There’s a famous saying that goes:
You can start a war whenever you want, but you cannot end that war whenever you want.
In other words, when you attack someone, the other one has a right to defend themselves. And they can defend themselves however the circumstances require it, and the attacker has no say in that. So, it is dangerous for the attacker.
Let me guess, charlie kirk sitting in public with a microphone was attacking and the guy sitting on a rooftop with a rifle was defending?
more people die through the pen than through the sword, yet it is the sword that we condemn.
I’m guessing you’re young(ish), straight, cishet, white, most likely Christian, and male. That’s about the only group that never felt attacked by Kirk.
With that logic, Hitler didn’t kill but their soldier are. So hitler is innocent?
He said that stoning gays to death is “God’s perfect law”. Yep I call that attacking.
Kirk made the remarks on his podcast [@1h2m] while attacking children’s YouTube star Ms. Rachel, who had quoted Leviticus to say that God urges Christians to “love thy neighbor,” including gay people.
“By the way, Ms. Rachel, you might want to crack open that Bible of yours. In a lesser reference, part of the same part of scripture, in Leviticus 18, is that ‘thou shall lay with another man shall be stoned to death.’ Just saying,” Kirk said.
“So, Ms. Rachel, you quote Leviticus 19, ‘love your neighbor as yourself,’ the chapter before affirms God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.”
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/maga-rages-stephen-king-over-120723372.html
Podcast link is in the story but set your VPN to USA if you are external.
Really crazy how little the censoring is too. Like how was the right crying about censorship just a few years ago to the point that they changed every websites rules. Now they’re getting people fired and making tip line to attack anyone saying anything and instead of rallying I see only a few places online making any noise about the censorship. Lots of jokes about Charlie but no real push at the fact these fuck heads are violating the freedom of speech Charlie supposedly fought for
“Cancel culture is wrong… except when it helps us.”
“States rights need to be protected… except when they get in our way.”
“The debt ceiling is sacrosanct… except when we’re in power.”
“The separation of church and state… only applies to non-Christian religions.”
“The establishment pedo-ring must be destroyed… except when one of our guys is at the center of it.”
“Political assassinations are intolerable… but not the ones that target our enemies, they are fine.”
The list goes on and on.
Crazy stuff, coming from a sexual predator.
He jerked himself off in front of a couple of women. It was defo inappropriate, but calling him a “predator” is fucking psychotic. Comparing him to rapists and predators like Weinstein or Diddy cheapens their crimes and invalidates the trauma they caused. It’s like equating a petty thief with a health insurance CEO, or Al Frankens’ “hover hands” to Trumps pedophilia and dozens of sexual assaults.
None of the hundreds of female comedians and actresses he’s worked with have ever said he treated them inappropriately.
I agree with your first part, your second part is wrong.
The ladies that made the accusations against him, which he confirmed were all true, were up-and-coming comedians.
They said because he was in a position of power they felt like they couldn’t say no to his request.
To his credit, he validated every woman that made an accusation. He also said he didn’t realize the women were saying yes because of the implication if they said no. I tend to believe his story because after the women came forward, he admitted what happened, and the allegations stopped, no one else came forward. That seems to me like a guy that used bad judgement and didn’t understand the power he had.
I think him taking a timeout, realizing that women have a whole different set of circumstances to deal with that guys don’t, and reflecting on that was warranted. I don’t think he needs to be shunned forever.
What a weird fucking thing to jump so quickly to defend…
Don’t make excuses for this man. He used his power over, as a successful comedian with a lot of control in the industry, to force sexual acts on unwilling women who feared for their careers. Then tried to justify it on a technicality. It’s creepy, it’s psychotic, and he should be on a list for it.
It would be adjacent to a prison guard dropping trow and making the inmates in his care watch him jerk off to them, their bodies, their presence. The guard in that scenario shouldn’t keep his job either. Or should he? He didn’t touch them right? He only touched himself, right? So that guard should keep his job, by your logic.
Louis had power over. Maybe not the same kind of power over but it was power. And he used it, and them, in a foul manner deserving of dismissal and possibly litigation.
It certainly puts his bit about men being the scariest thing for women in the dating world into perspective.
Was he a predator? Thought he was just a creep
Depends on how you define your words. He consentually jerked off in front of female colleagues. He did not realize his position of power and tried to make things right. If this full fills your definition of predator than yes.
Yea that doesn’t. He’s just a creep. Even then barely a creep just an old guy being a pervert.
His comedy is still good, but so is Cosby’s. It can just never be enjoyed again unless you’re willingly really, really ignorant.
I suspect OP is either that or just innocently unaware.
Eeeh, he’s closer to how you want that situation to go than Cosby, by far.
He asked permission to touch himself in front of someone else, and only proceeded when he had their consent.
Turns out that consent between people earlier in their careers and someone more established can be tricky, to say the least.https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-41950043
What he did wasn’t violent, just ignorant to power dynamics. What he did wasn’t okay, but it’s far from drugging people.
Wasn’t comparing the two.
Don’t really feel like having to reiterate in the topic either and it’s certainly not the place for it. But as I implied, most are already well aware of what you just said; some are not.
So,here is a meme…
… You directly compared the two of them, but okay.
It’s a really odd product comparison that totally distracted me from the product.
You directly compared the two of them, but okay.
Covered this hypothetical in another comment, just didn’t think it’d actually happen…
“Fruit.”
“DID YOU JUST COMPARE APPLES AND ORANGES!!! You directly compared the two of them!!!”
Nah, mate. There was no comparison here.
There was no consideration of one to the other; which is more, which is less, what the differences are and which one you should pick if you remember to like and subscribe. Perhaps the definition of “compare” changed this week, I don’t know or care.
Enjoy the day. Just let it go.
Here’s another meme…
… “Apples can go bad, but so can oranges” is literally comparison.
the representing of one thing or person as similar to or like another.
You didn’t have to argue about the meaning of the word comparison if you didn’t care. If you’re going to argue at someone, don’t tell them to stop responding. It conveys a weird energy of “I care enough to respond, but not enough to read a response”.
My day is going great. I got the day off and good leftovers for lunch, and now I’m just playing games and relaxing.
Here’s a bewildering product image for the leading brand of rabies vaccine in the US:
A friend woke up to a bat freaking out in their bedroom. We told him to go to the doctor, who said that he almost certainly didn’t have a rabies risk because the bat seemed fine, he had no visible bites, and most bats here don’t bite, buuut the “certainty of a slow and painful death” compared to “low risk moderate discomfort rabies vaccine series” means they recommend it anyway. To cheer him up we shared the terrible website design of the manufacturer. Seems people aren’t looking for the hip new thing when they’re looking for rabies vaccine.
Why are we posting sexual predator pricks?
