Jon Stewart dismissing Louis CK abuse allegations
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
+1. His response was gross and dismissive. Ridiculous he tried to claim he isn't really plugged into...the industry of which he's been a part for years. |
Anonymous
Just as I thought, you cannot answer the question. You talking philosophical nonsense only makes you look even more desperate to weasel your way out of answering it. What you dont predict, just as you didn't expect it when you tried to misrepresent the video, forgetting that it was posted, is that people can see what your intentions are and exactly what you're doig. Now... answer the question I levvied at you. Come on. |
Anonymous
| The manner and brusqueness of his response made it seem like he was being told something he already knew and was trying to play it off. It was weird. |
Anonymous
Jon must be REALLY out of the loop in his chosen field of work then. Tons of prominent comedians have come out this week admitting that it was an open secret. It should almost be concerning to him that he’s so clueless about the goings on in his own industry. Perhaps being so ignorant is a privilege afforded to him by being a rich white man. Also, these days a lot of legitimate news is broken by Twitter. We don’t all sit down to watch the six o’clock news on tv anymore. |
Anonymous
|
Jon Stewart was busy writing and producing the Daily Show for over a decade delivering news:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/young-get-news-from-comedy-central/ He wasn't following random tweets or reading Gawker. |
Anonymous
It was his job to be up on the news. |
Anonymous
I guess pretty much every single other comedian follows random tweets then. Because everyone else had heard the rumors. This is how it is with rich and powerful men. Rather than taking action to make a difference, they maintain their plausible deniability for as long as humanly possible. And jackasses like PP are always there to defend them. |
Anonymous
Yep. +10000 Luckily I think most people disregard the "THIS IS A WITCH HUNT!!!1!!" people like PP. Especially lately having seen how deep it goes. That "plausible deniability" thing used to work a charm but not so much anymore with all the news lately. |
Anonymous
One page of anonymous Gawker gossip, a deleted podcast, and unattributed tweets aren't news. |
Anonymous
3 separate sources you have arbitrarily dismissed because you said so. Even though they were widely discussed and have been proven to be true. Wishful thinking on your part. |
Anonymous
Widely discussed by whom? Who are all comedians? Who were the authors of the Gawker blurb? Who were their sources? This is not example of journalism. I'm not dismissing anything or anyone. You need to apply critical thinking skills not just play Monday morning quarterback. This is the wiki description of the daily show: During Stewart's tenure the show became more strongly focused on politics and the national media, in contrast with the pop culture focus during Kilborn's tenure. Describing itself as a fake news program, The Daily Show draws its comedy and satire from recent news stories, political figures, media organizations, and often, aspects of the show itself. The show typically opens with a long monologue relating to recent headlines and frequently features exchanges with one or more of several correspondents, who adopt absurd or humorously exaggerated takes on current events against the host's straight man persona. The final segment is devoted to a celebrity interview, with guests ranging from actors and musicians to nonfiction authors and political figures. Stewart spent most of his time reading and discussing heavy duty topics, e.g.: https://mic.com/articles/123466/jon-stewart-daily-show-book-recommendations#.T6YjjhfWu He spent time and effort trying to protect journalists, e.g. Rose water or the rally he and Colbert did. Op, if this was such a well known truth, how come you didn't post the "allegations" naming names years ago? |
Anonymous
Dude, we know you're a Stewart fanboy. His other accomplishments does not make it okay for him to publicly support a serial sexual abuser. Or to mock someone's attempts to discuss said widely known allegations. |
Anonymous
|
Dude, it was widely known gossip. This is what is mind boggling you don't understand the difference.
Again if it were such common knowledge why didn't you post it earlier? |
Anonymous
It's funny you call women's accounts of being sexually assaulted "gossip", how telling. And first of all, this is an inane question, which is why I didn't answer it, because my not posting a DCUM thread is nowhere near equivalent to Stewart publicly supporting him and mocking and dismissing those who brought up his sex crimes. But... I wasn't on DCUM until very recently- again, not that it's relevant, but I'll be nice enough to entertain it. Now that I've answered your inane question, answer the one you've dodged for several pages: Why don't you address how everyone reads Stewart as being dismissive and mocking and yet you read it as respectful? Care to address why your social perceptions are so off? |
Anonymous
Here’s a piece from a comedian who points out it was an open secret within the industry. I guess it was “gossip” in the same way talk about Weinstein’s actions was gossip. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/i-did-a-stand-up-set-about-louis-cks-offenses-but-it-didnt-feel-like-enough/2017/11/10/e1925700-c5da-11e7-afe9-4f60b5a6c4a0_story.html?utm_term=.4061099b6803 |