Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m so sick of smug men who think they get to decide what’s worthy of discussion.

THIS x100000000000000000000000000000

Yes. I feel slightly better about this knowing it is from 2016 and not like today, but still. Oh because someone saw it on social media it's not a thing Jon? Okie dokie.

His smugness is pretty insufferable. Hopefully he feels dumb about this now.

Come on - he was dismissive of the idea that he should know about and then base his interview questions on social media rumors that were pretty obscure at the time. The kid cited a podcast and "a couple of tweets" for his implication that Jon should have known. That WAS a laughable suggestion. Jon was totally serious about the actual issue of sexual assault, not smug at all.

The two bickering posters have not addressed this point. It seems possible that he was both mocking the basis for the claims (tweets, which Stewart publicly hates) and taking the sexual harassment claims as seriously as the time and facts provided allowed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again not "facts" pp.

It is a fact. 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?

Address your cognitive distortions first.

Filtering We take the negative details and magnify them while filtering out all positive aspects of a situation. For instance, a person may pick out a single, unpleasant detail and dwell on it exclusively so that their vision of reality becomes darkened or distorted.

Over generalization In this cognitive distortion, we come to a general conclusion based on a single incident or a single piece of evidence. If something bad happens only once, we expect it to happen over and over again. A person may see a single, unpleasant event as part of a never-ending pattern of defeat.

Fallacy of fairness We feel resentful because we think we know what is fair, but other people won’t agree with us.

Always being right We are continually on trial to prove that our opinions and actions are correct. Being wrong is unthinkable and we will go to any length to demonstrate our rightness

Polarized thinking--black and right there is no middle ground

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again not "facts" pp.

It is a fact. 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?

+1

^Yes, the video is on the front page.



link with exact starting time: https://youtu.be/Da5VYSPsoE0?t=1h14m10s)

People saw exactly what happened, which is why they have identified him as being mocking and dismissive.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/10/politics/jon-stewart-2016-transcript-axe-files-axelrod/index.html

Read the transcript:
AXELROD: Take one more question.
STEWART: Yeah. Yes.
QUESTION: Me?
STEWART: Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Oh great.
STEWART: Brothers and beards.
QUESTION: Thank you. It's a new one. I'm trying it out. I wanted to ask you about the last interview on your who, which I think was Louis CK.
STEWART: Yeah.
QUESTION: So, from my memory, I think that was after some of the rumors about Louis CK's alleged harassment of female comedians...
STEWART: Woah.
QUESTION: ...and sort of started to come out. Just some things started (inaudible) on the internet.
STEWART: Wait. What?
QUESTION: I think this was after Jen Kirkman, for example, had talked about like her knowledge of Louis CK's alleged harassment of female comedians...
STEWART: Right.
QUESTION: ...at least people interpreted it that way.
STEWART: Yeah.
QUESTION: There was an article on Gawker, I believe, about it.
STEWART: Right.
QUESTION: And I just wanted to know -- I mean, if this is the first you're hearing of it, maybe my I already got my answer that there really...
STEWART: Oh, OK.
QUESTION: ....wasn't discussion about this on the show, but I...
STEWART: No, wait, wait, wait. I'm a little lost. So, the internet said Louis harassed women?
QUESTION: So, there was first a Gawker article and then there were a couple of tweets by people and I know this is all internet stuff.
STEWART: Pretty authoritative.
QUESTION: I know that this is how...
STEWART: You know who you're talking to, right?
QUESTION: No, I totally get that.
STEWART: All right.
QUESTION: And it's a fair point, that like internet rumors are not, you know, court case or anything. I just wanted to know if there was any sort of discussion about that on the show; if that was a thing on your radar?
STEWART: No. I didn't see the tweets.
QUESTION: No, or Jen Kirkman's podcast about (inaudible).
STEWART: No, I don't, and you know, and I apologize, I honestly, like, I'm not that connected to that world, so I do apologize. I don't know what you're talking about. But, I can't really add. I don't know what to say.
QUESTION: No definitely and I can turn that around and I think that's a good point is that a lot of people, at the time, didn't know what that was, and you know, again, like the internet is not for sure or anything like that, but just there have been comedians who have taken strong stances on Bill Cosby without like certain knowledge from Bill Maher to Hannibal Buress, but I was just wondered if you could talk about the role of comedians in (inaudible).
STEWART: But, as you pointed out...
QUESTION: Right.
STEWART: ...the Bill Cosby case actually is a legal case.
QUESTION: Now it is, but it wasn't when Bill Maher and Hannibal Buress started talking about it. I just -- maybe you could speak to the role of comedians in (inaudible).
STEWART: I mean, all I can tell you is I've worked with Louis for 30 years and like he's a wonderful man and person and I've never heard anything about this...
QUESTION: Sure.
STEWART: ...and we've all known Bill Cosby was a prick for a long time. So, I don't know what to tell you. But, I didn't know about the sexual assault. But, you're right, it's important...
QUESTION: Not sexual assault, like just...
STEWART: Or like whatever.
QUESTION: ...like just harassment in general.
STEWART: Oh. Yeah, I don't...
AXELROD: We appreciate your question. Thank you.
STEWART: Yeah. Sorry. I don't (inaudible).
AXELROD: And, let's say thanks to Jon Stewart.
STEWART: Oh. Thank you.

Anonymous wrote:Again not "facts" pp.

It is a fact. 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?

Again not "facts" pp.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp, in order for there to be 95% of something, you actually need to know the denominator. More than one poster disagreed with you. You don't actually know how many agreed with you. So 95% is meaningless.

Let me change "95%" to "about 95%". That should stop your semantic games. And btw, this includes the reactions on other websites.

Would you care to address the fact that majority of people thought he was reacting with dismissal and mockery?

Again the majority of whom--Gawker readers?

I disagree with your interpretation of what he said and actually did on the clip. I am at a loss as well as to people whom I admire like Stewart, Fey, poehler, Aldon could have been friends with this sleaze. How could they not have known? Why didn't they distance themselves personally/professionally?

Your anger is understood but you express yourself like a 5th grade mean girl. Use your words constructively. Drop the tude and the conitive distortions:
https://psychcentral.com/lib/15-common-cognitive-distortions/

Try DCUM posters, Daily Mail commentators (that says it all), The Guardian, and people from across the political spectrum, from the Daily Caller to Slate Magazine, etc.

The fact is, Stewart was mocking and dismissive.

The fact that the poster read this interaction as Stewart being respectful says either he is being disingenuous and lying, or has poor social abilities. As I said before, it would be similar to someone watching a video of someone crying in pain and thinking they were happy. Most humans are able to differentiate between such different emotions and responses quite easily- the fact that the PP cannot points to social perception issues, plain and simple.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp, in order for there to be 95% of something, you actually need to know the denominator. More than one poster disagreed with you. You don't actually know how many agreed with you. So 95% is meaningless.

Let me change "95%" to "about 95%". That should stop your semantic games. And btw, this includes the reactions on other websites.

Would you care to address the fact that majority of people thought he was reacting with dismissal and mockery?

Again the majority of whom--Gawker readers?

I disagree with your interpretation of what he said and actually did on the clip. I am at a loss as well as to people whom I admire like Stewart, Fey, poehler, Aldon could have been friends with this sleaze. How could they not have known? Why didn't they distance themselves personally/professionally?

Your anger is understood but you express yourself like a 5th grade mean girl. Use your words constructively. Drop the tude and the conitive distortions:
https://psychcentral.com/lib/15-common-cognitive-distortions/

Anonymous wrote:Pp, in order for there to be 95% of something, you actually need to know the denominator. More than one poster disagreed with you. You don't actually know how many agreed with you. So 95% is meaningless.

Let me change "95%" to "about 95%". That should stop your semantic games. And btw, this includes the reactions on other websites.

Would you care to address the fact that majority of people thought he was reacting with dismissal and mockery?

Pp, in order for there to be 95% of something, you actually need to know the denominator. More than one poster disagreed with you. You don't actually know how many agreed with you. So 95% is meaningless.

^I don't know why that errant "don't" got in there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He didn't shut the guy down. It was the last question. The guy asking the question was conflating Cosby--who legal action had been taken against for a decade with unsubstantiated rumors at that point.

Jen kirkman's podcast was deleted for a year by the time the question was asked.

He didn't see the random, unspecified tweets. That may have made him smile slightly b/c it was a dumb question.

Gawker was a gossip website--not a respected news source and defunct at the time. Expecting him to on random page published a year prior on a defunct site by anonymous sources and not naming anyone specifically is ridiculous.

He did not try to make the audience laugh and cannot control what other people do.

If Stewart came out with the same response NOW, pile on. He responded that it was important. It is, but obsessing over this particular moment is not.

You seem to have very poor social awareness. Either that or your commenting on an entirely different youtube video. The fact that you continue to insist on this version of the linked video despite it being posted above and everyone disagreeing with you is baffling. It doesnt seem to be working well, either.

Everyone doesn't disagree with me. Also you keep repeating words like EQ and social awareness about me is a little like you doth protest to much. Social cues are not lost on me. you keep repeating is generalizations like smug and dismissive for Stewart but these adjectives apply to you by trying to belittle me.

Look at his face and listen to words actually said, then actually come up with a rebuttal that is based what is actually in the video. Check your cognitive distortions which are actually a thing.

No, I keep repeating "EQ" because anyone with even the slightest level of it would be able to identify his interactions as being mocking and dismissive, and not respectful as you have absurdly tried to characterize them.

The consensus on this board and in the world in general is clear: Stewart's handling of this was very wrong. I truly hope, if you think nothing is wrong with his reaction, and the social interaction you have perceived is so vastly different from what the rest of the world sees, you will consider questioning why your opinion of sociality is so far outside the norm. Social issues would be a likely explanation.

Nice.

In case you need it, here's the sarcasm sign. /s

Great comeback. Demonstrating the same flawless intellect you've displayed throughout the thread.

I'm a DP. I think you're being absurd, throwing out accusations of "social issues". But go ahead, if that's behavior that you would approve of from your DC, continue.

That's... what it is? If someone views a video of a person crying, for example, and views it as them being happy- that's indicative of social issues. If 95% of people view a video and see smugness and dismissal, and the PP can only see a respectful discussion, then yes, it's social issues. I don't think it's mean to point out the truth. Not everyone perceives situations accurately.

What is making up statistics indicative of? So at least one of us has correct perception. That's 50%.

No, making up statistics would be claiming there was a formal poll don't. 95% of the responses I've read have characterized it the way I described. But you're right- 50% of the two of us have perceived this situation correctly. You have a pattern.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He didn't shut the guy down. It was the last question. The guy asking the question was conflating Cosby--who legal action had been taken against for a decade with unsubstantiated rumors at that point.

Jen kirkman's podcast was deleted for a year by the time the question was asked.

He didn't see the random, unspecified tweets. That may have made him smile slightly b/c it was a dumb question.

Gawker was a gossip website--not a respected news source and defunct at the time. Expecting him to on random page published a year prior on a defunct site by anonymous sources and not naming anyone specifically is ridiculous.

He did not try to make the audience laugh and cannot control what other people do.

If Stewart came out with the same response NOW, pile on. He responded that it was important. It is, but obsessing over this particular moment is not.

You seem to have very poor social awareness. Either that or your commenting on an entirely different youtube video. The fact that you continue to insist on this version of the linked video despite it being posted above and everyone disagreeing with you is baffling. It doesnt seem to be working well, either.

