Season One Talk: FFwSB

[sassykattt]

It's somehow comforting to see how many of us are having the same reaction.  Thank you Sam, Seth and Stephen.

[candall]

On ‎11‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 11:46 AM, GHScorpiosRule said:

I was like Sam in her opening dream: happy to see Van, Larry! Jon! I didn't know who the other two guys were. Then Stephen with Oswald! Having Ollie would have made it perfect. Then BOOM! Back to reality.

 

I'm sure when she pre-taped those people and their joy, she and they were all expecting/hoping to use it to open the show for real, not as a "bad dream" sequence.

Seeing how everyone would have been so jubilant uncovered a new sub-basement in my sadz.

[iMonrey]

So this is kind of why I don't know if I can go on watching her show. I'm so torn because I love Sam to pieces, but none of this shit is funny anymore. She can deliver it in a funny way but I'm not laughing anymore. This is some seriously scary stuff. A climate science denying, non-scientist as head of the EPA? That Brietbart guy as chief of staff? Sarah Palin as energy secretary? This isn't funny, it's like a nightmare. There's no making it funny.

Edited November 15, 2016 by iMonrey

[attica]

I felt like that too, @iMonrey. Instead of catharsis, I was just feeling more and more depressed. Even seeing Jon in his grey FF fleece depressed me, because he gets to go back to his tiny horse utopia, and I'm gonna be eating cat food. 

[zxy556575]

I completely understand, but it's sad.

For me, I don't need Sam to be funny these days. I can't stomach broadcast news and am relying on her to give me the gist along with a healthy dose of anger. It's all a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad thing, but I still need to know where to direct my fight.

The political forums have been good about sharing factual links that point out lies and other horrors.

[ganesh]

At least she's not pulling the "we need to give him a chance" garbage. And I liked how she was pointing out the closeted dude screaming "TRUMP", while talking about the stupid snipping at people "throwing tantrums". 

[possibilities]

I like that she gives concrete action suggestions. It's not enough to vent, we need to act. Though I admit at this point I'm afraid it's too late.

[Slovenly Muse]

9 hours ago, lordonia said:

For me, I don't need Sam to be funny these days. I can't stomach broadcast news and am relying on her to give me the gist along with a healthy dose of anger. It's all a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad thing, but I still need to know where to direct my fight.

This is it exactly, for me too. I can't bear to watch the news and see newscasters objectively state this information as fact. I DO want to know what's going on, and I just need Sam to tell me about it while being as fucking angry as I am. I need to hear the facts from satirists, who don't have to pretend this whole thing isn't bonkersville and can just rant it out with me. It doesn't make it better, but it's less unbearable coming from her.

[Victor the Crab]

I actually appreciated Samantha's simmering rage, frustration, and humor over this goddamn election. I believe her and Ollie are what is needed to go forward and try and make sense of what we're facing. Trevor possibly, but I don't know if I can't take watching the show on a daily basis (I know I haven't watched TDS since the election). And Bill Maher? Now would be a good time to tell him to fuck right off.

And I did enjoy watching that repeat of the Syrian refugees, if for no other reason than to be comforted by those adorable Canadian children (and I'm someone who wants to stay far away from them as possible).

[Shermie]

Aw, what do you have against Canadian children?

[Lantern7]

How many more episodes do we have? I'm happy that Sam's show has been renewed, even as I worry about her and Jason.

[Sesquipedalia]

11 minutes ago, Lantern7 said:

How many more episodes do we have? I'm happy that Sam's show has been renewed, even as I worry about her and Jason.

Why do you worry about them?

[purist]

7 hours ago, Victor the Crab said:

(I know I haven't watched TDS since the election)

It's been really good. You should consider coming back.

Yay for the renewal of FF!

[Cyranetta]

Quote

How many more episodes do we have? I'm happy that Sam's show has been renewed, even as I worry about her and Jason.

As I recall, the one this past week was the season finale.

[beowoof]

I know it isn't the most reliable source, but Wikipedia says there are two more episodes in December.

