Doesn't retroactively make the show any less funny, and this post is not any sort of endorsement of him; if it was, that would at least serve as a reason to comment the way you did, as a response.
This just comes off as empty virtue signaling.
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 423
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 423
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
the multimillionaires
Why would any of them do this instead of charity donation that they can deduct from their taxable income?
Clickbait headline. Trump's rant demanded that those reporters be tried for treason, is that not a bad enough thing to do, to make a compelling, and truthful, headline?
But no, because one of the possible outcomes of being convicted of treason is the death penalty, the headline says "demands death penalty". Gee, I wonder why the headline doesn't say "demands 5 years in prison", another possible outcome of a treason conviction? Anyone want to take a guess?
Sensationalism is so pathetic.
Unironic major example of how "[size] dick energy" is a really stupid, and inherently body-shaming, expression in the first place.
when the Trump Administration gives us our tariff refund
Who is expecting this to actually ever happen?
Missing in the post's title, but not the article's title. No ambiguity there:
Republican Mayor Wesley Dingus charged after 'sniffing underage girl’s underwear' on camera
That's not quite accurate either, it seems.
I always try to avoid absolute 'always'/'never' statements, because you set yourself up for an easy 'defeat' if a single contrary example is brought up.
It's much more effective to compare per-capita statistics, for example.
- JumpRemoved
intersectionality forever
If you ignore that different demographics face different issues and that they are valid in bringing them up
Which is irrelevant, because that's not what I did.
you’re right wing trash as far as I’m concerned.
Since you've demonstrated a deliberate penchant for deliberately misconstruing anything short of full-throated agreement, your labeling based on that has no value whatsoever. "Right wing trash" and "person who disagrees with me" are not synonymous.
The fact remains, despite your protest: the attention any given injustice a person has suffered merits, should not depend on any of the victim's immutable characteristics. It is immoral to believe, for example, that George Floyd and Tony Timpa[^1] merit different amounts of sympathy/outrage/etc., just because one is black and the other is white.
[^1]: > Anthony "Tony" Allen Timpa, a 32-year-old, unarmed white man, was killed in Dallas, Texas by police officer Dustin Dillard. Officers had responded to a call by Timpa requesting aid for a mental breakdown due to the fact that he had not taken his prescription medication for schizophrenia and depression. Dillard pushed his body weight onto Timpa on the ground for around 14 minutes after he was already restrained, and officers ignored pleas from Timpa that he was in pain and was afraid he was going to die. Timpa's death was ruled a homicide....
- JumpRemoved
intersectionality forever
You're equivocating, for no reason, being equally sympathetic to an injustice regardless of the demographics of the victim in any given instance, with treating every case as if it's identical.
Those are completely unrelated things.
P.S. You 'may be shocked to learn' that starting a comment like that just makes you sound like a sanctimonious jerk.
- JumpRemoved
the one where ross says a slur
You can interpret that however you want.
Not if you want to be accurate:
“Hey what’s in this drink” was a stock joke at the time, and the punchline was invariably that there’s actually pretty much nothing in the drink, not even a significant amount of alcohol.
See, this woman is staying late, unchaperoned, at a dude’s house. In the 1940’s, that’s the kind of thing Good Girls aren’t supposed to do — and she wants people to think she’s a good girl. The woman in the song says outright, multiple times, that what other people will think of her staying is what she’s really concerned about: “the neighbors might think,” “my maiden aunt’s mind is vicious,” “there’s bound to be talk tomorrow.” But she’s having a really good time, and she wants to stay, and so she is excusing her uncharacteristically bold behavior (either to the guy or to herself) by blaming it on the drink — unaware that the drink is actually really weak, maybe not even alcoholic at all. That’s the joke. That is the standard joke that’s going on when a woman in media from the early-to-mid 20th century says “hey, what’s in this drink?” It is not a joke about how she’s drunk and about to be raped. It’s a joke about how she’s perfectly sober and about to have awesome consensual sex and use the drink for plausible deniability because she’s living in a society where women aren’t supposed to have sexual agency.
- JumpRemoved
the one where ross says a slur
I’d also include the controversy around “Baby It’s Cold Outside”.
The irony is that in fully understanding the song and the culture of the time it was written in, the song is literally the opposite of what the outrage junkies made of it. They think it's a song about a guy keeping a woman at his place against her will (the notion that he actually drugged her drink (and in such a way that she could tell by tasting it) is especially hilarious) through subtle intimidation, and that rape is apparently imminent.
