his segment was the single worst part of the Daily Show.

Back in the day.

I remember him being funny.

and the fact they gave him his own show was fucking awful

I have no idea who colbert is

Steven Colbert. Look him up.

I like the Trump cartoon.

He makes fun of Trump's tweeting.

A shitty an overrated "comedian" who got famous riding John Stewarts coat tails

oof

you are just jealous

No

So basically he's another dime a dozen late show host?

I just think he is awful

and has always been awful

You went to jelly school.

because his entire career is made from one joke

no u

The Trump cartoon was funny.

Crowder is the only one who does a better Trump impression.

Steve Crowder?

I actually don't trust him after the video he did with prageru on columbus day..

Eh, everyone has hits and misses.

By that standard you can't watch anyone anymore.

Loosen up a bit.

he called wounded knee a battle and not a massacre, stretching the truth and trying to make it seem like what happened to the native americans was just losing a war. And no, by that standard, I have people who I can be sure will say it how it is, and not stretch historical truth to fit their narratives.

Is your distinction between a battle and a massacre fact based or emotional?

a battle becomes a massacre when you slaughter the innocent, unarmed, and defenseless.

it's indiscriminate, it's brutal, and it's cold.

Name me one war in which there were no civilian deaths.

There is a fine line between directly firing upon civilians purposefully and say a stray bomb in the second world war being dropped on a house.

So your distinction is a fine line.

But you are upset that Crowder didn't side on the same side of the line.

purposeful murdering of civilians is a massacre, by definition.

The distinction you appear to put forward is one of degree and subjectivity.

indiscriminate slaughtering, which is what wounded knee was, is, by definition, a massacre.

You can make a comparison to other historical incidents and by that standard you have a point, that there were a comparatively high number of civilian deaths, but to say that this was an outright mischaracterization, based on the use of the term alone is quite a strange basis to judge the credibility of a person tackling a historical event.

We use the term to coin other events which historically had less deaths than the wounded knee massacre, so yes, I would, based upon that, coin this as a massacre rather than a battle.

Well, I think that's an incredibly flimsy premise.

It's more of the fact that he bent the truth and made it seem like the only deaths were US soldiers and Native American warriors, and omitted truth to push the narrative he had in mind that really grinds my gears.

I'm not going to get into arguing a Sorites Paradox.