Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 46

Thread: Samantha Bee calling Ivanka Trump a C**t

  1. #21
    What? KingofCretins's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Big Honkin' Castle
    Posts
    13,712
    Thanks
    234
    Thanked 3,901 Times in 1,841 Posts

    Default

    TBS pulled the ep, presumably, because it offends basic notions of decency and civility. Every Bee episode is front to back critical of the administration, so if they were moving to censor that, it would probably look like TBS had gotten the Infinity Gauntlet.

    Banner by LRae12

  2. #22
    Scooby Gang GoSpuffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    793
    Thanks
    2,060
    Thanked 1,938 Times in 908 Posts

    Default

    This world makes no sense. Roseannes show is cancelled because of a racist tweet yet the Cosby show is still viewable in reruns after a rape conviction. Trump has made a million more offensive comments than Samantha bee but he is president. Joss whedon known for his feminist storytelling is just another casting couch dick. Someone wake me when it all makes sense.


    I like who I am when Im with him. I like who we are together.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to GoSpuffy For This Useful Post:

    Priceless (03-06-18)

  4. #23
    Well Spiked Stoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Blighty
    Posts
    8,042
    Thanks
    10,940
    Thanked 12,957 Times in 5,386 Posts

    Default

    I don't think Joss has been accused of using his position of authority in a casting couch type scenario.

  5. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Stoney For This Useful Post:

    bespangled (03-06-18),Silver1 (03-06-18),TimeTravellingBunny (03-06-18)

  6. #24
    Library Researcher DeepBlueJoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Someplace... usually.
    Posts
    285
    Thanks
    770
    Thanked 621 Times in 265 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GoSpuffy View Post
    This world makes no sense. Roseannes show is cancelled because of a racist tweet yet the Cosby show is still viewable in reruns after a rape conviction. Trump has made a million more offensive comments than Samantha bee but he is president. Joss whedon known for his feminist storytelling is just another casting couch dick. Someone wake me when it all makes sense.
    Actually, it was available on old time TV around here (forget the channel) but hasn't been since the whole thing went to court. This is sad for the other actors, but understandable. Who wants to watch the friendly neighborhood rapist? I spy (a less popular show) has been off pretty much since that comedian went after him, which was a while back.

    I wish there was a way that all Cosby's residual profits could be attached by the plaintiffs, so that any moneys from rebroadcasts could go to the actors who are now being hurt by not getting residuals, and to his victims, who would get Cosby's share and we could watch in piece, knowing that good was being done, though it would be kind of pennywise good.

    Also, there's a difference between in production and out of production shows.

    A show in production is money the networks have to spend and time they have to stay in bed with an unknown and unpleasant quantity. I bet if Cosby had been in production it would have been cancelled also. At this point, it's in the rear view. All the residuals go to all the involved parties, but the huge 'per episode acting payments' to Cosby are long since done as are production costs and marketing risks. Rosanne was getting her per episode feedings.

    Shows in production cost money to the network.
    Shows that are in syndication make money for the network and any parties that are contractually owed residuals (which can often include many minor actors who never made a life as actors)

    So, the Cosby show being off actually hurts all the rest of the involved parties who are owed residuals, but doesn't really hurt Cosby that much, considering how rich he is (supposedly).

    The Rosanne show hurts everyone by being canceled, but people who are still working can probably get another show (maybe even a reworked 'dead roseanne' show of some kind -- look at what happened with Charlie Sheen!)

    The cancellation is most beneficial to the production side, as they don't have to deal with the strong possibility they are making something no one will watch and advertisers won't pay for. It eliminates risk. The OLD Roseanne show is probably still going to be watched in syndication somewhere, just like eventually, the Cosby show will be watched. I'm sure people will still buy the DVDs or stream it if they like the shows, probably especially after he's dead and people who weren't around now just think 'cool old show', without a visceral need to vomit every time he smiles or touches a female cast member.

    Bottom line: If even a few people watch Cosby (or Roseanne) in syndication, money is made by all, b/c there's no costs left to recoup. There's no risk in it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Stoney View Post
    I don't think Joss has been accused of using his position of authority in a casting couch type scenario.
    Nope, just a womanizer. Sleazeoid. Creep. But not a rapist; not that I've heard. Still glad he's not ON camera. Because he's not the face of the shows, SMG and DB are of BtVS and Angel respectively. And I haven't heard much about them, though DB was once a 'naughty' boy, but I really don't care about people's sex lives if it's consensual and doesn't involve me personally!

  7. #25
    Slayer TimeTravellingBunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,771
    Thanks
    5,558
    Thanked 4,701 Times in 2,220 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeepBlueJoy View Post
    Nope, just a womanizer. Sleazeoid. Creep. But not a rapist; not that I've heard. Still glad he's not ON camera. Because he's not the face of the shows, SMG and DB are of BtVS and Angel respectively. And I haven't heard much about them, though DB was once a 'naughty' boy, but I really don't care about people's sex lives if it's consensual and doesn't involve me personally!
    Both DB and JW cheated on their wives and had affairs with their co-workers (as, I'm sure, many people in Hollywood do). Why is DB better and "more suitable" to be the face of the shows? I'm confused why Whedon is a "sleezoid" and "creep" but Boreanaz is just a "naughty boy" for the same thing?

    People having consensual sex is of no concern to me, either, which is why I'm confused as to all the brouhaha over Whedon. And I'm certainly hoping that the media and social media won't start analyzing every creator and actor's personal lives to decide if their shows are suitable to air based on whether they have been faithful to their significant others. That sounds like American puritanism going back into vogue full force (if it hasn't always been there). Only now people are coating it supposed "feminism", which makes no sense. If a man cheating on his wife with other women is anti-feminist, should be also condemn women who cheat on their husbands as misandrist? What if someone is in a same sex relationship and a man cheats on his husband/boyfriend, is he misandrist? Is a woman who cheats on her wife/girlfriend misogynistic and anti-feminist? Does it also depend on who they're cheating with?
    You keep waiting for the dust to settle and then you realize it; the dust is your life going on. If happy comes along - that weird unbearable delight that's actual happy - I think you have to grab it while you can. You take what you can get, 'cause it's here, and then...gone.

  8. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to TimeTravellingBunny For This Useful Post:

    Alce (04-06-18),bespangled (03-06-18),Silver1 (03-06-18),Stoney (03-06-18),TriBel (03-06-18)

  9. #26
    Library Researcher DeepBlueJoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Someplace... usually.
    Posts
    285
    Thanks
    770
    Thanked 621 Times in 265 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TimeTravellingBunny View Post
    Both DB and JW cheated on their wives and had affairs with their co-workers (as, I'm sure, many people in Hollywood do). Why is DB better and "more suitable" to be the face of the shows? I'm confused why Whedon is a "sleezoid" and "creep" but Boreanaz is just a "naughty boy" for the same thing?

    People having consensual sex is of no concern to me, either, which is why I'm confused as to all the brouhaha over Whedon. And I'm certainly hoping that the media and social media won't start analyzing every creator and actor's personal lives to decide if their shows are suitable to air based on whether they have been faithful to their significant others. That sounds like American puritanism going back into vogue full force (if it hasn't always been there). Only now people are coating it supposed "feminism", which makes no sense. If a man cheating on his wife with other women is anti-feminist, should be also condemn women who cheat on their husbands as misandrist? What if someone is in a same sex relationship and a man cheats on his husband/boyfriend, is he misandrist? Is a woman who cheats on her wife/girlfriend misogynistic and anti-feminist? Does it also depend on who they're cheating with?
    PLEASE IGNORE WHAT I WROTE ABOUT BOREANAZ. IN LIGHT OF NEW INFORMATION, i NO LONGER BELIEVE HE DESERVES TO BE TREATED ANY DIFFERENTLY THAN ANY OTHER OFFENDER

    Because, a) DB never claims to be a feminist icon. b) he is repentant and apologetic c) he never had a power differential with people who were potential partners, which while it may not rise to coercion in Joss' case, makes his behavior potentially more sinister.

    I think people who cheat on commitments they make are sleaze. Terminology is up to you. If you agree to an open relationship, it's absolutely fine (I personally never would, b/c that's not how i am wired, but...) I believe people should commit to NOT hurt those who are their intimate partners, gender immaterial. I had two friends who were both bisexual (one male, one female) who fell in love. They had different ideas about commitment, however. He had found the love of his life and didn't want to stray, not even to get the 'other flavor', though he never stopped being attracted to both genders. She felt entitled and wanted an 'out' to have affairs with women as well as being married (something she seemed to have assumed, rather than discussing it with him beforehand). It was a horrible situation. Both relapsed (they were recovering addicts), his life came apart completely, and no, the marriage did not recover. IMO, they should never have married. People need to know what they're committing to and what they are HONESTLY willing to commit to.

    Cheating is non-consensual sex... for the person who doesn't consent to be part of a three or more way relationship. Since in today's world, you bring all your partners with you, if you screw around without prior agreement, you are risking your partner's life without their consent, not just their heart. Therefore, it is ALWAYS a violation of that person. If you cannot commit to fidelity, do not promise it.
    Last edited by DeepBlueJoy; 03-06-18 at 10:21 PM. Reason: NEW INFORMATION

  10. #27
    Slayer TimeTravellingBunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,771
    Thanks
    5,558
    Thanked 4,701 Times in 2,220 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeepBlueJoy View Post

    Cheating is non-consensual sex...
    for the person who doesn't consent to be part of a three or more way relationship. Since in today's world, you bring all your partners with you, if you screw around without prior agreement, you are risking your partner's life without their consent, not just their heart. Therefore, it is ALWAYS a violation of that person. If you cannot commit to fidelity, do not promise it.
    Sorry, that makes no sense whatsoever. Those are some really weird mental gymnastics going on. When you're having sex, you're only having sex with that person, not with whoever else.

    Are we really at the point where people are going to be branded with "A" or publicly flogged and maybe it's even going to be OK to kill your spouse for adultery, under the pretense that cheating on you somehow equals raping you?

    In my country, the no 1 issue that feminist organizations are dealing with has, for years, been domestic violence. Including an alarming number of women killed by their spouses, partners and ex-partners. A lot of the time the motive is cited as jealousy. I guess now, going by this brave new logic where cheating = rape, it can be justified: "she raped him by sleeping with another man (?!), he was just killing his rapist". Right?

    I guess the only thing wrong with the old puritanism was that it wasn't gender equal enough, but otherwise - awesome. Yeah, let's also institute "adultery" as a crime punishable by prison, why not? Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if USA did that, it's always had this puritanical streak.
    You keep waiting for the dust to settle and then you realize it; the dust is your life going on. If happy comes along - that weird unbearable delight that's actual happy - I think you have to grab it while you can. You take what you can get, 'cause it's here, and then...gone.

  11. #28
    Library Researcher DeepBlueJoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Someplace... usually.
    Posts
    285
    Thanks
    770
    Thanked 621 Times in 265 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TimeTravellingBunny View Post
    Sorry, that makes no sense whatsoever. Those are some really weird mental gymnastics going on. When you're having sex, you're only having sex with that person, not with whoever else.

    Are we really at the point where people are going to be branded with "A" or publicly flogged and maybe it's even going to be OK to kill your spouse for adultery, under the pretense that cheating on you somehow equals raping you?

    In my country, the no 1 issue that feminist organizations are dealing with has, for years, been domestic violence. Including an alarming number of women killed by their spouses, partners and ex-partners. A lot of the time the motive is cited as jealousy. I guess now, going by this brave new logic where cheating = rape, it can be justified: "she raped him by sleeping with another man (?!), he was just killing his rapist". Right?

    I guess the only thing wrong with the old puritanism was that it wasn't gender equal enough, but otherwise - awesome. Yeah, let's also institute "adultery" as a crime punishable by prison, why not? Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if USA did that, it's always had this puritanical streak.
    The 'you're only having sex with one person' business is old tech. Ever since they invented this new thing called AIDS... and Herpes and cancers transmitted by germs that get shared around, you are having sex with EVERYONE your partner ever had sex with. You won't get the pleasure (or lack thereof) of it, but you will often bear DIRECT consequences. So, if you haven't consented to them having sex with someone else (and passing on the HIV they get), they have killed you -- and you didn't even agree to the behavior that led to your death. If I die of sex, it should be because I choose, knowingly to have sex. Not because the person I have TRUSTED to not violate me, gives me a death sentence because he or she can't keep their pants on.

    No, you cannot rape by proxy, but in an odd little twist, you can MURDER by proxy. Ask any faithful wife or husband whose partner gave them HIV about that, but do hurry, they might be dead if you wait.

    Aint nothin' puritanical about dyin'.

  12. #29
    Graveyard Patrol HowiMetdaSlayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    oHIo
    Posts
    315
    Thanks
    225
    Thanked 537 Times in 271 Posts

    Default

    Pretty much agree with the sentiment of what Miss B said, but she certainly could've found a better way of saying it.

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to HowiMetdaSlayer For This Useful Post:

    Priceless (04-06-18),Silver1 (03-06-18)

  14. #30
    Scooby Gang bespangled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    756
    Thanks
    1,671
    Thanked 1,999 Times in 767 Posts

    Default

    Boreanaz was sued by an aspiring actress who'd had a small role in Bones. She claimed he had given her a ride home - stopped in the park, promised he could get her great roles, then pulled out his joy stick. When she refused to give him a bj, he whacked off in front of her, then dropped her off and left. This is the women he said was blackmailing him - and he characterized this as a consensual event. He had been accused of this more than once by other women. Given that Boreanaz is known for taking great pride in his manly equipment, gotta say I can see it happening. It's well documented that he was known for dropping his pants and exposing his junk on set to see if he could get other actors to break concentration.

    Having to work with a lead actor who is constantly flashing his genitals is a pretty good definition of working in a hostile workplace. Having that same actor promise fame and fortune in return for oral sex shows a lack of character that I find reprehensible. Dismissing this as a naughty boy phase is flagrantly apologist. It plays perfectly into the narrative of abusers outgrowing abuse.

    Joss Whedon and Kai were separated in 2012, and divorced in 2016. In 2017 she accused him of being unfaithful, including emotional (meaning close consensual non sexual relationships) and sexual affairs with other women. Since then - despite the #metoo movement that has brought down many abusive men in all aspects of film and television - not one woman has come forward to complain that she felt pressured to have sex. No one has complained about any sort of casting couch situation, and no one has complained about feeling used and discarded. I'm not saying Joss was faithful to his marriage vows, but absent a complaint by any victim I have to say that any relationships were mutual and consensual.

    I have to add that Kai Cole posted her missive 5 years after she and her husband had separated, and a year after their divorce - though she knew about it earlier. Despite the fact that their children were 14 and 12 years old she decided to go internationally public in order to ruin his reputation - and I can't imagine the repercussions those kids have and will continue to deal with. When one parent waits five years to go off the rails, they also have an agenda that should be examined. In Kai's case, she wanted full custody of both children. As a teacher I have seen how this sort of ugly fighting creates permanent scars in kids. So while I don't approve of Whedon's affairs ( no problem with his close friendships with women - emotional affairs?), I gotta say Kai's self centered narcissism is equally troubling. Good parents work together to protect their children from harm. Kai betrayed her kids just as surely as Joss betrayed his wedding vows.
    Can we agree that the writers made everyone do and say everything with a thought to getting good ratings and being renewed. This includes everything we love as well as everything we hate.

  15. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to bespangled For This Useful Post:

    Alce (04-06-18),Silver1 (03-06-18),SpuffyGlitz (04-06-18),Stoney (03-06-18),TimeTravellingBunny (03-06-18),TriBel (04-06-18)

  16. #31
    Library Researcher DeepBlueJoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Someplace... usually.
    Posts
    285
    Thanks
    770
    Thanked 621 Times in 265 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bespangled View Post
    Boreanaz was sued by an aspiring actress who'd had a small role in Bones. She claimed he had given her a ride home - stopped in the park, promised he could get her great roles, then pulled out his joy stick. When she refused to give him a bj, he whacked off in front of her, then dropped her off and left. This is the women he said was blackmailing him - and he characterized this as a consensual event. He had been accused of this more than once by other women. Given that Boreanaz is known for taking great pride in his manly equipment, gotta say I can see it happening. It's well documented that he was known for dropping his pants and exposing his junk on set to see if he could get other actors to break concentration.

    Having to work with a lead actor who is constantly flashing his genitals is a pretty good definition of working in a hostile workplace. Having that same actor promise fame and fortune in return for oral sex shows a lack of character that I find reprehensible. Dismissing this as a naughty boy phase is flagrantly apologist. It plays perfectly into the narrative of abusers outgrowing abuse.

    Joss Whedon and Kai were separated in 2012, and divorced in 2016. In 2017 she accused him of being unfaithful, including emotional (meaning close consensual non sexual relationships) and sexual affairs with other women. Since then - despite the #metoo movement that has brought down many abusive men in all aspects of film and television - not one woman has come forward to complain that she felt pressured to have sex. No one has complained about any sort of casting couch situation, and no one has complained about feeling used and discarded. I'm not saying Joss was faithful to his marriage vows, but absent a complaint by any victim I have to say that any relationships were mutual and consensual.

    I have to add that Kai Cole posted her missive 5 years after she and her husband had separated, and a year after their divorce - though she knew about it earlier. Despite the fact that their children were 14 and 12 years old she decided to go internationally public in order to ruin his reputation - and I can't imagine the repercussions those kids have and will continue to deal with. When one parent waits five years to go off the rails, they also have an agenda that should be examined. In Kai's case, she wanted full custody of both children. As a teacher I have seen how this sort of ugly fighting creates permanent scars in kids. So while I don't approve of Whedon's affairs ( no problem with his close friendships with women - emotional affairs?), I gotta say Kai's self centered narcissism is equally troubling. Good parents work together to protect their children from harm. Kai betrayed her kids just as surely as Joss betrayed his wedding vows.

    I couldn't agree more with you about all you said. And if DB did the things you said he did, he's an A*** and I have no respect for him. I stand corrected!

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by HowiMetdaSlayer View Post
    Pretty much agree with the sentiment of what Miss B said, but she certainly could've found a better way of saying it.
    You mean Samantha Bee, the original topic of this thread? Yes, you can speak truth in such a way that you hurt your own argument and even your entire side. Sucks.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to DeepBlueJoy For This Useful Post:

    bespangled (03-06-18)

  18. #32
    What? KingofCretins's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Big Honkin' Castle
    Posts
    13,712
    Thanks
    234
    Thanked 3,901 Times in 1,841 Posts

    Default

    I find it fascinating that we've had to invent new moral language to describe what is wrong with infidelity, since while we've abandoned as western civilization the notion that there is a moral norm that favors sexual propriety of any kind, let alone monogamy or marriage, we are much more keenly invested in all possible extensions of the notion of sexual consent even outside where it might be intuitive. No, it's non-consensual sex when a husband uses his workplace as an opportunity to cheat on his wife, it's just a cheating SOB being a cheating SOB. Those are sufficient conceptual terms on which to condemn it.

    Banner by LRae12

  19. #33
    Library Researcher DeepBlueJoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Someplace... usually.
    Posts
    285
    Thanks
    770
    Thanked 621 Times in 265 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    I find it fascinating that we've had to invent new moral language to describe what is wrong with infidelity, since while we've abandoned as western civilization the notion that there is a moral norm that favors sexual propriety of any kind, let alone monogamy or marriage, we are much more keenly invested in all possible extensions of the notion of sexual consent even outside where it might be intuitive. No, it's non-consensual sex when a husband uses his workplace as an opportunity to cheat on his wife, it's just a cheating SOB being a cheating SOB. Those are sufficient conceptual terms on which to condemn it.
    Oh, I have no problem calling it wrong, immoral, destructive and idiotic. What I was trying to get at, with less than perfect terminology, is that in addition to being a cheating bastard, the cheating spouse can also murder his/her spouse with his behavior. And I do mean MURDER not, just 'kill' or infect, b/c if you deliberately and with forethought cheat, you are deliberately and recklessly endangering them. If I fire off a weapon indiscriminately, the state can charge me with murder. So why not if I fire off my genitalia? When I say it's non-consensual for the other person, I mean, they have no control over being infected. The world got a whole lot more dangerous after HIV became widespread and anyone who cheats potentially puts his/her partner at risk of death. Before it was 'just' immoral and destructive. Now it's also in my opinion, reckless endangerment. Depraved indifference to life... all those things that usually mean you should go to jail.

    But if you want me to get moralistic in here, I can do! I'm pentecostal! I am open minded and want other people to live their lives how they wish, and I believe my morality stops at the tips of my own fingers, so what other people do is on them... if said 'other people' don't like to use 'western norms' or whatever the heck we want to call them right at the moment, that's their prerogative. If they and their partners agree to something unconventional, that is between them. But cheating -- where one partner does NOT agree... It's still wrong and will always be wrong.

    I pretty much have no use for cheats. And I have no trouble saying cheating is just plain... immoral.

  20. #34
    Slayer TimeTravellingBunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,771
    Thanks
    5,558
    Thanked 4,701 Times in 2,220 Posts

    Default

    ^ Uuum...you know how there are these things called condoms that a lot of people use during sex?

    Call me crazy, but,say if a person is cheating on their significant other with just one partner over a longer period of time , that's a pretty low probability of contracting HIV to begin with - even without the fact that a lot of people tend to use condoms.

    If you're going to ignore the existence of condoms - there is a greater statistical probability in contracting HIV and transmitting it if you have a higher number of shorter relationships but you never cheat, than if you're having regular sex with just two people over a longer period of time but you're cheating on one with the other. And still, we don't expect people to immediately report their entire sexual history, or at least the recent one, to every potential new sexual partner - under the accusation that they're otherwise trying to "murder" them - do we? At least I hope we don't...

    This argument that it's specifically cheating that somehow carries a higher HIV risk defies logic, I'm afraid. Viruses don't care about morality.
    You keep waiting for the dust to settle and then you realize it; the dust is your life going on. If happy comes along - that weird unbearable delight that's actual happy - I think you have to grab it while you can. You take what you can get, 'cause it's here, and then...gone.

  21. #35
    Slayer Supporter vampmogs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    12,638
    Thanks
    1,985
    Thanked 8,885 Times in 2,702 Posts

    Default

    I must admit, being from Australia, it's mildly amusing that calling someone a c**t causes such a hoopla in the US when that word is such an everyday part of our vocabulary over here and, much like Ireland, is actually most often used as a term of endearment. However, in this case it obviously wasn't intended to be a term of endearment and, honestly, considering Ivanka Trump is part of a vile racist pos family/administration (is there even any difference between them at this point?) that she in no way has distanced herself from and actually immersed herself in, calling her a c**t doesn't even begin to cover it. As far as I'm concerned, she got off easy. She's a lot, lot worse.

    Trump's a vile racist scumbag. Ivanka is a vile racist scumbag. Calling them "c**nts" doesn't even do justice to what that family really are. And I find it laughable that they of all people try and stir up this sentiment that Samantha Bee somehow crossed a line when ever since they were on the campaign trail they've bullied, harassed and insulted people on social media/TV (and long before that to) and apparently are more concerned about things said about them then what's being said about others by, oh, say, celebs like Roseanne, who Trump was very happy to endorse, when she makes disgusting racist comments on Twitter. Did I miss their tweet condemning her for referring to a black woman as an ape? Yeah, didn't think so.
    Last edited by vampmogs; 04-06-18 at 11:51 AM.
    - "The earth is doomed" -


  22. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to vampmogs For This Useful Post:

    bespangled (05-06-18),Silver1 (04-06-18),SpuffyGlitz (29-10-18),TriBel (04-06-18)

  23. #36
    Library Researcher DeepBlueJoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Someplace... usually.
    Posts
    285
    Thanks
    770
    Thanked 621 Times in 265 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vampmogs View Post
    I must admit, being from Australia, it's mildly amusing that calling someone a c**t causes such a hoopla in the US when that word is such an everyday part of our vocabulary over here and, much like Ireland, is actually most often used as a term of endearment. However, in this case it obviously wasn't intended to be a term of endearment and, honestly, considering Ivanka Trump is part of a vile racist pos family/administration (is there even any difference between them at this point?) that she in no way has distanced herself from and actually immersed herself in, calling her a c**t doesn't even begin to cover it. As far as I'm concerned, she got off easy. She's a lot, lot worse.

    Trump's a vile racist scumbag. Ivanka is a vile racist scumbag. Calling them "c**nts" doesn't even do justice to what that family really are. And I find it laughable that they of all people try and stir up this sentiment that Samantha Bee somehow crossed a line when ever since they were on the campaign trail they've bullied, harassed and insulted people on social media/TV (and long before that to) and apparently are more concerned about things said about them then what's being said about others by, oh, say, celebs like Roseanne, who Trump was very happy to endorse, when she makes disgusting racist comments on Twitter. Did I miss their tweet condemning her for referring to a black woman as an ape? Yeah, didn't think so.
    It is ironic. The thing is the word isn't used here that much and PUBLIC language is more circumspect than in your country from the sound of it, so S Bee callin' a spade a spade means she is using language no one else uses in polite company (except "shock jocks" and a woman has never gotten away with that. Rosanne is the person who probably came closest, and you know how that ended!) Point is that Bee gave the enemy rope to hang her with. Not that Bee was incorrect.
    Last edited by DeepBlueJoy; 05-06-18 at 02:37 AM.

  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DeepBlueJoy For This Useful Post:

    bespangled (05-06-18),Silver1 (04-06-18),vampmogs (04-06-18)

  25. #37
    Slayer Supporter vampmogs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    12,638
    Thanks
    1,985
    Thanked 8,885 Times in 2,702 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeepBlueJoy View Post
    Point is that Bee gave the enemy rope to hang her with. Not that Bee was incorrect.
    This is true but people need to stop letting it happen. It's beyond hypocritical for any Trump supporter to criticise Samantha Bee for her use of this language whilst supporting a guy who is not only on record of saying horrible and offensive things about people regularly, and for years, but who has said blatantly racist things as well. They have no leg to stand on and people need to stop even entertaining it.

    But as usual, we know who the real "snowflakes" are. The same people who tell minorities and persecuted people to "get over it", "take a joke" and "stop being offended by everything" are always the thin-skinned morons who can't handle it back.
    - "The earth is doomed" -


  26. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to vampmogs For This Useful Post:

    bespangled (05-06-18),DeepBlueJoy (04-06-18),Silver1 (04-06-18),SpuffyGlitz (29-10-18),TriBel (04-06-18)

  27. #38
    Bronze Party-Goer
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    141
    Thanks
    167
    Thanked 262 Times in 105 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vampmogs View Post
    This is true but people need to stop letting it happen. It's beyond hypocritical for any Trump supporter to criticise Samantha Bee for her use of this language whilst supporting a guy who is not only on record of saying horrible and offensive things about people regularly, and for years, but who has said blatantly racist things as well. They have no leg to stand on and people need to stop even entertaining it.

    But as usual, we know who the real "snowflakes" are. The same people who tell minorities and persecuted people to "get over it", "take a joke" and "stop being offended by everything" are always the thin-skinned morons who can't handle it back.
    It works both ways though. "Feckless ****" is a meme now. Only couple days ago I heard "where is Samantha Bee when you really need her" form you-tuber with right political agenda(diversity and comics) Then he used "feckless ..." to describe comic character. And it wouldn't be limited to comic characters of course. The gate has been opened. If one is fine with using this against one woman he has no arguments against using it to describe any other. At least not arguments that wouldn't be easily thrown away as hypocrisy.
    Last edited by Alce; 04-06-18 at 04:19 PM.

  28. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Alce For This Useful Post:

    DeepBlueJoy (04-06-18),Priceless (04-06-18)

  29. #39
    Slayer Priceless's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    4,248
    Thanks
    8,976
    Thanked 7,960 Times in 3,811 Posts

    Default

    My issue is with the C word. I really wish we were more like Australia, where the word doesn't seem to be so abusive.

    Samantha Bee considers herself a feminist, and yet the worse word she could think to call someone is a derogatory word for female genitalia. I so wish she'd called Ivanka a feckless dickhead or a puss filled penis or a shit stain on humanity . . . any one of those epitaphs, gross though they may be, would be better.

    I've heard people say that it's the same as the 'n' word - any black person can use it against any other black person and it's okay. But is it really? Surely women should be showing some sort of solidarity on this issue.

    I don't know, I know my argument is muddled. I just wish women would just reclaim 'c***' and make it a wonderful warm word that bonds us together as women. On the day Sally Field tweeted 'I like Samantha Bee a lot, but she is flat wrong to call Ivanka a ****. ****s are powerful, beautiful, nurturing and honest' - just wish we all felt like that

  30. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Priceless For This Useful Post:

    bespangled (05-06-18),DeepBlueJoy (05-06-18),GoSpuffy (05-06-18),TimeTravellingBunny (05-06-18)

  31. #40
    Library Researcher DeepBlueJoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Someplace... usually.
    Posts
    285
    Thanks
    770
    Thanked 621 Times in 265 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TimeTravellingBunny View Post
    ^ Uuum...you know how there are these things called condoms that a lot of people use during sex?

    Call me crazy, but,say if a person is cheating on their significant other with just one partner over a longer period of time , that's a pretty low probability of contracting HIV to begin with - even without the fact that a lot of people tend to use condoms.

    If you're going to ignore the existence of condoms - there is a greater statistical probability in contracting HIV and transmitting it if you have a higher number of shorter relationships but you never cheat, than if you're having regular sex with just two people over a longer period of time but you're cheating on one with the other. And still, we don't expect people to immediately report their entire sexual history, or at least the recent one, to every potential new sexual partner - under the accusation that they're otherwise trying to "murder" them - do we? At least I hope we don't...

    This argument that it's specifically cheating that somehow carries a higher HIV risk defies logic, I'm afraid. Viruses don't care about morality.
    Well, as someone with medical training, I know people can get HIV from one experience. Truth is, people ALWAYS get a disease from one experience... You just don't know which one! Also, people who are inclined to cheat on their partners, particularly those with power, tend to sleep around a lot. They are god's gift. They get 'friendly' with anyone who will have them. Once a man gets away with cheating with one nice young thing, he has incentive to try again and again.

    Unlike an OPEN relationship, where both parties know the risks and will both take active precautions b/c it is an honest relationship, when one party cheats, he/she brings back anything he is exposed to... AND he will not suddenly offer to use condoms... b/c that would mean admitting he's screwing around.

    People with power (men in general) often don't want to wear condoms, b/c they're the big dogs on the block and pleasure for them comes before safety for anyone else. I was alive in the 80s and early 90s when a lot of celebrities died of HIV. they weren't all gay either. I don't believe that as many now are as careless as they were, but people still do stupid stuff. And men, since they don't get pregnant, often still think that 'birth control' is a woman's problem... so, i assume that anyone who is cheating is playing Russian roulette with his family, and I would encourage any one sleeping with a cheat (whether or not they are the spouse) to assume that person to be infected with something. Because there's only one way to guarantee not get a disease... celibacy. Sleeping with a committed, faithful partner, can be just as good, but if you are stepping out... you are risking yourself each time. AND YOUR SPOUSE.

    Oh, and condoms don't PREVENT disease. They just make it less likely. Ask women who have gotten pregnant (while properly using condoms) how well they work. There are lots of those, btw. Many people going to the maternity ward or the abortionist b/c a condom broke, came off or stuff 'escaped' after the event.

    This is kenya but the problem is the same:
    https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/evew...an-prostitutes

    Women at home are not gonna ask a husband of 10 years to wear a condom. After he gets used to his 'girl friend' he's gonna stop using condoms, but gf is not his wife, why shouldn't SHE cheat on him, even if he is 'only' cheating 'with her'? After all, she is 'single'. Then he goes home to his innocent, unsuspecting wife... and no condoms.

    People who cheat, cheat. Cheats aren't nice, careful people who have 'one faithful lover' on the side. Cheats are people who break rules... the most important rule of trust on the person who trusts them the most. Why should that wife NOT expect her cheat to be careless and reckless? Cheating is inherently a reckless, unloving act. One that puts you and your partner at risk.

    Interestingly, if you carry infectious matter on your body directly home, you could conceivably infect your spouse, while not getting the disease... why? b/c vaginal tissue is more porous and more receptive to disease cells than penile tissue. So you could possibly sleep with your infected gf, go home and immediately sleep with your wife, and infect her... and remain negative. not as likely as you infecting her from your own disease, but still another nasty possibility. If you are having sex with prostitutes in your car or in alleys, washing up is not gonna happen...

    Actually germs do care about morality... people who have lots of sex with lots of people tend to get tears in their junk... and those breaks in tissue expose the partner to their bloodstream directly, not just to their sexual fluids. Those microscopic tears in vaginal tissue or anal tissue may not even hurt. If you get a blow job, then finish up in the prostitute's vagina, your penile tissue may have teeth scrapes... and then you are swimming in her juices and tiny bits of her blood from those many tiny tears in her tissue.

    Fidelity is protective against disease. A B C

    Abstinence
    Be faithful
    use a Condom.

    Notice the order.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstin...,_use_a_condom
    Last edited by DeepBlueJoy; 05-06-18 at 05:38 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •