Wait, you're NOT a conservative? Then to hell with this. :)
Yes, as that WSJ reading, Trump disliking conservative you're describing, we probably have a lot more in common than we do with large parts of either party at the moment. It's easy to get wrapped up in labels, so I'm going to do precisely that. I suspect you and most of the people reading this are liberals - some who are left-liberals and others right-liberals (aka the Artist Formerly Known as Conservative). We may disagree about specific policy, but philosophically we have more in common with each other than either the post-liberal right or the DSA-addled left.
Comedy history syllabus is wonderful. Suggest it's missing comedy that relies on an enormous amount of highly specialized knowledge (eg PDQ Bach) and written comedy (Joke books for kids, Dave Barry / Gene Weingarten, etc). My grandfather would be upset at the lack of Your Show of Shows, and my father would be upset at the lack of Mel Brooks. Also would make sense to include a few examples of failures or things that aren't funny.
Well, Isabel Sanford was a great actress, but really?: comedy series where "schlub husband could still have a hot wife"? Or do you mean "schlub [white] husband could still have a hot [black] wife" with Roxie Roker?
«I probably disagree with the typical Wall Street Journal reader on Obamacare and climate change, but we probably agree that Joe Biden won the 2020 election and we should not model our economy on The Great Leap Forward. » I’m going to assume that you agree that those self-same conservatives played a role in getting us where we are today (the leap from climate change denier to election denier has seemed a very inevitable one to me, and SOMEBODY has been paying Fox New’s bills all this time). I’m also going to assume that it annoys you. I’m curious how MUCH it annoys you.
yeah, no. Climate change deniers come in 2 flavors. the first is denying the pseudoscience that the climate scientists used due to motivated reasoning to make the "Al Gore" level of assertions. It was less denial that something is happenning and more that there is no scientific basis of the level of assertions being made and this has turned political instead of scientific with how it is being used. The UN has kind of changed stances if you look at it because of this issue, and they are using proper science now, but since the results are so much tamer, media goes with the old stuff, so almost no one knows. the majority of people who were not behind climate change are here, because for instance, if the sea level was rising, how much of Florida would be flooded already. Like, Florida is at it's highest point only 21 feet above sea level and is unbelievably flat, so if the sea level was rising meaningfully, it would be flooded. That has not happened, many of the claims made are a "what do you trust? me or your lying eyes." situation. The still failure to won up to false claims that were pushed for political gain has kind of hurt Climate Change pushers in the eyes of these people, the same way that callig the Trump RNC at Madison Square Garden taking plave at a Nazi hotspot because the Garden was used as a Nazi rally like 90 years ago backfired, and until this is dealt with of course people will deny, because people don't trust political movements, and this is political and not scientific.
Second set are the crazy denialists, and those are also the ling time anti vaxxers who also were fringe lefties before Trump consolidated the random crazies (i.e. all crazies who were not socialists) under his banner. These are the most outspoken climate deniers, so people who don't realize why people were dnying the global warming catastrophism think this is where all fo the deniers are. It is not, but these are the crazies that have always been there and are what you are tinking of, but are not the majority of those who are climate deniers.
The catastrophic histrionics of global warming probably had more to do with the current situation than the people denying it.
Counterpoint: the “I want to be called Loretta” bit in Life of Brian is one of the most relevant, and prescient, bits in the entire movie.
For the comedy syllabus, what about anti-humor, or cringe comedy, like Neil Hamburger & Tim & Eric type stuff?
What's the right amount of drugs when writing comedy?
If you write "Superbad" or "The 40 Year Old Virgin" you're in the zone.
If you write "Your Highness" you're way behind the rim.
Wait, you're NOT a conservative? Then to hell with this. :)
Yes, as that WSJ reading, Trump disliking conservative you're describing, we probably have a lot more in common than we do with large parts of either party at the moment. It's easy to get wrapped up in labels, so I'm going to do precisely that. I suspect you and most of the people reading this are liberals - some who are left-liberals and others right-liberals (aka the Artist Formerly Known as Conservative). We may disagree about specific policy, but philosophically we have more in common with each other than either the post-liberal right or the DSA-addled left.
Comedy history syllabus is wonderful. Suggest it's missing comedy that relies on an enormous amount of highly specialized knowledge (eg PDQ Bach) and written comedy (Joke books for kids, Dave Barry / Gene Weingarten, etc). My grandfather would be upset at the lack of Your Show of Shows, and my father would be upset at the lack of Mel Brooks. Also would make sense to include a few examples of failures or things that aren't funny.
Well, Isabel Sanford was a great actress, but really?: comedy series where "schlub husband could still have a hot wife"? Or do you mean "schlub [white] husband could still have a hot [black] wife" with Roxie Roker?
"Whiny Student Hell" is an extremely accurate way of characterizing my daily life as a teacher.
Also: alternative title "Voltaire, but retarded": brilliant! made me laugh out loud. Thank you.
«I probably disagree with the typical Wall Street Journal reader on Obamacare and climate change, but we probably agree that Joe Biden won the 2020 election and we should not model our economy on The Great Leap Forward. » I’m going to assume that you agree that those self-same conservatives played a role in getting us where we are today (the leap from climate change denier to election denier has seemed a very inevitable one to me, and SOMEBODY has been paying Fox New’s bills all this time). I’m also going to assume that it annoys you. I’m curious how MUCH it annoys you.
yeah, no. Climate change deniers come in 2 flavors. the first is denying the pseudoscience that the climate scientists used due to motivated reasoning to make the "Al Gore" level of assertions. It was less denial that something is happenning and more that there is no scientific basis of the level of assertions being made and this has turned political instead of scientific with how it is being used. The UN has kind of changed stances if you look at it because of this issue, and they are using proper science now, but since the results are so much tamer, media goes with the old stuff, so almost no one knows. the majority of people who were not behind climate change are here, because for instance, if the sea level was rising, how much of Florida would be flooded already. Like, Florida is at it's highest point only 21 feet above sea level and is unbelievably flat, so if the sea level was rising meaningfully, it would be flooded. That has not happened, many of the claims made are a "what do you trust? me or your lying eyes." situation. The still failure to won up to false claims that were pushed for political gain has kind of hurt Climate Change pushers in the eyes of these people, the same way that callig the Trump RNC at Madison Square Garden taking plave at a Nazi hotspot because the Garden was used as a Nazi rally like 90 years ago backfired, and until this is dealt with of course people will deny, because people don't trust political movements, and this is political and not scientific.
Second set are the crazy denialists, and those are also the ling time anti vaxxers who also were fringe lefties before Trump consolidated the random crazies (i.e. all crazies who were not socialists) under his banner. These are the most outspoken climate deniers, so people who don't realize why people were dnying the global warming catastrophism think this is where all fo the deniers are. It is not, but these are the crazies that have always been there and are what you are tinking of, but are not the majority of those who are climate deniers.
The catastrophic histrionics of global warming probably had more to do with the current situation than the people denying it.