Why does Yas Forums dislike Last Week Tonight with John Oliver?

Because I already know what year it is.

Because loudly saying "fuck" in every other sentence isn't comedy.

Attached: 1509900362180.jpg (1024x477, 93.24K)

Lmao it is exactly like that early 2010’s band geek reddit play Minecraft in the school library during lunch humor.

sniveling weasel

I dont dislike it. The opposite really. I just can stand the cringy humor that's getting worse every year.

I like it
It's a 50-50 with his production
Overall, every young movement and foreign topic is shit and surface level analisis
Deep usa stuff that not many people know is great

Because Oliver and his writers imagine they're reducing complex situations to the degree regular people can digest them but what he's actually doing is eviscerating reality to such a degree all that's left is a straw man.

What's to like? He assigns faggots their opinions, prepared weekly by our Jewish overlords.

He's a hack regurgitating political talking points.

This is done on purpose.

I hate his humor but I find his content interesting and educational.

This. He needs different writers. John himself can be entertaining, but his jokes are gay af.

He's factually wrong alot of times. His assistants cherry pick studies.
He gives you misinformation, then a bad joke to disarm you, then more misinformation. It's a loop meant to make you susceptible to bad information. He also likes to stand on a bully pulpit of morality.

He’s not funny

Attached: 326D052B-196A-43FB-88E4-8EFF716DF052.gif (543x607, 1.54M)

British people are annoying

examples?

He's anything but liberal moshe hes a neoconlib psyop controlled opposition hes an edgy NPR

extremely punchable face

Attached: john oliver.jpg (669x664, 78.82K)

Oliver > Bee > Colbert > Meyers > Kimmel > Noah

does this ranking look about right (worst to still worst but not as worst as Oliver) for smug preachy id politics late night hosts?

Literally every host does that.

Reducing any study he dosen't like to phacking. He dosen't know enough about Bayesian statistics to make a generalization like that, and if he did he'd understand how silly a point like that is. There are more but I can't remember them off the top.

So what it doesn't make him any less bad.

So no examples?

These

it's the current year

Conan is best.

Orange man bad

Attached: 5m4v99njblxx.jpg (1848x817, 332.78K)

>Entire episode seething about Boris and Brexit before he won the election

Attached: 1496439276797.gif (251x238, 966.49K)

>propaganda
its soap-boxing but not really propaganda. propaganda suggests its somehow underhand and covert when its not. its just a pro-liberal entertainment show and it doesn't pretend its not and you're not tricked in any way into watching it

and its bad because, as has been said, he's not funny and also there are too many of these stupid shows on these days all basically just regurgitating the same talking points

Liberal propaganda.
Hard pass.
Simple as.

The P-hacking episode. I understand you like to believe whatever the magical box tells you when it confirms your bias, it doesn't make him any more right.

showed an old man's genitals once

Generic male talk show host smug brit edition.

Don't even know who half these faggots are. Don't care to. Late night TV ended when Johnny Carson retired.

I liked when he had a segment about French people not being accepting enough of immigrants, and ending with an image of skeletons wearing french clothes.
Then months later, the terrorist attacks happen and he goes full retard with a whole segment dedicated to saying FACK YOU TERRORISTS as if that makes it any better.

It's pretending to be "factual", while it's indeed just pro-liberal entertainment. Another example of this kind of format would be Top Gear. When Tesla sued Top Gear for falsely presenting them they lost because Top Gear was considered entertainment, and as such not supposed to be taken as fact.

It's sad how you know six of them enough to rank them.

>seething

Attached: download.jpg (700x576, 66.45K)

Oddly enough, his old stand-up is decent, so it's strange that the forced comedy is so inane and over-acted on the show, especially his classic WACKY non-sequitor. I'd say the bits about foreign policy are pretty solid, and his coverage of bizarre dictators can be amusing enough he doesn't have to rely on some intern's idiotic punchlines to break up straighforward political copy and the lines he's fed by his superiors.

This is what people refer to when it comes to his distasteful, naked propagandizing in the sphere of domestic politics. I stopped watching his show during the last election, when during the Democratic primaries (maybe it was the general election), Oliver highlighted the faults and scandals of each candidate in turn, and when it came to Hillary, he laughingly said all people could point to were Benghazi and the emails, and brushed it off. This was particularly disingenuous as the ties to Uranium One were being spread, as well as shady mineral dealings in Haiti under the guise of charity. To my utter surprise, lo and behold, leaks show that Oliver and Colbert were directly paid by the Clinton campaign.

In short, he can have some interesting material, but he is not an objective source or an investigative journalist, and basically does a bad impression of prime Colbert Report or Jon Stewart, who did the same thing but better a decade ago. To Stewart's credit, where Oliver or Colbert would shill any politically-allied guest, I felt genuine respect when Stewart grilled Obama on his failed policies and the expansion of the war machine in particular while to this day the rest of the media fawned over him as a messiah.

No, I have a background in statistics and am neutral to oliver (not even an american). I just find it funny you accuse him of mispresenting evidence and then fail to point out specific examples. From what i've seen the show doesn't go hardcore into scientific methodology. Never seen him discuss qantitative elements. They just use what's in the abstracts, so the study isn't misrepresented.

still shocked that this guy is a literal who in the UK but americans love him

Attached: 1554492531382.png (576x347, 9.66K)

As a non American it can be interesting to get a peek into some events even if mostly american that I had no previous knowledge or interest in, like the Coal episode, I think thought that he is a bit dishonest because while admitting that his show should not replace news often it seems he tries to feed thought instead of food for thought.

The bright side is that sources are claimed, who is reporting, the headlines that can lead to the source, I just wish the show was left more open ended otherwise one might think that it was a summary complete enough.

Still not as weird as that tub of lard Cordon being succesful in the US.
WTF america....

Attached: 53E6830B-6DB2-4FD0-AE87-FE72E774294D.jpg (340x480, 87.93K)

To be fair, Jim Jefferies is even more annoying than both of them and will edit footage to make guests look bad.

He's too lazy/retarded/biased to give you examples. Time to move on.

This

i don’t know how that happened either

Sure.....then maybe you understand why simply saying phacking takes any validity out of a study is stupid. A well written literature review and limitations subject will render phacking obsolete. You can't just make stuff up that hasn't been verified or constructed from other studies. But have fun writing your papers completely based on descriptive stats.
Remember not to confuse median and mode! That's points off the quiz and you need good SATs for that scholarship.
Nice double post by the way, feed your insecurity by creating a fake coalition. Typical "news" shill fan.

he can be completely factual in everything he says and it could still be a liberal (political I should prob have added) entertainment show

Still waiting for those examples. I'm sure you'll be able to produce them.