No, it was about whether they should do so and whether those idiots that do such exist in sufficient numbers to be a hindrance to society. The only evidence I've seen of those idiots numbers existing in even the low single digits are right here in this thread.
Also, Flanz inclued themselves in that reference. Are you really so bad at reading comprehension?
Fun thing about fact-checking YOUR JOKES at the guests' expense, is that they can say whatever bullshit they want, and the audience knows the guest isn't in on, doesn't get the joke. Are you trying to present yourself as clueless enough to garner a guest spot?
You're missing the point. The less serious guests like this jackass discredit those more serious guests. Without him, people are more likely to get confused and start taking the show more seriously, like you apparently have.
Your personal obliviousness is not indicative of a trend among the general public. Pull your head out of your ass. We have to shift the overton window back to where bigotted idiots look like bigotted idiots, and you don't do that by platforming them exclusively alongside respectable people, academics, scientists, whatever.
Ideally, we wouldn't be platforming bigotted idiots at all, and people like you wouldn't confuse the show making fun of conspiracy theory whackjobs for a serious news source, but here we are.
There are not enough such people getting their news from The Daily Show to matter, no way, no how, and whether I would personally engage with them on an individual level was not what I was getting at; I was referring to engagement and mitigation on a societal level, ie dumbing-down The Daily Show or turning it into a more serious show, neither of which would work anyways - the idiots would find other shows to reinforce their delusions. Pretending there are enough people to make that reasonable is an absurdly stupid proposition. Are you convinced most of the MAGA crowd get's all their news from The Daily Show or something?
Sure kid, large numbers of people worth engaging, accomodating, or mitigating are using The Daily Show as their exclusive source of news. Next you'll tell me Oprah is a good person.
EDIT: added "large numbers", for clarity.
I would call your #2 accomodating ... I think of kindness as more proactive and unsolicited.
As for #1, if I don't care enough to lie to make you happy, then I'm definitely going to come across as un-kind(which I would prefer, as people exploit kindness, but...). For an example, it costs me nothing to use someone's pro-nouns when I can remember them, no matter how batshit I may think a specific identity is(ie: "superstraights"?).
Okay, who am I kidding? "Superstraights" are right at the bottom of list, next to Nazis, when it comes to "people whose bullshit I will humor and not call out", but I can't be bothered with a better example at the moment.
They got a baby. They dumped them on others when they outgrew that stage. There's a LOT of blame to go around.
A lot of the boundaries of today's imperium are still defined by the choices/successes/failures of people during the Dark Age of Technology and the Age of Strife.
The Great Crusade focused mostly on uniting worlds and systems that already had a human presence, and eliminating corruptible religions from them. For a good chunk of the galaxy, its never been colonized by humans, and for the foreseeable future, it will be left that way.
The Imperium is spread to thin, and its most ambitious leaders are focused on potential rewards for them and their worlds that they already know of. Map says "here be dragons"? Fuck it, until you find another map that says "here be treasure", "here be weapons", "here be humans making friends with xenos".
I mean, there's not really a such thing as the one, unless vegetarian(debatable, depending on brand), or with enough fixins to make a salad, maybe, so I will indeed, heal thy burgers.
It's a step left from Jerry Springer, and always has been. It's The Onion of talk shows.
If you need every implication of falsehood spelled out for you, then satire is not your thing, and that's okay, but it doesn't change the fact that the show started out on, and still airs on, Comedy Central. Its timeslot set it up to be watched before/after Saturday Night Live and so many others, and it started at a time when people were getting wise to the big conglomerates buying up all the news stations so they could control the narrative; Roughly the same time-period that gave us fark.com, Cracked.com, and TheOnion.com website literally went online the same year.
If you think The Daily Show expects to be taken seriously, and/or even pretends to be an entirely trustworth news source in the slightest, you've missed SO, SO MANY memos.
To be fair, this is the kind of guest the show needs to hold up against more "serious" guests who get up to all sorts of bullshit. Appearing on The Daily Show shouldn't be considered a feather in anyone's cap, save for comedians.
You showed no such thing. No such thing was remotely claimed in that interview.
Meanwhile, you're asking me to prove a negative, while offering no evidence to support your own position besides the fact that yourself and apparently one other commenter here regard The Daily Show as a credible news source, or expect me to believe such. I'm not buying it, and I'm done engaging with your non-sense.
I'm not the one spouting bunk conspiracy theories about how the wrong guest on The Daily Show will hinder society or discredit more decent guests. Calling those slightly more respectable people out on their bullshit is the point of inviting them on the show alongside the overt crackpots in the first place.