Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Cat Cafe's avatar

I was using a turn of phrase. His "jokes" depended on believing the myths about her--her "corruption," her "Wall St. connections," etc etc. They furthered the false narrative about her. There were plenty of jokes he could have made that didn't implicitly further the lies.

He also failed utterly in his conversations with guests. Hugh Laurie asked outright, in bewilderment, why there was such inexplicable venom towards Hillary, it made no sense. A very good question, with an obvious answer, "Thirty years of vicious, billion-dollar-funded propaganda against her, a nasty little streak of misogyny," for example. But instead he said, "You weren't here in the '90s." Like the lies about her were true!

Viggo Mortensen came on, anti-Semite that he is, and gave a long idiotic speech about voting for your "conscience," and voting for Jill Stein, because no one of "good conscience" could vote for Hillary, and Stephen didn't say a single word.

I'm not saying at all he needed to "help Hillary," but as someone who does make political commentary, he certainly made a choice NOT to further the truth, and worse, to allow the lies to go unchallenged and even to expand on them. He also was far, far, far too soft on Trump. Now he has all kinds of things to say against him--but where was he, when it mattered? He's a social commentator, and he knows it, and he made a conscious choice to add to the misogyny. He knows 25% of the electorate is irredeemably stupid. I can't forgive him for it.

Expand full comment
Cat Cafe's avatar

Well, that is a good point about Bannon. Is Jared Goebbels, though, or is he Eichmann?

Expand full comment
1872 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?