Greatoneshere

Not surprised, just tired of it haha.

Except Trump never paid Michael Cohen, who was out $130,000 for paying Stormy Daniels on Trump's behalf, so even then he doesn't?

I'm more bothered by it's actual incorrectness. I keep thinking they are talking about some absurd third party. It's just asinine. But you are right, that's why they do it. I just wish they triggered me with facts, not stupidity. That'd actually be worth something.

The slur term "Democrat" is so fucking tiring from Republicans and Trump. It's the Democratic party you fucking idiots, not the Democrat party. Just a small pet peeve of mine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)

Yep, I remember when that happened and I was like: "this is ridiculous". Now here we are, finding out there were NDA's actually made, when everyone knew from the start they were unenforceable and only existed to placate Trump. Waste of government resources and creating false power, WOOOOOO.

Someone who isn't Trump must be paying, because Trump pays no one.

I was genuinely just checking since you posted that directly under my post in this thread was all.

If this is directed at me specifically, I think you're truly missing what I'm saying then, perhaps blinded by the issue, I don't know. Because I certainly don't feel what you're saying.

But I didn't say I approve of what James Gunn or Samantha Bee did. There's no "rationalizing" on my part here. They aren't analogous situations. They all may be on the same spectrum or sliding scale, but they are far enough apart from one another to not be exactly analogous to one another, that's all I'm saying. I wasn't making my personal stance on Gunn, Bee, or Roseanne part of the argument. I'm saying you said because what I said about Gunn, then I must be implicitly agreeing to what Roseanne did too then. That's simply not true, given I believe they are entirely different free speech situations, which they are. How is a person on Twitter insulting a specific individual with a racial epithet the same as a bunch of bad jokes from years ago making fun of things Gunn himself very obviously doesn't do and doesn't believe in? Are they both reprehensible? Sure. To the same degree? No, not at all, thus: different situations. They aren't the same situation, so they do not inspire the same response. Free speech laws in this country are very, very context-based, and that's because few free speech situations are exactly the same. Stop trying to tell me I'm making an argument I simply am not making. I've said from the start that Gunn's jokes have always been (arguably, mind you), bad form. Sam Bee and Roseanne are also different situations. For emphasis: never said Gunn's "jokes" and blog posts and weird costume parties are totally okay! And that Roseanne is the devil. Stop working in binary absolutes given that we're dealing with a spectrum, not a black and white issue. If someone "on the left" said and did, in a vacuum, exactly the same thing Roseanne did, I'd have been all over it as I was the Roseanne Barr situation (which was: I didn't care much, but it was obviously bad and racist). But that isn't the case here, so the response is different from me.

Time to dump this friend.

I don't think you understood the substance of my post at all. What Roseanne did and what Gunn did are different. They are. In terms of intent and meaning (as well as timeline and their actions since then) they are entirely different examples and cannot be equated to one another. But you focused on the fact that I'm also distinguishing that James Gunn is just making some broad, bad, lazy jokes and Roseanne is directly attacking a specific person racially. That also makes them different, but let's not lose the forest for the trees here. The broader point is in their intent, meaning, and efficacy, Gunn's situation and Roseanne's situation are hardly alike. Roseanne and Sam Bee are nothing alike either, given Sam Bee is a comedian doing political speech on her show when she said "cunt" about a public, political figure and Roseanne was racially attacking someone on Twitter, not in her capacity as a comedian on her show Roseanne. Yes, those are also different from one another. And even their shows, Roseanne and Sam Bee's show, are nothing alike, so even if Roseanne did it on her show they'd still be different scenarios. Speech is so unique that almost every situation is not comparable to another situation. Sometimes, sure, but not here.