[fauxphysician]

Almost a month now, and each day brings new   threats to our freedoms and attacks on decency-- and it isn't even January 20th yet!

I've set up my budget so I can send a little something monthly to causes in the struggle....my clothing resembles that of a Native Woman's Jingle Dance Dress, thanks to all the safety pins I'm wearing....

But I still have to look UP, to see Bottom

Desperately  need a Sam Fix to help me channel this anger that continues to grow  (and maybe counter at least a bit of the despair I'm choking on)

[wknt3]

On 11/19/2016 at 1:09 PM, heartcore said:

I know it isn't the most reliable source, but Wikipedia says there are two more episodes in December.

So does my DVR. It also says that tomorrow's show is supposed to have a story on NC bathrooms. Season can be a bit of an amorphous concept these days especially as TBS has been rather "flexible" in it's scheduling of the show.

[attica]

If 'thundercunt' means I'm having sex with Thor, I'm all in.

[wknt3]

59 minutes ago, attica said:

If 'thundercunt' means I'm having sex with Thor, I'm all in.

I'm not sure what exactly it's supposed to mean as I'm not a hateful anti-feminist manchild troll, but I've always pictured something a bit different. And good job Jake Tapper, both for standing up for truth in this particular instance and for being a good sport.

[peeayebee]

I couldn't believe Trump's tie had scotch tape on the back of it. Don't his ties have those little pieces you can tuck the skinny side in? Or are his ties so cheap that it fell off?

Alex Jones. Wow. Unf*ingbelieveable. He's like Rush Limbaugh tripled. (Also, I used to get him and Van Jones mixed up. I got very confused.)

The guy who was doing the fake news experiment, if you can call it that, should be ashamed. Of course he's just one of many. Hundreds? And many of those are in it for the money.

[Hanahope]

So why doesn't the owner of the pizza place file a defamation lawsuit against everyone who participated in the false story, especially Michael Flynn.  In a defamation claim, the defendant has to prove the story true, its not up to the plaintiff to prove it was false.

[ganesh]

23 minutes ago, Hanahope said:

So why doesn't the owner of the pizza place file a defamation lawsuit against everyone who participated in the false story, especially Michael Flynn.  In a defamation claim, the defendant has to prove the story true, its not up to the plaintiff to prove it was false.

I was saying the same thing. This isn't the only incident either. The discussion on the fake news was interesting, but no one is talking about actionable objectives to address this; e.g., defamation claims. Especially here if the pizza place lost business or might lose future business. 

I don't really agree with Sam sort of making fun of the people on CNN screaming about the illegal votes. It reinforces a "ha ha these people are stupid we should ignore them," attitude. 

[zxy556575]

1 hour ago, wknt3 said:

And good job Jake Tapper, both for standing up for truth in this particular instance and for being a good sport.

In a bit of Monday synchronicity, Trevor Noah started the "Daily Show Crapcatcher Award" for journalists who call out bullshit. First recipients: George Stephanopoulos and Jake Tapper!

[Hanahope]

This whole thing of calling it "post-truth" is just another example of mislabeling.  It should in no way contain the word "truth" unless you are putting an "UN" in front of it.  IT IS NOT TRUTH, it is UNTRUTH, A LIE, FALSE, FAKE, etc.  Calling it "post truth" doesn't in any way tell one exactly what it is, it makes its sound like its the 'truth' after the fact, which it is not.  I bet a republican spin master came up with that term, just like 'voter fraud.'

[ruby24]

I love Sam, but all news just makes me feel depressed these days. It's a horror show we can't wake up from.

[peeayebee]

1 hour ago, Hanahope said:

This whole thing of calling it "post-truth" is just another example of mislabeling.  It should in no way contain the word "truth" unless you are putting an "UN" in front of it.  IT IS NOT TRUTH, it is UNTRUTH, A LIE, FALSE, FAKE, etc.  Calling it "post truth" doesn't in any way tell one exactly what it is, it makes its sound like its the 'truth' after the fact, which it is not.  I bet a republican spin master came up with that term, just like 'voter fraud.'

