2. Cursing children for comedic effect CHECK

3. mockery of physical appearance of ideological opponent CHECK

4. Unsubstantiated, unexamined and unjustified claim that opposing mass migration of refugees is per se wrong and bad CHECK

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3264303&forum_id=2#30773590)

-john oliver.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3264303&forum_id=2#30773758)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAgKHSNqxa8

someone should really gas this faggot.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3264303&forum_id=2#30773694)

i would like him a lot more if he did this.

i know where dennis miller ended up, but i think he started out with a liberal bent at first. their deliveries are different, but i think oliver and miller's comedy and satire are similar

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3264303&forum_id=2#30779517)

A 'really' is a thought-terminating utterance. It's a tool of an ideological fascist. At once, 'really' demands your subjection--"You are self-evidently in the wrong"--and signals the virtue of the other side--"I speak from a place of moral authority and clear evidence."

But this is the basic 'lib' argument on everything, whether or not there is a succession of words involved, right? I'm not talking liberal, like, left liberal. I'm not talking left economics, left policy. I'm talking lib.

The lib is the odious little Eichmann with his jackboots up on a fair trade Brazilian zebrawood coffee table, fingers woven behind his Schutzstaffel cap. He has no argument not only because none would support his position, but because none is required. The 'lib' traffics not in argument, but in propagandist cant and revelation.

'Really?' demands compliance without reason, and the John Olivers, Jon "Stewarts," and SNL hosts of the world use this to great effect. Not every really is a 'really?'; some are whole sentences, paragraphs, articles, and, in this case, bits. But if you look, and Oliver's segment is a perfect example of this, the important is not in the words, but the cadence.

So, for instance, listen to the way he talks about Boris Johnson's position, whom Oliver says has the economic acumen of Bam Bam from the Flintstones (Boris Johnson is the former Lord Mayor of London--his father studied economics at Columbia and Johnson himself studied Classics at Eton and Oxford). Johnson claims that the UK sends 350M pounds per week to Brussels under EU agreements.

Oliver claims this number has been 'thoroughly debunked', and that it's actually 190M pounds per week (according to the NYT), when considering various rebates. But then he gets into the meat of the "argument," and I'll quote it verbatim (in this he is aping Johnson):

"In fact we send the EU 190M per week, which as a proportion of our GDP makes sound fiscal sense. In fact, considering the benefits we reap in return ..." And then Oliver ends this portion of the segment. No explanation is provided for why 190M pounds per week makes sense as tribute to the EU, whether from a GDP basis or otherwise, and no tally of benefits is provided. The cadence suggests that the very notion that anyone should need further evidence is ridiculous.

Here is the lib sleight of hand. An argument is always suggested, not offered. To offer an argument is to engage with the non-lib as though the non-lib might have a leg to stand on. But that would conflict with the lib axioms of revelation and moral authority, so a battle is never joined. Instead, a mocking dismissal of the non-lib is provided by averring to arguments never offered which, usually, don't exist (or, when they do, any bright 14 year old can usually dismantle them, and do so in plain language).

Every lib 'argument' is a 'really?', no matter how dressed up.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3264303&forum_id=2#30773900)

we have some scholars on this bort

so basically lib arguments are "UGH! i cant even"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3264303&forum_id=2#30776276)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3264303&forum_id=2#30779529)

j/k 180

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3264303&forum_id=2#30782961)

The better excuse that Stewart and Oliver make (which is only deployed when convenient and is still ultimately bullshit/a dodge) is that they are doing comedy shows and they do not invite people to watch their shows without first having actually sought out actual news. Oliver is less clear on this point and sometimes presents his show as quasi-journalism, but anyone with a triple digit IQ understands he's very biased and not interested in a rational debate.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3264303&forum_id=2#30783450)

but i can't help but think of my favorite askav admonitions, the ones that have historically swayed me the most, and how they are also "really?!" arguments ~50% of the time.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3264303&forum_id=2#31911834)

I can't imagine having shitlib media fags, other countries' political leaders, and endless international capitalists constantly calling me a stupid racist and then thinking "boy I'd sure better do what they tell me!" But then again I would not invite another man to fuck my wife, so

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3264303&forum_id=2#30773954)

*smugly kicks back in chair, having thoroughly debunked the notion that the EU has fucktarded regulations*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3264303&forum_id=2#30774434)

shitlibs this morning: hinder the fuck out of democracy!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3264303&forum_id=2#30783168)

This was actually a pretty funny segment. Some of the zingers were pretty well done.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3264303&forum_id=2#31907077)