That's a false equivalency in this instance though. What they do has little bearing on the context of what is being discussed here, Gunn's tweets vs. Roseanne's. Intent and meaning behind the tweets determines the efficacy, not each person's overall profession. A non-comedian making a joking tweet and a comedian making a non-joking tweet isn't what matters. What matters is that in one context clearly it was off-color and bad but ultimately bad jokes, the other is a racist comment directed at a specific individual. Intent and meaning are what absolves Gunn and doesn't absolve Roseanne. Also aggregate evidence of everything following since then indicates the moral character of each individual enough to safely indict one person (Roseanne) and arguably exonerate another (Gunn).

I had the same thought but didn't want people feeling like I was calling out their marriages/relationships. My wife is open to pretty much anything and tries my anime, films, etc. We don't watch everything together, as I said, but we have a lot of the same interests, tastes, hobbies, etc. Obviously we got our own stuff too, but for two people not to overlap much when one if a huge film/TV fan? I can't fathom that heh.

To be fair, I don't think Roseanne was joking, and her all over the map rebuttals, defenses, and apologies shows that her and Gunn are not analogous situations at all.

Because we have to put up with racist fucking people, that's the whole goddamn issue. We have to do business with them, ask things of them, and interact with them. Trust me, we wish we didn't, but free speech etc. etc. What a fucking idiot.

It's like they all forgot the war crime they committed ripping children from their parents at the border, that these people not only let happen, but went to bat for as if it was legitimate policy. Same with the Muslim Ban. Certainly wouldn't be here. Get the fuck out.

Most definitely. And there are racial undertones to the comparison as well, as you know better than most heh. It's just so fucking flagrant. Ugh.

To be fair, Trump is already bridging that gap by calling Omarosa a dog, so I doubt we're far off. "Omarosa is a dog." *news comes out Trump fucked Omarosa* "It's okay to fuck dogs, so long as they look like humans" *news comes out Trump fucked an actual dog* "It's okay to fuck dogs." It's all patently ridiculous and horrible.

We can reasonably disagree if we think the window is shifting, but people like Ocasia-Cortez winning, and high percentages of candidates backed by progressive groups winning that wouldn't have had even a chance of winning even four years ago tells me that things are changing. Maybe it's justa drive towards "populist policies must be winners" group think, but either way things are changing, and that's a very positive thing in this shithole of a situation (Trump's favorite word to describe countries!). A healthy skepticism should be our default, so I understand not really believing much has changed, but I can say Medicare for All now to people and they don't at least laugh me right out of the room anymore because the facts are there, it can't just be ignored anymore. Our current system has made us think we don't deserve or can't have good things - that ideas like Medicare for All are ridiculous, like that insane Daily Caller "reporter" believed. But I think people are seeing now and waking up and going: if we just take control, we can set things that are best for everyone, as in us, like, the actual average American. We'll see but it is shifting I think.

It's not just possible, this is likely. I'm sure they'll throw shade Omarosa's way in the song too. Just for good sexist measure against women of their own race. To be clear, I think Omarosa deserves tons of criticism, just not from Kanye West and Ben Carson.

THINK OF THE FUCKING CIVILITY, WON'T YOU?

Current policy debates - lay people are hearing words like "medicare for all" and "college for all" for the first time. These messages are gaining traction - to the degree that right wing "sites" like The Daily Caller are feeling the need to address progressives' policy positions by going to Ocasia-Cortez rallies and stump speeches for others to "learn" about them. This is all new in terms of mainstream media news coverage of a long existing group. We haven't seen anything actually passed yet (beyond what you mentioned). This is the beginning of these things happening more openly and more often, hopefully.

Agreed. In fact, the conversation will probably become about how it should be okay for white people to say nigga or nigger in certain contexts. Like when Trump is talking about African countries being shitholes, probably, because he's discussing international events or some dipshit explanation.

It's suspect, but I'll live. The article itself is worth a read either way, I agree.

I have no problem with them saying the establishment is "winning", but the FiveThirtyEight headline (not the article headline, to be fair), says Establishment is beating Progressives. That's intentionally inflammatory language that isn't even per se true (they aren't even necessarily lionizing each other). The article headline is fine, I should have been clear, it's FiveThirtyEight's tweet. Aren't they supposed to not have a political bent?