solidifying. The only place one can find it being taken seriously is echo chambers.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

So do you actually have anything to say about the claim that women get harassed more than men and the evidence Zontar provided contradicting that claim or no? Or are you just going to pretend that is not the conversation going on here? Either acknowledge the evidence, debunk it and have an argument or acknowledge that the evidence does indeed back up that the claim that women receive more harassment than men has been debunked despite your claim otherwise.

I'm not Nicodemus, and I don't dislike or even necessarily disagree with the article, but if I wanted to poke holes in it, it wouldn't be difficult.

Here's an excerpt.

The most dramatic claim of pervasive online misogyny?that Internet accounts with feminine usernames get an average of 100 threatening or sexually abusive messages a day, to just four for male usernames ? comes from a 2006 study conducted in Internet relay chatrooms, hardly typical of today?s social media use. Women also account for 72 percent of those reporting harassment incidents to the volunteer organization Working to Halt Online Abuse. But this is a self-selected sample, and the disparity may well reflect the fact that it?s more socially acceptable for women to seek help when they are harassed. (It should also be noted that the website?s annual rate of complaints from women is fewer than 300?obviously a cause for concern, but hardly an epidemic level.)

Bolded for emphasis. These are not substantiated arguments. The first one is a functional hand wave, the second is speculation without support, the third is personal opinion.

Articles like this, and segments like Oliver's, are perfectly fine. Neither should be presented as ironclad "evidence" supporting any particular point of view. Not that this has ever stopped anyone from doing so, mind you.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

See...this is the problem I'm currently having with a lot of my old heroes like Stewart, Colbert, and now Oliver.

They do some great stuff. Some genuinely great, interesting, and thought-provoking work.

Then they pull crap like that and it just throws everything else into question. >_<

After watching the Online Harassment segment, I find my self slightly appalled by it, for it's blatant sexism.

I'm assuming you're both commenting on the "congratulations on your white penis" joke? I couldn't find anything else in the segment that asserted that online women suffer from online harassment. The segment was definitely primarily focused on women as a demographic, but that is not the same as establishing that they are the only demographic to encounter a problem.

On the subject of the joke itself...is the argument here that the joke was offensive/in poor taste? Keeping in mind that the show is also a comedy piece and he has riffed on subjects ranging from drone warfare to the death penalty.

Forget about the joke there for a second. He presented only one side, the whole language of the segment is misleading. Why? Easy. All of the examples of the online harassment are women, the entire editorial talks exclusively about women being harassed online, not people, women, and nobody else. Thats misleading, presenting only a narrow demographic to make a point, which is also a sign of obvious bias. The joke is just a telegraph of the bias in the piece presented. If you take that segment by it self it basically says: "Men use the internet to harass, threaten, and use nude pictures to ruin women's lives."

The problem is assumption here. But the whole segment didn't highlight online harassment as: Women harassing men, women harassing women, men harassing women, men harassing men, and just generally people harassing each other with threats and revenge porn online. No it narrowed the focus exclusively to women being harassed by men, and implied that that's the only way it happens. So opening joke aside, the whole segment was presented in a "men are being terrible to women using the internet as their weapon."

Basically showing one side of an issue as your message leaves people to take away the one sided view, because that's what sticks with them.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Forget about the joke there for a second. He presented only one side...

There are sides?

The only conceivable counterpoint view would have been a "pro online harassment" side. What sides?

If you take that segment by it self it basically says: "Men use the internet to harass, threaten, and use nude pictures to ruin women's lives."

I didn't take that away from the segment at all. We must always allow for one's personal interpretation, but it might be a slight overstatement to claim that this is the "basic takeaway".

Cheers for bothering, but I wasn't actually defending the article. Just sick of the mindless shitflinging that was going on.

Oh I know. You just got me curious about it with your post, is all.

 

[william1657]

I really enjoy it.
I watch whatever is posted of each episode on Youtube eac week and really wish they would just post the full episodes.

The topic choices can be a bit odd, but overall they are very interesting and usually at least a little funny.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

There are sides?

The only conceivable counterpoint view would have been a "pro online harassment" side. What sides?

Sides as in the age old battle of the sexes. One side is getting coverage here, in this case it's basically exclusively presented as men harassing women. This is why the concept of "equal time" is necessary. Because if you take that segment by it self, without being aware of the online world, what you'll get is that it's men harassing women into hiding using the internet.

I'm not saying that it's about counterpoints here, it's about making the issue exclusive to one demographic, by using misleading coverage. That's my point. There needs to be awareness for all online harassment, using a narrow sample skews the view on who this issue hurts.

I didn't take that away from the segment at all. We must always allow for one's personal interpretation, but it might be a slight overstatement to claim that this is the "basic takeaway".

