Target audience: The demographics that watch Colbert (probably a lot of young people and young people take him and Stewart more serious than the "actual" "news")
Colbert asked legitimate questions to lead the guy into explaining it, but the guy made the same tired argument, after explaining that nullification meant that state and local governments can render a federal law null and void and unconstitutional, which is more or less correct, that ..."The Southern States decided that they weren't going to follow what Lincoln said in terms of abolishing slavery and took it one step further and seceded." (almost a direct quote - try me)
As I remember reading about it, Wisconsin, a free State, said that they weren't going to enforce the Fugitive-Slave Act and the South Carolina and the rest of the South got mad because 'that is the point of the Union; to enforce interstate regulations like that pertaining to runaway capital and/or merchandise'. At which point the Federal government issues a "blankface. - dictated, but not read." Then Connecticut said they were going to also nullify the Fugitive-Slave Act. The South beckons to an unresponsive Federal government for a little while longer before seceding.
Obvious political propaganda to anyone who has ever read at all about the subject. It demonizes Jefferson (Stewart also made extensive use of "humor" at the expense of Jefferson through Glenn Beck) and it misconstrues the motives for nullification in history while associating the misconstrual with the cause of the Civil War.
This idiot guest then refers to Marbury vs. Madison and the Supremacy Clause (6) to justify the Federal power. Colbert then says, "So the Supreme Court gets to decide that the Supreme Court gets to decide what's Constitutional." (laughter) Then Article 3 to justify the case. He then reads part of the Supremacy Clause (they always leave out "...in pursuance to the Constitution..." - which makes the Supremacy Clause a circular argument...) to justify Article 3.
Does it help to know who is being told what by whom? We've got to be able to craft something to counter this kind of message that is funny and non-partisan (but still influences the same way). Decieve, inveigle, & obfuscate.
We?
You're more than likely going to find some reason to shit on it, but, then again, they're actually doing precisely what you said "we" need to do...instead of sitting around playing video games and bitching on the Internet...
(Even though it's been on YouTube for 2.5 years already),Posted 7 hours ago on his Facebook page...
And if that one's too long, here's an abridged version.
Right, "we" meant anyone involved at all, not necessarily people on this forum.
The zombie thing (which I saw 2.5 years ago) is obviously not funny to the average person (it is preaching to the choir so to speak); it is essentially saying that they are brainless undead. It is funny to people in the know, but that cannot function as effective propaganda. It can't make fun of the audience that is supposed to receive and further the implanted message.
The YAL chapter here is full of Friedmanites and Randians. I tried telling them that there is deeper libertarianism than that and they told me that YAL wasn't a book club. So I said fuck it. Usuing deceptive methods for persuasion is more likely to turn opinions that white faced honest morality driven lectures on private property and market capital theory (as good as those are).
deceptive methods for persuasion is more likely to turn opinions
Recently from a different forum, originally posted on Reddit re. Somalia:
The question about Somalia, and a number of other things you say, demonstrate a way of thinking of many statists that I tend to disagree with. So the thinking goes, there are humans beings and individuals, and then there are "systems" or "societies" or "countries". Often you hear questions like, "How would this work under socialism?" or, "What would happen in this situation under capitalism?" However I think this separation is erroneous. That is, while "systems" and such can be useful concepts for rationalizing social phenomena, they, as abstractions, cannot be detached from the actions and values of individual human beings, which are real. As an analogy, if we destroyed every church in the US overnight, would the whole country be atheist? No, of course not. People would have, on the whole, the same values, attitudes, and outlooks on life. Similarly, if you get rid of a state overnight (like in Somalia), you've changed nothing about the values and attitudes of the people who lived under it. These people will proceed to act in accordance with those same values, and while their situation may be different from before, it's not reasonable to expect social phenomena to occur that require completely different values and attitudes. In particular, I don't think it's reasonable to expect to see a flourishing and stable anarchy arise from the ashes of a failed state. To condense my argument, what I'm trying to say is that it's incorrect to test the practicality of a political philosophy by simply, and abruptly, changing the circumstances of a group of people, who will retain and act according to the same values as before. With the people of today all over the globe, and the values they have, I think practically speaking we are better under a state. People are not ready for statelessness. I hope that can change in the future.
As an analogy, if we destroyed every church in the US overnight, would the whole country be atheist? No, of course not. People would have, on the whole, the same values, attitudes, and outlooks on life. Similarly, if you get rid of a state overnight (like in Somalia), you've changed nothing about the values and attitudes of the people who lived under it. These people will proceed to act in accordance with those same values, and while their situation may be different from before, it's not reasonable to expect social phenomena to occur that require completely different values and attitudes. In particular, I don't think it's reasonable to expect to see a flourishing and stable anarchy arise from the ashes of a failed state.
To condense my argument, what I'm trying to say is that it's incorrect to test the practicality of a political philosophy by simply, and abruptly, changing the circumstances of a group of people, who will retain and act according to the same values as before. With the people of today all over the globe, and the values they have, I think practically speaking we are better under a state. People are not ready for statelessness. I hope that can change in the future.
Emphasis mine.
Are you familiar with the New Testament story of John the Baptist? You're trying to be Jesus... you need to stop trying to be Jesus and be John the Baptist instead.
Clayton -
Aristophanes:it is essentially saying that they are brainless undead.
Not exactly...it's making fun of their "zombie-like" retorts...their cries of "RACISM!" the minute you mention anything about nullification, and the like. It's not so much calling people themselves dumb, it's poking fun at their lack of actual consideration and argument, and reliance on default accusations.
I tried telling them that there is deeper libertarianism than that and they told me that YAL wasn't a book club.
nvm