But in fact, it's a very empowering (especially for its time, ~80 years ago) song about a woman who defies social/cultural norms/rules to do what she wants and go ahead and spend the night at this guy's place:
- All of her 'protests' have to do with her reputation specifically, she talks about how she "should"/"must"/"ought to" leave, but never once says "I want to leave"
- "What's in this drink" was a blame-shifting/plausible deniability tactic, not too different from how people blame their actions on alcohol even today. Although the song is very progressive, she doesn't completely abandon the social rules, so she adds this bit as an 'excuse' for the fact that she is absolutely and willfully spending the night with this guy. For the same reason, she 'can't' simply straight-up 'say yes' to him; it'd be unladylike to accept such an offer, after all. So she does the stuff in the first bullet point instead.
P.S. Also, the original songwriter wrote the song specifically for him and his wife to perform together for friends at a housewarming party. It wasn't even considered to be released commercially until it became a huge hit at parties that they were invited to specifically to perform it. The idea that it's a predatory date rape song is extra ridiculous with that context, aside from everything else.
- JumpRemoved
the one where ross says a slur
George Carlin (who is idolized and rightly so, mostly) had a line in one of his standup specials where he said “you show me a tropical fruit and I’ll show you a cocksucker from Guatemala”. Homophobia was just so normalized back then (this was the ‘80s).
I don't think this bit was homophobic at all, and that you've misinterpreted it, through omission and otherwise. If anything, homophobia is part of what is being laughed at (and a small piece of the overall joke). I'll explain.
To begin with, you left out key parts of the joke; he wasn't expressing that as himself. Here's the full bit:
I remember something my third grade teacher used to say. She used to say "You show me a tropical fruit, and I'll show you a cocksucker from Guatemala." No, wait... that wasn't her. That was a guy I met in the Army.
While the joke uses "fruit" as slang for gay as part of it, that isn't actually even the punchline, the wordplay is just a vehicle for it. The humor primarily hinges on the notion of a grade school teacher saying something that crass (the second part specifically) to a child, coupled with the implication that it was something she said more than once ("used to say" instead of "said").
Then he realizes it was some grunt who was in the Army with him (who it'd make more sense to say something crass/uncouth like that), which adds another element of humor in 'how could he possibly mix those two people up?'. If anything, that hypothetical Army guy is being laughed at in part for the homophobic slur usage.
- JumpRemoved
the one where ross says a slur
99.55%
The specificity of this made me imagine that you had actually taken inventory of every single time you've encountered this in your personal life experience and done the math, lol.
- JumpRemoved
intersectionality forever
It's not ironic at all. If someone steals X, it's not ironic for them to not want that X stolen from them; it actually aligns perfectly with their previous mindset: 'I want to have this'.
- JumpRemoved
intersectionality forever
Ignoring key issues of discrimination of marginalised peoples
This is like saying that someone wanting to end all poverty is ignoring and discriminating against the single poorest person.
Stop acting like these things are zero-sum. It takes no extra effort to speak out against all instances of an injustice, compared to doing so only for certain instances of that injustice.
Being deceived by the party into thinking a certain thing (tariffs) would have a different effect than it would actually have, in fact disqualifies the situation from LAMF.
Think about the 'template'. There is zero ambiguity/deception about "eating faces", the person voting for the "leopards eating faces party" expects face eating, and that is exactly what happens. What they don't expect is for the eating to happen to them, too. And a major element of LAMF is that the assumption that the face-eating will happen to others and not them is something that the voter fabricates from whole cloth, all on their own. The "leopards eating faces party" doesn't ever say or do a thing to imply they're only targeting certain faces.
Firstly, rule #3, this isn't a "high-quality source". It's a blog that's apparently been caught pretending to be The Daily Wire on Reddit by posting under an account named "dailywiire" (example). The first link in the article, in the text "reporting total liabilities", you'd expect to link to a primary source about the bankruptcy, but it just links to a completely unrelated other article on the same website.
Dug a bit more, and oh look, it's completely ripped off of an article from last October from a completely different source.
Secondly, this isn't even LAMF, as the primary thing negatively affecting him here is tariffs, and there's no evidence he was ever in favor of them. In fact, the article implies the literal opposite:
In a 2020 BRAIN article, Lupton-Smith explained that EBC could not compete on price with Asian-made e-bikes, so he aimed to create customizable bikes with as much U.S.-made content as possible to reduce tariff exposure.
For LAMF, the party you voted for must actually do the thing you explicitly supported them promising to do, with the crux being that you incorrectly expected/assumed the thing to be done to others and not you. If, for example, you voted for Trump because of his promises to bring down prices of groceries, and then he wins and grocery prices instead go up, and you're complaining about those prices going up, that's not LAMF, at all.
You're welcome!
Why miss the opportunity to say “bigly,”
Because the goal isn't to sound stupid?
The quad 'rest of the fire' images, lol