It's not even truthiness. 

[theatremouse]

8 hours ago, Hanahope said:

This whole thing of calling it "post-truth" is just another example of mislabeling.  It should in no way contain the word "truth" unless you are putting an "UN" in front of it.  IT IS NOT TRUTH, it is UNTRUTH, A LIE, FALSE, FAKE, etc.  Calling it "post truth" doesn't in any way tell one exactly what it is, it makes its sound like its the 'truth' after the fact, which it is not. 

I don't have any particular affection for the term, but it doesn't at all make me think "truth after the fact". I thought it was saying "truth isn't a thing anymore", hence we are "post" it. Which is sort of accurate. The "UN" wouldn't help because affirmations in the negative sort of don't work because people don't hear the "not". So it'd need an entirely different jargon-term to try to get across the point without using the word "truth" or "fact" since the point is those have been proven to be irrelevant. We are post-logic.

[ganesh]

Kind of like alt-right, or voter fraud, as Sam has pointed out on the show.

[Totale]

22 hours ago, peeayebee said:

The guy who was doing the fake news experiment, if you can call it that, should be ashamed. Of course he's just one of many. Hundreds? And many of those are in it for the money.

I'm not sure the guy we saw was the same one I heard on NPR (I think it is), but that guy said he did great planting fake stories on Drumpf groups but when he tried on Hillary groups no one believed them.  And he also tried to pretend he was conducting some sort of social experiment and the point of it all was not just to glean ad-click money.  See, it happened again - I don't believe that second part.

[Hooper]

The supposed liberal Hillary-voter guy who was doing the fake news "experiment" needs to have about a bajillion copies of Kurt Vonnegut's Mother Night mailed to him.  And he needs to read every single copy.

[Hanahope]

So if this guy is posting things he knows are not true, they are false, then he is guilty of defamation, even as to a public person.

[possibilities]

... unless he claims it was satire and any reasonable person would know he didn't mean it.

[Hanahope]

So millions of Trump voters aren't reasonable?

[biakbiak]

44 minutes ago, Hanahope said:

So millions of Trump voters aren't reasonable?

Yep.

[Hanahope]

Unfortunately, I have to say that when the number of people that believe something start to run into the millions, it becomes a lot less unreasonable, at least under the law.

[Jaded Sapphire]

16 hours ago, Hanahope said:

Unfortunately, I have to say that when the number of people that believe something start to run into the millions, it becomes a lot less unreasonable, at least under the law.

Does it really though? Seriously asking here, no snark. I mean for every person who saw "Hilary Clinton runs pedophile ring out of pizza place Basement" and thought it was plausible, there have to be even more (like me) who simply laughed and never gave it another thought. If it isn't believed by the majority of potential readers, and the claim sounds pretty outrageous on it's face, when exactly does it become actionable under the law?

Aren't there (arguably) just as many Holocaust deniers and Flat Earthers for instance?

Edited December 9, 2016 by Jaded Sapphire
clarity and grammar

[Hanahope]

Well, the requirement is usually the "reasonable person standard."  What is a "reasonable person" can be established either by an expert, or by the use of circumstancial evidence, i.e. evidence of what people in the world actually believe/do.  So one could submit evidence showing all these people saying they believe something.  For example, all the people saying that 3 million illegal immigrants voted in California, being reported in some media outlets.  Heck, you have Trump saying it, and Pence, Priebus and Ryan saying, 'well how do you know its not true' and voila, you can argue that its "reasonable" to believe this because our "respected" government leaders are supporting this statement.  

So for the "sex scandle" bit, you've got the son of a "respected" military general, someone whose worked on the Trump campaign saying this, and other "media outlets" supporting it as well, and combine that with the millions of people who believe Hillary is corrupt, that she and Bill had Vince Foster killed, that Hillary threatened women to keep them silent about Bill's rapes, and all the other crap conspiracy theories abou them, yeah, you can argue that at least a decent number of people people would find it "reasonable to believe" this bullshit about Clinton, Podesta and the pizza place.