Everyone doesn't disagree with me. Also you keep repeating words like EQ and social awareness about me is a little like you doth protest to much. Social cues are not lost on me. you keep repeating is generalizations like smug and dismissive for Stewart but these adjectives apply to you by trying to belittle me.

Look at his face and listen to words actually said, then actually come up with a rebuttal that is based what is actually in the video. Check your cognitive distortions which are actually a thing.

No, I keep repeating "EQ" because anyone with even the slightest level of it would be able to identify his interactions as being mocking and dismissive, and not respectful as you have absurdly tried to characterize them.

The consensus on this board and in the world in general is clear: Stewart's handling of this was very wrong. I truly hope, if you think nothing is wrong with his reaction, and the social interaction you have perceived is so vastly different from what the rest of the world sees, you will consider questioning why your opinion of sociality is so far outside the norm. Social issues would be a likely explanation.

Nice.

In case you need it, here's the sarcasm sign. /s

Great comeback. Demonstrating the same flawless intellect you've displayed throughout the thread.

I'm a DP. I think you're being absurd, throwing out accusations of "social issues". But go ahead, if that's behavior that you would approve of from your DC, continue.

That's... what it is? If someone views a video of a person crying, for example, and views it as them being happy- that's indicative of social issues. If 95% of people view a video and see smugness and dismissal, and the PP can only see a respectful discussion, then yes, it's social issues. I don't think it's mean to point out the truth. Not everyone perceives situations accurately.

What is making up statistics indicative of? So at least one of us has correct perception. That's 50%.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He didn't shut the guy down. It was the last question. The guy asking the question was conflating Cosby--who legal action had been taken against for a decade with unsubstantiated rumors at that point.

Jen kirkman's podcast was deleted for a year by the time the question was asked.

He didn't see the random, unspecified tweets. That may have made him smile slightly b/c it was a dumb question.

Gawker was a gossip website--not a respected news source and defunct at the time. Expecting him to on random page published a year prior on a defunct site by anonymous sources and not naming anyone specifically is ridiculous.

He did not try to make the audience laugh and cannot control what other people do.

If Stewart came out with the same response NOW, pile on. He responded that it was important. It is, but obsessing over this particular moment is not.

You seem to have very poor social awareness. Either that or your commenting on an entirely different youtube video. The fact that you continue to insist on this version of the linked video despite it being posted above and everyone disagreeing with you is baffling. It doesnt seem to be working well, either.

Everyone doesn't disagree with me. Also you keep repeating words like EQ and social awareness about me is a little like you doth protest to much. Social cues are not lost on me. you keep repeating is generalizations like smug and dismissive for Stewart but these adjectives apply to you by trying to belittle me.

Look at his face and listen to words actually said, then actually come up with a rebuttal that is based what is actually in the video. Check your cognitive distortions which are actually a thing.

No, I keep repeating "EQ" because anyone with even the slightest level of it would be able to identify his interactions as being mocking and dismissive, and not respectful as you have absurdly tried to characterize them.

The consensus on this board and in the world in general is clear: Stewart's handling of this was very wrong. I truly hope, if you think nothing is wrong with his reaction, and the social interaction you have perceived is so vastly different from what the rest of the world sees, you will consider questioning why your opinion of sociality is so far outside the norm. Social issues would be a likely explanation.

Nice.

In case you need it, here's the sarcasm sign. /s

Great comeback. Demonstrating the same flawless intellect you've displayed throughout the thread.

I'm a DP. I think you're being absurd, throwing out accusations of "social issues". But go ahead, if that's behavior that you would approve of from your DC, continue.

That's... what it is? If someone views a video of a person crying, for example, and views it as them being happy- that's indicative of social issues. If 95% of people view a video and see smugness and dismissal, and the PP can only see a respectful discussion, then yes, it's social issues. I don't think it's mean to point out the truth. Not everyone perceives situations accurately.