From what I saw, by what was presented to me by that segment, was that online harassment is a problem that affects women and is perpetrated by men. Now I know that's not true, I know better, not everyone does. Knowing better I was able to understand how the things John Oliver pointed out affect everyone. That said, someone who isn't intimately familiar with the things that go on on the internet could easily interpret this as; "evil men use internet to harass women out of their homes." That's what irritated me about the whole situation.

It wouldn't have been hard either for them to add in some stories of men who have received death threats, had their addresses published, and were the victims of revenge porn too. But they didn't do it that way, they presented it as an issue that only affects one demographic.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

That's the problem with heroes. You don't need to like everything someone does. That mentality leads to two scenarios:
1. You find yourself bending over backwards to justify horrible shit your hero has done to try and justify your admiration.

2. You end up getting so angry they did a thing you don't like that you can't enjoy stuff you did like.

If I can still enjoy annie hall despite it being made by a suspected child molester you can still enjoy LWT despite it being made by a man who did something you consider "intellectually dishonest" (which is itself debateable).

Well, of course, I'm not just talking about whether or not I "like" something they say/do. I'm specifically referencing when they make points that either don't hold up under scrutiny or bear the hallmarks of readily apparent bias.

It just makes me want to go back to other shows and segments to comb through, looking for incorrect information or other instances where I'd been lead astray.

It's a matter of realizing misplaced trust in what I'd erroneously believed to be fairly objective and reliable sources....ya know, 'cause I'm apparently quite naive and idealistic at my core, despite maintaining a pretense of cynicism.

Forget about the joke there for a second. He presented only one side...

There are sides?

The only conceivable counterpoint view would have been a "pro online harassment" side. What sides?

Er, I think they're using 'sides' as in 'sides of a story,' not necessarily the opposition to the opposition of harassment.

Edit: beat me to it. Takes me forever to post on a phone.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Sides as in the age old battle of the sexes. One side is getting coverage here, in this case it's basically exclusively presented as men harassing women. This is why the concept of "equal time" is necessary. Because if you take that segment by it self, without being aware of the online world, what you'll get is that it's men harassing women into hiding using the internet.

I'm not saying that it's about counterpoints here, it's about making the issue exclusive to one demographic, by using misleading coverage. That's my point. There needs to be awareness for all online harassment, using a narrow sample skews the view on who this issue hurts.

Yikes. I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding you here, but are you suggesting that television programs such as this one need to cater to a perceived "battle of the sexes" by ensuring that issues that impact both men and women give each gender equal air time? Even if the segment in question is fifteen minutes long, and a substantial portion of that is reserved for comedy?

From what I saw, by what was presented to me by that segment, was that online harassment is a problem that affects women and is perpetrated by men. Now I know that's not true, I know better, not everyone does.

Okay, and not to seem crass, but at what point do we cross the threshold of "safety rails for idiots" when it comes to adding disclaimers to things so people who "don't know better" can reasonably be expected to understand them and not go leaping to inaccurate conclusions? This isn't the evening news, he doesn't really have a mandate to "keep the people informed".

That said, someone who isn't intimately familiar with the things that go on on the internet could easily interpret this as; "evil men use internet to harass women out of their homes." That's what irritated me about the whole situation.

Sure, but that makes me irritated with those people, not with Mr. Oliver.

It wouldn't have been hard either for them to add in some stories of men who have received death threats, had their addresses published, and were the victims of revenge porn too. But they didn't do it that way, they presented it as an issue that only affects one demographic.

They presented it as an issue and focused primarily on one demographic. It really can't be said strongly enough...claiming A affects B isn't the same as saying A doesn't affect C and D and E. It wasn't an exhaustive documentary on the subject. I can see if one was a male victim of online harassment feeling peeved that their perspective didn't get equal airplay, but that doesn't invalidate the perspectives that did. This wasn't Bill Maher openly mocking male victims of rape, for instance.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

I'm a casual fan. When somebody posts a link I'll watch it.

Same as this^ guy.

It's interesting, but the humour doesn't personally stick for me. It's still not bad as it eats up 20 minutes fairly well.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Er, I think they're using 'sides' as in 'sides of a story,' not necessarily the opposition to the opposition of harassment.

Edit: beat me to it. Takes me forever to post on a phone.

No, I get it. It's just that, in this case, the "other side of the story" is the harassers side.

There are no "two sides" where on one side you have male victims of online harassment and on the other female victims, and they are somehow in competition with one another for a finite supply of public awareness and sympathy. Framing the discussion in that way would be profoundly worrisome. Ostensibly, all victims of harassment (regardless of gender) are on one side, and the harassers are on the other.

As someone who is stridently against online harassment, it didn't particularly bother me that my gender was under-represented or that a joke was made at the expense of my white penis. I considered myself "on the side" of the piece condemning online harassment. I'm actually kind of surprised at how you and Kyuubi interpreted it.