Now do I think its reasonable?  No.  But I could easily see a good lawyer arguing this and possibly convincing a jury of 8-12 dumbshits, sorry, I mean "peers", that its potentially reasonable for some undereducated trump lover to believe it.

[formerlyfreedom]

A reminder that this is to discuss the show episode and it's contents. Discussion is straying here, and if it continues, it needs to go over to the Current Events & Politics forum.

[iMonrey]

I'm glad she did the segment on "identity politics" because I've been scratching my head over that one myself, and I found her explanation over this latest buzz phrase helpful. We often discuss this very thing over on the Real Time forum but one of the most frustrating thing about the Democrats is how they allow the Republicans to control the narrative and this "identity politics" thing is no different. Kudos to Sam for admonishing them.

[peeayebee]

I'm not sure if I missed something: Did Republicans coin the phrase 'identity politics'?

[iMonrey]

I don't know that Republicans coined the phrase but it's the one that's been tossed around by all the TV pundits since the election. I haven't really understood what it means until Sam outlined it for me.

[Hanahope]

It seems so easy for the GoP to get their made-up label  into the media.  They send a memo to Faux News and literally ever single program of theirs will use that term/label (plus they send it to all the right-wing radio programs), and then it gets picked up by the other media outlets and there you go.  The Dems can never counter this because they don't make NBC use whatever term/label they try (ex. trumped up trickle down, etc.)  The Dems need better term/label makers and they need to get them out in the media better.

[Sesquipedalia]

22 hours ago, iMonrey said:

We often discuss this very thing over on the Real Time forum but one of the most frustrating thing about the Democrats is how they allow the Republicans to control the narrative and this "identity politics" thing is no different.

This is one of the most infuriating things about being a Democrat. George Lakoff has been pointing it out for more than a decade, and yet at crucial moments Dems still adopt Republicans' terminology and allow Republicans to frame the debate. I'm glad Sam is pointing out the obvious: white male is an identity. She might also have pointed out that the only Democrats disavowing "identity politics" are white males. And along with pointing out that the majority of those who voted based on the economy voted for Hillary, she might also have pointed out that most poor and working-class people voted for Hillary.  She lost the *white* working class and people who were voting based on immigration and terrorism (aka wanting to build a wall and ban Muslims). Perfectly stated: "If your panic over a loss makes you abandon both your principles and the people who actually vote for you, then you'll be in the wilderness for a decade."

[ruby24]

I had a feeling that term really just meant civil rights.

[ganesh]

Quote

We often discuss this very thing over on the Real Time forum but one of the most frustrating thing about the Democrats is how they allow the Republicans to control the narrative and this "identity politics" thing is no different. 

Yes. And based on Sam's piece, "identity politics", is a poor euphemism for butthurt white dudes who think they're owed something they aren't.

[formerlyfreedom]

Topic, please - episode discussion.

Posts that aren't about that going forward will be removed without comment, and could result in warnings, suspension, or more.

[ganesh]

I think the Beck interview was a good idea. I wouldn't lump him in the same inflammatory boat as Limbaugh and Hannity currently. The crack about legacy was a really funny but real moment. I mean, he does have a point about people ranting on FB. I tend to think much of it is one-sided, but it certainly isn't constructive. 

[Lantern7]

I kinda miss Beck, mostly because Jon Stewart kicked him around so well. Nice that he seems to be coming around a little. If you vomited in your mouth seeing the "Strange Bedfellows" cake, I would not blame you.

[Victor the Crab]

Was there an actual new episode? My PVR didn't show anything about a new episode here in Canada. I wish FF would be competent in letting us viewers know when there is a new episode. This scattershot of being on/being off isn't going to help with viewers.l

[Lantern7]

There was. Sam will be back on Wednesdays in January. I just hope she can keep her sanity intact. By contrast, John Oliver will have a longer break when he comes back to HBO.