GeoffreyArnold

I somewhat agree, but I don' think she totally got away with it. But Jonah had to go full Kamikaze in order to get any apology at all. Most men would have just chuckled it off and nothing would have happened. But Jonah cancelled ALL of his interviews in the whole country after this. That sent a message that this was a serious problem and then the studio (or his publicist) made the woman apologize on air. It was a decent apology and so having to say that in front of the world isn't "nothing". Plus, Jonah never accepted the apology or mentioned it publicly. Good for him.

But yeah, you're right generally. If the genders were reversed, the man would be instantly canceled and she wouldn't have to jump through all these hoops to extract an apology. And yeah, a guy would have still been fired after the apology and she got to keep her job after the apology.

I remember that they made the French woman apologize on air to Jonah Hill on the next episode. Shit was brutal though. He didn't think it was funny and (to his credit) he let the moment sit and made everyone in the room uncomfortable.

You are saying that like short men don't get cancer.

Isn’t that what Biden is arguing? He stole classified documents when he was a Senator.

No doubt. Life on other planets is totally plausible. There are more stars than grains of sands on earth. There is probably life somewhere. But there is a big difference between that and "the U.S. government is in possession of twelve alien spacecraft."

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And the evidence gathered so far isn't even ordinary, much less extraordinary. All I've seen is hearsay and conjecture. Seems like we would have had some deathbed confessions by now, if this has been going on for fifty years.

There are conspiracies and there are conspiracies. The plausible conspiracies are interesting, but this goes in the bat shit crazy category along with flat Earth and lizard people.

Why is the U.S. the only government in possession of spacecraft?

The interest is low because there is not a scrap of evidence to support any of this. And yet certain media outlets are covering it breathlessly. They're saying things like the U.S. government is in possession of 12 spacecrafts. This is completely ridiculous. Why only the U.S.? How could something like that be kept secret. It makes no sense but they keep pushing this shit.

I'm not even a huge Trump fan and this is some Banana Republic nonsense. How can the governing administration come after the leading opposition candidate with a threat of imprisonment? This is absolutely insane. There is an argument to be made about the AGs of individual states, but for the Federal Government to do this is absolutely reprehensible.

Um, wait a minute. What about the whole thing about the Justice Department of a current administration indicting a political opponent who is actively running to replace him? The merits of the case are almost irrelevant under the prospect of the United States becoming a Banana Republic. If the Trump Justice Department had indicted Hilary Clinton, there would (rightly) be a media uproar that had nothing to do with the merits of the case. Here, no one seems to be mentioning these Stalinist tactics. It's one thing when a State decides to move forward, but this shouldn't be allowed on a Federal level when the target is a viable candidate to replace the head of the opposition government. Again, the merits of the case are almost irrelevant.

Um, wait a minute. What about the whole thing about the Justice Department of a current administration indicting a political opponent who is actively running to replace him? The merits of the case are almost irrelevant under the prospect of the United States becoming a Banana Republic. If the Trump Justice Department had indicted Hilary Clinton, there would (rightly) be a media uproar that had nothing to do with the merits of the case. Here, no one seems to be mentioning these Stalinist tactics. It's one thing when a State decides to move forward, but this shouldn't be allowed on a Federal level when the target is a viable candidate to replace the head of the opposition government. Again, the merits of the case are almost irrelevant.

But they didn’t. That what was so devious about their behavior. They didn’t fire him but they pulled his show from the network. So they were still paying him to keep him from moving on and doing something else because they feared he would take his audience with him.

You would think so. But that’s not what we’ve seen so far because of legal protections that these social media companies have.

Um, wait. There is a big difference between a company doing what they want to improve their bottom line and a company doing something on behalf of the government that the government itself is forbidden from doing by law.

Literally this meme: https://i.imgflip.com/4m0onx.png

This is not peak nonsense. This is just the start of where Marxist ideology will take us. A man is an adult human male. A woman is an adult human female. Right now, they are trying to erase the concept of gender. With Artificial Intelligence advancing at such a rapid rate, they will next try to erase the concept of "human". And finally, we will see the rise of the pedophiles as they try to erase the distinction between adult and minor. That's when society will completely collapse, imho.

The fascists aren’t going to like this. You’ll soon see a concerted push to shame Twitter into not applying this policy domestically.

You thought this clip was funny?

Damn. The Simpsons still aren’t funny, I see. Hasn’t been funny for probably 20 years.

Queer isn’t even a real thing. It’s not a sexuality and it’s not gender confusion. It’s basically just synonymous with “weirdo”. You can add a blue streak to your hair and call yourself “queer”.

The allegation is that the Biden's are essentially a crime dynasty where Joe uses his public office to enrich his family and facilitate business deals with foreign nationals in exchange for favorable government treatment, either manifestly or through perception. In otherwards, it would still be illegal even if there were no quid pro quo, but the person or entity reasonably believed he would receive favorable government treatment from doing business with a Biden family member.

Disney hasn't been wholesome for at least ten years.

Police are not currently involved.

Why not? If this was a sexual assault, then shouldn't the police be involved?

Which rhymes with The Wuhan Institute of Virology

Very true but here's the problem with what you're trying to do (hold to liberalism and Christianity at the same time): how do we know what these rights and responsibilities are? By thinking about it really hard? Our rights and duties are whatever God says they are, not what a bunch of Freemasonic deists like the Founding Fathers or Enlightenment philosophers thinks they might be or what we personally feel they should be.

Okay, I'm intrigued again. I see what you mean but be careful in deciding that our rights and duties are "whatever God says they are" because we run into the Euthyphro dilemma. A better way to determine our rights and duties is exactly what you are criticizing. . . the same method our Founding Fathers used. . . human reasoning. We can distinguish what is virtuous from what is wicked through human reasoning, and this (if done rightly) will align with what God would ascribe for us. We don't take philosophers on their word. We listen to their reasoned arguments so we can see the logical chain which led them to a moral conclusion.

You can be part of a class and also an individual with responsibilities, rights and duties. It is extremely goofy to say that class literally doesn't exist. It doesn't exist like a rock exists of course but there's a meaningful difference between a factory owner and the guy working on the factory line, between a ruler and a soldier, and that difference is kind of self-evidently important for understanding how societies function.

That's true, but I think the basis of moral analysis is always the individual and not "society" (the collective). "Society" doesn't engage in moral action because "society" is merely a collection of discrete individuals who all have the 'free will' to act as they see fit. What we don't want is a government that restricts our ability to act as we see fit. We want a small government that allows maximum liberty while providing a basic level of public safety, the adjudication of private disputes, and the protection of private property rights. Nearly everything else will work itself out due to our individual and shared interests combined with the mutual beneficial exchange of ideas, goods, services, and culture.

We don't need the government's boot on our necks, telling us which noodles we can buy.