How Shows Like Daily Show/John Oliver HYPNOTIZE Audiences

Sup Sup Forums, I was recently reading a post (well actually a screencap) from here on how shows like the daily show use HYPNOSIS to dumb the audience into submission.

In this post I want to add my own 2 cents.

This refers to something I call the 'really??' argument.

Have you ever notice this tactic that John Stewart, Colbert and (now) Oliver will use frequently, wherein they will run a (largely unedited) clip of a right winger speaking and then react at the end with an incredulous facial expression followed by the audience laughing?

This is not merely a cutesy gesture or turn of phrase, but rather a sophisticated form of brainwashing.

A 'really' is a thought-terminating utterance. 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."

But this is the basic 'SJW' argument on everything, isn't it?

The SJW is the odious little Eichmann with his jackboots up on a fair trade 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 SJW traffics not in argument, but in revelation.

'Really?' demands compliance without reason, and the John Olivers of the world use this to great effect. Not every really is a 'really?'; some are whole sentences, paragraphs, and articles. But if you look, what's important is not in the words, but the cadence.

(CONT'D)

Take Oliver's 'satire' of Boris Johnson's position. 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 when considering rebates. But then he gets into the meat of the "argument," and I'll quote it verbatim (here 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, 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.

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

Are you fucking kidding me? Are you really expecting me to believe a fucking leaf?

Yes.you are right.

Also note how never inviting the opposition on to defend their claims allows them to not only argue with the home field advantage but it allows them to pick and choose which points are easiest to fight.

Congratulations OP. You finally figured out what themes Goerge Orwell puts in all his books. Would you like a cookie?

Sup Forums is aware

Really, op?

Liberals constantly need someone to tell them what to think. To reassure them. To provide them with an opinion that they can substitute for their own

i react strongly and with disbelief to this!

look to camera 2

so that means i'm right

...

...

Well analyzed friend.

In fact probably one of the best I've seen to explain this phenomenon. May I ask what your background in this topic is?

I told you these shows are basically far-left televangelism, le current year man being the worst offender with his calls for viewers to literally do his bidding and donate to the (((organizations))) he shills.

He read this

>far-left televangelism
That's a good one. It can't be denied that they are shills for the same donors that the Dems are shills for. It's easy enough to follow the money even without wikileaks.
Oliver admitted he was speaking from a place of bias during his last show. His argument/excuse for that was of course a moral non-argument just like OP has pointed out.
I don't have a problem with arguments from virtue, but Oliver is clearly a dishonest tool and not a virtuous man.

Was Jon Stewart so retarded back in the 90s on MTV?

Related: I swear I remember moveon dot org commercials back then too. How long has this been festering?

...

Is there a talented user who could make a viral video analyzing step by step how Oliver conducts his work? It could be a massive blow against the other side in this ideological war if such a video became extremely public and popular, might even turn the tide.


I think it's imperative that this be done.

Does anyone actually believe this rubbish? That media handlers would try to program us? There is laws against subliminal programming people; get with the times- it's current year.

Why is the dog sitting?

I support this. We can donate a whole sticky to gathering music, segments, and essays/interviews with psychologists to get this done.

I see what you did there.

Someone should make a collage of all the major media outlets with a caption saying "Why is the dog sitting" then post it on social media

He's right. Except Orwell and Huxley figured this shit out long before this fucking leaf. Its nothing new, but he's right nonetheless.