Last Week Tonight Discussion : Brazilian Election+Law and Order (9/25/22)

[TheGlyphstone]

Staff Note:  The title of the thread reflects the current episode, and is changed periodically

I know I've seen other people mention watching Last Week Tonight with John Oliver around here. But I'm curious if there are enough to warrant an ongoing thread to discuss whatever the latest episode was about. John is always hilarious, but he's also the first person to insist he is a comedian and not a journalist, so "objectivity" is nowhere to be seen in his monologues, and getting a more multifaceted viewpoint on the issues he raises could be educational.

To wit, here is April 4th's episode, about the US national debt.
https://youtu.be/yq_E3HquRJY

[Humble Scribe]

I do love Last Week Tonight - it's pretty much the only reason I still subscribe to NowTV (which syndicates HBO shows in the UK) while Westworld, Deadwood, Watchmen, True Detective and Twin Peaks are all finished or on hiatus.

John Oliver is an interesting guy - Americans probably don't hear it, but it's still fairly rare to hear a Birmingham (UK) accent on British TV, let alone American TV. I was never quite sure about his appearances on The Daily Show, but since he got his own show he's taken that satirical angle and really turned it up to 11. The amount of editorial control HBO gives him is incredible, and the way they have backed him over, e.g. the whole Bob Murray lawsuit is amazing (even more so was the big budget musical fuck you they did when Murray dropped the case).

You say he's a comedian not a journalist, and that's obviously true, but there's also clearly a pretty good research team on the show. I mean yes, it's funny, but often the humour is to keep people watching what are serious subjects that are tackled in the main pretty seriously, or else at least held up to justifiable ridicule (see: Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption), and I think they do an excellent job of explaining complex issues in an easy to digest way. He's left leaning, of course, but took Obama to task over drone strikes, Net Neutrality etc etc, and it's hard to see anything political in his coverage of cryptocurrencies, gene editing, sexual harrassment or corporate tax avoidance. In general, the world is a better place with Last Week Tonight in it. It will be interesting to see where he goes now the Democrats are back in power and Trump has given up on attempted coups d'etat.

The segment on the National Debt was good as far as a it went, certainly in dealing with some of the alarmist ways the right likes to portray national debt but - as he pointed out - only when it suits them. There were some aspects that he didn't touch on, though, such as the way demographics affects calculations of what is a sustainable debt level. Ageing populations because of people living longer mean more people retiring and using more medical services while not being employed, while falling birth rates can mean fewer young people entering the labour force to balance that. Last Week Tonight did in fact tackle this very issue when it discussed China's One Child Policy, which has been the main reason for the Chinese economy slamming on the brakes in recent years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE_ccFHjL_w

This graph shows the difference between China and the US - the US roughly balances retirees with new young people, but suddenly China has a bulge of old people retiring and a sudden shortage of young people. Funnily enough the Greek graph looks very much like the Chinese one, which was a major factor behind Greece's debt becoming unsustainable.

[TheGlyphstone]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I love John's show and despite his self-depreciating non-journalistic claims I know how exhaustively he researches all his topics. I learn more news from his weekly recaps than I do from actual news sites, and he does bring up serious stuff wrapped in humor. But for example, when he did his 2019 expose on the horrific working conditions of WWE freelance wrestlers, he included a clip from an interview with a wrestler. When I went looking for more info and found a wrestling fan forum, they were quite pleased at how he was bringing light on this issue but noted that the interview clip was taken out of context due to its age, and the wrestler (Bret Hart, apparently) had since changed his viewpoint. So basically, John is awesome, but at the same time I can't always assume he is showing the entire story. Hence this thread, and your response was exactly the sort of discussion I'm hoping to build on here.

Looks like this week's episode is about Nursing Homes and Assisting Living Facilities. Once the legit HBO-sanctioned clip goes up on Youtube, I'll post the link.

[Cuttlephobia]

Says a lot how similar this seems to the episode they did on prisons years ago.

[TheGlyphstone]

Thanks for reminding me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xlol-SNQRU



Seems like the main difference is that prisons don't have glossy color pamphlets advertising how comfortable their cells are, and they (usually) don't have man-eating alligators either.

[Oniya]

Seems like the main difference is that prisons don't have glossy color pamphlets advertising how comfortable their cells are, and they (usually) don't have man-eating alligators either.

Just wait - one of the Florida prisons will catch up eventually.

[Callie Del Noire]

Just wait - one of the Florida prisons will catch up eventually.

It’s a feature. And the gators here in Florida have standards. 

