- 32,727
- 80,926
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2013
Refund the police so that when they're assaulted by their fellow officers they can afford the hospital fees
***Official Political Discussion Thread***
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by rico x hood,
- Start date
- 147,742
- 195,167
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2007
- 20,040
- 9,766
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2001
They know their constituents will never read those letters or even hear about it. They publicly vote against it, claiming it's socialism, then privately beg for the money.
- 32,463
- 26,954
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
good, juice is a scam. you just drinking sugar
you might as well give your kids mountain dew.
Last edited:
- 32,727
- 80,926
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2013
"Switch" to water? I wasn't aware it was a binary choice or that people could forego water completely.
- 147,742
- 195,167
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2007
while i see your point on the sugar...
most of the kids dont need that caffeine too on top of the sugar
- 13,505
- 12,427
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2008
It’s like when cities want to tax sugary drinks but then the lobbyists lie to people saying how they are taking away their choice. I mean **** if you’re consuming something horrible for you because you don’t know how to control yourself and costing the healthcare system billions then yes it needs to be controlled. Learn to enjoy water.
kdawg
Staff member
- 10,627
- 11,760
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2003
You’d be amazed. My kids elementary school a few years ago brought in some stuff in attempt to improve the health of kids - healthy lunches and gym every day and stuff.
One of the things they said was only water in water bottles, other than at meals when juice etc was fine.
There were a ton of parents coming out with stuff like “but my snowflake doesn’t liiiiike water - they need it mixed with special moon juice or they won’t drink and we’ll sue you for killing them…” Unbelievable drama.
- 147,742
- 195,167
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2007
- 11,974
- 3,257
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- 147,742
- 195,167
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2007
- 147,742
- 195,167
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2007
- 147,742
- 195,167
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2007
- 32,463
- 26,954
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
- 157,129
- 136,996
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2001
Hopefully folks are able to secure opportunities when they get back on the street. That's my biggest concern. Happy to hear this though.
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,837
- 191,456
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
Explain this
It is a general commentary or you think he has been captured by "da progressive left", especially on gender theory.
Because he should by Chapelle, he complains about cancel culture, and in his Daily Show days he used to mock the few Dems that openly supported treating trans individuals as equals
So I think this is a weird comment without context. That what peak did he fall from?
Last edited:
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,837
- 191,456
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
I hope the federal government gives them some of the money they give Texas to care for these refugees
- 29,689
- 20,953
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- 32,463
- 26,954
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
Like many progressive people I have absorbed many ideas about gender theory,
my college roommate was a gender studies major.
He ran he schools feminist organization that had trans people.
So I've had a fair bit of exposure to these ideas and to trans people.
and I've parrotted many of these ideas on NT as I mostly assumed that they were based in a strong base of clinical evidence.
As I read more deeply about the topic, I it's become increasingly clear to me that modern gender affirming care is at best based on incredibly dubious and unclear evidence
And at worst is closer to lobotomies, leeching or blood letting as a medical intervention.
And up until very recently it has escaped critical analysis due to imo various in group institutional progssive biases towards activist groups.
Jon Stewart imo was at his best when he was challenging enforced media narratives, that don't hold up to scrutiny.
The Iraq war being the best example.
So it is incredibly dissapointing to see him basically accepting claims that imo are incredibly dubious
In order to own the cons.
we see liberal democracies like UK, Finland Sweden moving away from and constantly you see progressive trying to pretend like this isn't hotkey debated by clinicians and very controversial. When it actually is.
Now to be clear, I DO NOT APPROVE of what Republicans are doing in response to this,
I think much of it is sick and depraved political oppostunism.
But Imo this gender affirming care model I think is a brewing medical scandal
I think there are many financially clinicians and pharmaceutical companies pushing this.
And I think by the time this is over nobody is going to want to be seen as supporting.
And depressing to me that Jon Stewart can't see that. When imo younger Jon Stewart would have.
To me this is totally separate from Chapelle, that's more about art and acceptable speech. Which is ultimately about subjective asthetic taste.
Gender ideology I think is objectively goofy. And the gender affirming care industry needs to be heavily regulated.
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,837
- 191,456
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
So my suspicions were correct, this is because of his views (more so your views) on gender theory, and because of this issue he is supposedly on a "decline".
There were plenty of problematic things about the younger Jon Stewart, he bought into a lot of media narratives too.
And a younger Jon Stewart was making "chicks with dicks" jokes. His turn on that issue seemed to me to coincide with the general liberal position on the issue shifting
I have my own issues with modern gender theory and gender-affirming care, but I feel the way you talk about it is unproductive also
- 32,463
- 26,954
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
Well yes of course they are based on my views.
What else would they be based on.?
If you saw someone you respecting accepting things that seem obviously untrue in your eyes wouldn't you he disapointed?
I'm not making an argument about speech or jokes, if he wants to tell different less problematic jokes that's his right. I have zero problem with that.
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,837
- 191,456
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
I'm saying you are not making a general analysis
You are just using it as a vehicle to air your grievances with progressive views on gender. Which I feel are somewhat reactionary
There is no general commentary about Jon Stewarts' behavior it is really just about one thing about him you don't like.
Your initial comment reads like it is a general statement about his conduct. But your analysis just involves one subject
- 32,463
- 26,954
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
Well I was addressing the clip
But It's just the apotheosis of why I don't like his new show.
The problem is essentially a recitation of the bog standard progressive liberal opinion on everything,
and imo it has none of the unique and iconoclastic perspective of the original daily show.
As a result you have an politically inert and boring tv show. So imo making a worse tv show represents a decline..
Imo feels to me like he's relying much more on his writing staff. so the show imo has less of a clear voice and perspective.
- 6,492
- 15,643
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2004
GOP House Judiciary hunting for Karma and Gold except they’re on the wrong platform.
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,837
- 191,456
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
I must have been watching a different Daily Show then
They were probably airing something different for Canada
Because Jon Stewart's critique of the Iraq War was the progressive far-left critique.
Not calling you any names, but this reads like you are saying you think contrarianism makes for more entertaining political television. Which all things considered, is kinda funny
Last edited:
