Can someone explain this exchange? I know who these people are but knowing how they changed (or didn't) over time requires listening to lots of their stuff.
Also what's the lack of understanding.
If this is a joke in the vein of the original idea, that's great!
> Can someone explain this exchange? I know who these people are but knowing how they changed (or didn't) over time requires listening to lots of their stuff.
Both of them were comedians who performed on Comedy Central parodying television news and opinion broadcasters. Stewart's show was more straightforward where he presented the news while joking about the stories and the people featured therein, whereas Colbert's program was intended as an over-the-top parody of the shows of conservative talking heads like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. Whereas Stewart somewhat maintained his ability to poke fun at both sides regardless of what his personal politics may be, Colbert turned out to be an ardent leftist who parlayed his parody show into a pretty unimaginative leftist late-night comedy show that is often more about activism and indignation than comedy.
I have no idea what bobkazamakis meant by his remark, though. Perhaps he believes that comedy is funnier when it includes an element of political activism.
If you have to "get" something for it to be funny, is it still funny? Does the intent matter? I know you said comedy, not funny, but I'm speaking as a layman not as an auteur of comedy.
This statement alone shows a real lack of understanding of comedy.