[TheGlyphstone]

This week, we're discussing bankruptcy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzFG0Cdh8D8

Truly, it is a pox upon society when people have the temerity to dare to run out of money.

[Cuttlephobia]

And of course, if you're rich, losing all your money is no problemo.

Such a bizarre state of affairs.

[TheGlyphstone]

This week, we're discussing Covid-19 Vaccines, all the stupid ways people invent to not take them, and why this is screwing over the rest of us even harder than before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPHgRp70H8o

[TheGlyphstone]

Slipped my mind to update, sorry - but then, it doesnt look like there's a lot to talk about.

Anyways, this week it's about...hair? Specifically, black hair+black hairstyles, and how micro-aggressions and racism manifest along those lines. It's interesting but John's angle here is a little more opaque than usual, I think it's just highlighting yet another way Black Americans suffer from discrimination that doesn't get as much attention?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uf1c0tEGfrU

[Oniya]

It's definitely a thing.  You see it a lot in school dress-codes and such.

[TheGlyphstone]

I know we have a few PoC E-members floating around here and there; I've love to see one of them chime in on this, since it's obviously something I have no real experience with. Heck, I don't even take good care of my own hair and it's as boring as you can get.

[Sara Nilsson]

The video he shows a clip from with the black actors is really fascinating to watch btw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc4yV2nycIk

[Haloriel]

The ultimate point is not being allowed or needing a law to grow my hair out of my head as I was born to. I did not feel joy for my hair type until perhaps five years ago and I’m almost 40. My parents were born five years before Civil Rights Act in the US. Really hasn’t been that much time at all.

Even further a point is that I’m mixed with European and more cultures fairly significantly. I’m not dark skinned by any means if the person actually has compassionate, educated visual experiences and understands the full spectrum of human skin tone. So there’s a range of sadness that I remain silent on when the appropriate people are present so I can learn, if I don’t just read a book. Though there’s always that ‘you’re dark compared to...your hair is -insert passive aggressive cruelty- compared to...” which is equally part of this issue. It’s good though that it’s at least being discussed and taken seriously.

Anyway hope that helps.

[TheGlyphstone]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTF-Kz_7L0c

This week, it's Stand Your Ground Laws. Because the world is your castle and fear is a legitimate reason to blow someone's head off at any moment you feel like.

[Humble Scribe]

Once again, as a non-American I have nothing very special to add except that - in spite of US law springing from UK law - as usual we do things differently here. Self defence in the UK is subject to a test of proportionality and 'reasonable force'. You have no obligation to retreat from a situation and can defend yourself, even pre-emptively, but you must only exercise 'reasonable force' in doing so, and if you decide not to back away when that option was available to you, that can affect whether your use of force is judged to have been 'reasonable'.

Who decides what's 'reasonable'? Ultimately a jury, but they can and will convict people of manslaughter or even murder if the use of force was excessive. Since 2018 there is a special case if you are in your home - then any use of force is deemed reasonable unless 'grossly disproportionate' - eg stabbing a burglar who was already incapacitated or fleeing. Less than 0.2% of UK households have a firearm stored at home, so use of guns is very rare. There was a celebrated case in 1999 - a farmer shot two burglars, one of them fatally, with an illegally held shotgun. He was charged with and convicted of murder, though this was reduced to manslaughter on appeal and he only served 3 years in jail. It's at least partly on the basis of this and the public outcry around it that the 'householder defence' to use of force was introduced.

[TheGlyphstone]

You also don't have a multi million dollar firearms industry with a massive national lobbyist organization dedicating to maximizing the industry's profit margins.

[Humble Scribe]

Yeah, the whole gun debate is a can of worms, and probably not one for this thread, but I think sometimes Americans don't see the extent to which it warps your society in certain directions. If you were carrying a weapon in the UK (and I'm talking knives as well as guns), and used it in self defence, even if justifiably, there would be questions as to why you were carrying it in the first place - expecting trouble? Looking for it?

[Kathadon]

Yeah, the whole gun debate is a can of worms, and probably not one for this thread, but I think sometimes Americans don't see the extent to which it warps your society in certain directions. If you were carrying a weapon in the UK (and I'm talking knives as well as guns), and used it in self defence, even if justifiably, there would be questions as to why you were carrying it in the first place - expecting trouble? Looking for it?

