[bunderbunder]

Kind of fascinating that the first couple comments to be posted both start with a declaration of the author’s opinion of Colbert.

I read it as a pretty straightforward acknowledgment that we’ve reached a point in public discourse where people pay at least as much attention to who is making a point as we do to the actual point being made.

I wonder if finding common ground is even possible as long as that kind of tacit ad hominem remains baked into the way we think about public discourse.

[KittenInABox]

I think this is an interesting conundrum, because I feel it is also important to critically consider the people who are making points because it can also inform you about why these points are being made. I don't consider this a tacit ad hominem per se, because we must acknowledge the open internet is full to the brim of bad actors and bots and we cannot equally engage with all comments. It is fine and appropriate to identify comments one doesn't want to engage with, not even with the brainpower of reading. This has increasingly forced people to make concessions to avoid misunderstandings due to other people's need to filter comments.

[ddtaylor]

I was actually thinking the opposite. I sent my wife this text message:

    Nonsense world when a comedian doing a late night show is the person willing to say something
    
    It's not his job I'm glad he's doing it, but this is like watching the McDonald's workers Narcan people as part of their daily tasks

For reference she worked as a manager at McDonald's and would regularly have to deal with people ODing in the drive through and there was a "serious" discussion between managers, corporate, etc. about it they should be doing this or if they should be instructing everyone to stay indoors and let them die.

Corporate had to say that they must stay inside and eventually it became grounds for suspending employees that didn't want to sit and watch people die.

Contact me if you want her information for journalism purposes we have the receipts.

[AnimalMuppet]

Corporate doesn't realize that forcing people to do nothing and watch others die might be bad for morale? Corporate doesn't realize that people regularly dying in their drive through without assistance is going to be an enormously negative PR hit if it ever comes out? Corporate doesn't even realize that people dying in the drive through is going to leave their drive through plugged for a long period of time?

I am appalled. Even ignoring the cold-hearted lack of empathy, I have a hard time imagining that this is even in their best interest.

[AustinDev]

Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas.

[PorterBHall]

“Plato is my friend, but truth is a better friend.”

[poszlem]

What's so fascinating about it? I made one of those comments. It’s not about judging the person but about emphasizing the point. I’m saying the situation is so egregious that it overrides my usual dislike for the host. If anything, it validates the point being made, regardless of who is making it.