See I am a rural person, ex Army, that now lives in a U.S. "big" city again. I still carry my legal (had to look up the rules for my local ordinance when I moved) knife openly on my belt everywhere. It is a tool. I use it all the time to open packages, makes a handy flathead screwdriver, the butt is a hammer, cut wires/cords, and I keep it sharp enough to shave with. I wear it as a tool and as a deterrent. I often have walked through and worked in some of the worst neighborhoods. Now it is not a Rambo or Crocodile Dundee full blown camping or combat knife, but it could still kill someone. I would hope that if it came down to it that my track record of always carrying it openly would be factored in if the worst was to happen. If not, then I knowingly take that risk, as does anyone that tries to mess with me and mine. And no one ever has since I started carrying it as a teenager. I know confirmation is not causation, but it makes me feel better.

[Oniya]

As you've pointed out, a knife, regardless of length, has multiple non-lethal uses.  I used to have a Swiss that - in addition to the various bits, blades and bobs - was heavy enough to double as a sap if I dropped it in a sock, or used it as the classic 'metal bar in the fist'.  (Not that I'm likely to act in that manner, but I'm a writer - I think of these things.)  'Why do you carry that knife?' 'I use it for [various legal and natural reasons].'  The question might be asked in regards to knives, but you can come up with half a dozen believable responses without thinking too hard.

I'd have a hard time finding someone who would believe 'I use the butt of my handgun as a hammer.'  Lynyrd Skynyrd could tell you that.

[Kathadon]

As you've pointed out, a knife, regardless of length, has multiple non-lethal uses.  I used to have a Swiss that - in addition to the various bits, blades and bobs - was heavy enough to double as a sap if I dropped it in a sock, or used it as the classic 'metal bar in the fist'.  (Not that I'm likely to act in that manner, but I'm a writer - I think of these things.)  'Why do you carry that knife?' 'I use it for [various legal and natural reasons].'  The question might be asked in regards to knives, but you can come up with half a dozen believable responses without thinking too hard.

I'd have a hard time finding someone who would believe 'I use the butt of my handgun as a hammer.'  Lynyrd Skynyrd could tell you that.

My point there was the entire (I guess U.K.?) argument of "why would you be carrying a knife in the first place?" And the general looking for trouble bit. I find that an entirely alien mindset.

Now carrying a firearm is a different story. I feel that open and concealed carry leads to cowboy syndrome as shown in the piece of video. That was a local story about the bar argument and the man had to plead manslaughter to keep from getting murder 2. So Stand Your Ground laws did not help him.

https://www.kmov.com/news/plea-deal-reached-in-shooting-at-florissant-show-mes/article_a4f862c8-5ca9-11e9-93f3-cfee7dda84dc.html

[Oniya]

My point there was the entire (I guess U.K.?) argument of "why would you be carrying a knife in the first place?" And the general looking for trouble bit. I find that an entirely alien mindset.

Yup, agreeing with you - and with the 'cowboy syndrome' that you mention.  If I see an apparent civilian open-carrying in Walmart picking up groceries, I'm not seeing that as a 'deterrent' as much as a 'security blanket', and the more blatant the carry, the more my eyes are rolling.  I probably wouldn't even notice your knife.

The attitude around 'Castle laws' (another term for SYG, based on the idiom that 'a man's home is his castle') has gone from 'I'm allowed to defend my house and family, but should retreat if possible in other situations' to 'come at me bro, I will end you!'

[Humble Scribe]

My point there was the entire (I guess U.K.?) argument of "why would you be carrying a knife in the first place?" And the general looking for trouble bit. I find that an entirely alien mindset.

There are knives and there are knives. I used to carry a Swiss Army knife until it kept on being confiscated at airport security because I forgot to put it in my hold baggage. I don't think it would have been much use in a fight. A farmer going about their business during the day is obviously fine. But if you were to go out for a night out with a 6" blade in your boot, and then end up stabbing someone then obviously people are going to make some assumptions about you.

[Kathadon]

There are knives and there are knives. I used to carry a Swiss Army knife until it kept on being confiscated at airport security because I forgot to put it in my hold baggage. I don't think it would have been much use in a fight. A farmer going about their business during the day is obviously fine. But if you were to go out for a night out with a 6" blade in your boot, and then end up stabbing someone then obviously people are going to make some assumptions about you.

Yeah that mind set is just alien to me. My local ordinances are: Any knife of any size can be open carried as long as it is not classified as a weapon. So no punch daggers, butterfly knives, or outright swords. If you carry it concealed then the blade can be no longer than 4 inches. So to be safe, my day to day hip knife's blade is exactly 4 inches. It is a tool. No different than if I was a handyman and carried a hammer and screwdriver set on my belt.

If I end up stabbing someone in self defense and I openly carry my knife every day in public, why should anyone make assumptions on my character? Why would those same assumptions not be reversed onto the person that confronted the openly armed person with violence in public? Or are you basically just presenting a "duty to retreat at all costs" argument?