Are you not not going to watch the Oscars this year?

[washing machine]

I wonder what conservatives think about last night. Is Will Smith a hero for fulfilling the role of patriarch and defending his family? Is Chris Rock just another victim of cancel culture and the loony left's policing of language? Is the whole thing a big pedophile celebration? Much to consider.

who cares what they think?

I'm curious about it, the same way I was curious how they wrapped their brains around when Lia Thomas lost to another trans swimmer (female to male). It is interesting to watch an incoherent ideological framework try to assimilate something that exceeds their grasp, on a logical level, and to see how they manage the cognitive dissonance these events introduce.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com ... it-coming/

That makes sense coming from Rod, but he doesn't represent all conservatives. He doesn't speak for his people.

Oh, you're looking for a Tucker C hot take, aren't you? I can't help you there.

Best I can do is my man Rod and also the conservative-adjacent folks over at reason.com

https://reason.com/2022/03/28/be-like-chris-rock/
https://reason.com/2022/03/28/will-smit ... ls-speech/

How will the broader conservative movement deal with this crisis.

I love that jomboy gets a shout out in one of those reason.com pieces.

[Ms Harmless]

I'd like to take this opportunity to reiterate that I'm not watching the Oscars this year

[Mickey]

No, that's not where we land.

we land on you're right, I'm wrong? whatever you want Mickey

Your summary of the above conversation is inaccurate.

you also had an inaccurate summary of my arguments

of course you're gonna say that; of course I'm gonna say that

who wins?

That's also not true--at no point did I attempt to summarize your argument beyond repeating your claim (that Will Smith smacking Chris Rock was an act of resistance, something you said in this very thread).

and I still stand by?

and you repeated to go "lol" and point out how ridiculous it was? it was one word; if you're upset by me interpreting your words and relaying what I understand of them back to you, maybe you'll accept that I might be upset that I typed a whole lot of stuff and you chose one word of it to isolate and mock

I used the word very consciously; it's a word I use when someone employs "violent" means to "punch up", as opposed to when someone is "punching down", or laterally; I don't think I have to explain those concepts to you, but this fight wasn't two men having a contest over the size of their dicks; if it was just that I wouldn't care

If you think I'm upset then you definitely do not have a handle on things here. I am merely pointing out that your summary--that we differ on "relative subjectivities"--is incorrect.

no, it's correct

I think I'm right

you think you're right

you trust the things behind your convictions; I trust the things behind mine

nobody alive or dead is gonna definitively prove either position

All conflict boils down to "I'm right, you're wrong," so yeah, sure, but if you can't name the particular points of disagreement then it's not correct in any meaningful sense.

[Mickey]

I've seen Will's speech and my position has got stronger, not changed

Great news: the position that I publicly, vocally, and sentimentally committed to has not been altered by additional evidence.

[Ms Harmless]

I've seen Will's speech and my position has got stronger, not changed

Great news: the position that I publicly, vocally, and sentimentally committed to has not been altered by additional evidence.

I'm gonna leave "sentimentally" alone, but yeah, awesome, truce then?

[Mickey]

Why would there need to be a truce.

[tree_]

whoever said ten pages ago that the joke was racially loaded, please explain yourself.

yeah, by using the actual text spoken, instead of grasping at straws

you mean how you used the actual text spoken?

yes

having the simplest and most lazily thought-through interpretation and extrapolation of the text possible is not the same thing

no... it was a simple, dumb joke, which can most easily be interpreted as a compliment.. and you're reading it as lashing out at the bald, black, female community.. i'm just confused how you got there

I don't give a shit how confused you are; things aren't wrong because they confuse you, Tree

You simply haven't explained yourself. You think people in power are constantly out to oppress and victimize vulnerable people, even when you don't have evidence. It's an unhealthy, unproductive worldview, and innocent (sometimes hilarious) people are getting physically assaulted by the likes of Will Smith, in the name of love, nonetheless, and somehow you've come out of this on the side of the victimizer. It's baffling.

[Ms Harmless]

No, that's not where we land.

we land on you're right, I'm wrong? whatever you want Mickey

Your summary of the above conversation is inaccurate.

you also had an inaccurate summary of my arguments

of course you're gonna say that; of course I'm gonna say that

who wins?

That's also not true--at no point did I attempt to summarize your argument beyond repeating your claim (that Will Smith smacking Chris Rock was an act of resistance, something you said in this very thread).

and I still stand by?

and you repeated to go "lol" and point out how ridiculous it was? it was one word; if you're upset by me interpreting your words and relaying what I understand of them back to you, maybe you'll accept that I might be upset that I typed a whole lot of stuff and you chose one word of it to isolate and mock

I used the word very consciously; it's a word I use when someone employs "violent" means to "punch up", as opposed to when someone is "punching down", or laterally; I don't think I have to explain those concepts to you, but this fight wasn't two men having a contest over the size of their dicks; if it was just that I wouldn't care

If you think I'm upset then you definitely do not have a handle on things here. I am merely pointing out that your summary--that we differ on "relative subjectivities"--is incorrect.

no, it's correct

I think I'm right

you think you're right

you trust the things behind your convictions; I trust the things behind mine

nobody alive or dead is gonna definitively prove either position

All conflict boils down to "I'm right, you're wrong," so yeah, sure, but if you can't name the particular points of disagreement then it's not correct in any meaningful sense.

oh I can, but it's late, I'm exhausted, and you're not worth saying more than I have already, especially if you've read zero "particular points of disagreement" in what I've said for several pages

I mean, I think you're wrong, but I'm not going to stoop as low as to accuse you of not having said anything

[daft twat]

What if it was Gervais instead of Rock

[Ms Harmless]

whoever said ten pages ago that the joke was racially loaded, please explain yourself.

yeah, by using the actual text spoken, instead of grasping at straws

you mean how you used the actual text spoken?

yes

having the simplest and most lazily thought-through interpretation and extrapolation of the text possible is not the same thing

no... it was a simple, dumb joke, which can most easily be interpreted as a compliment.. and you're reading it as lashing out at the bald, black, female community.. i'm just confused how you got there

I don't give a shit how confused you are; things aren't wrong because they confuse you, Tree

You simply haven't explained yourself. You think people in power are constantly out to oppress and victimize vulnerable people, even when you don't have evidence. It's an unhealthy, unproductive worldview, and innocent (sometimes hilarious) people are getting physically assaulted by the likes of Will Smith, in the name of love, nonetheless, and somehow you've come out of this on the side of the victimizer. It's baffling.

a big strong man is not a "victimizer" for slapping another big strong man on the cheek; those powers are equal

[Mickey]

I did not say that you haven't said anything. I said that your summary of the argument--that we differ only on "relative subjectivities," which you then defined as "I'm right, you're wrong"--is an incorrect summary. Which it is.

[spike]

disagreeing about disagreeing

[Mickey]

If two people are the same size then it's okay for them to slap each other.

[Mickey]

For the record, Will Smith is about five times wealthier (and at least twice as famous) as Chris Rock, even if they're the same size.

[tree_]

whoever said ten pages ago that the joke was racially loaded, please explain yourself.

yeah, by using the actual text spoken, instead of grasping at straws

you mean how you used the actual text spoken?

yes

having the simplest and most lazily thought-through interpretation and extrapolation of the text possible is not the same thing

no... it was a simple, dumb joke, which can most easily be interpreted as a compliment.. and you're reading it as lashing out at the bald, black, female community.. i'm just confused how you got there

I don't give a shit how confused you are; things aren't wrong because they confuse you, Tree

You simply haven't explained yourself. You think people in power are constantly out to oppress and victimize vulnerable people, even when you don't have evidence. It's an unhealthy, unproductive worldview, and innocent (sometimes hilarious) people are getting physically assaulted by the likes of Will Smith, in the name of love, nonetheless, and somehow you've come out of this on the side of the victimizer. It's baffling.

a big strong man is not a "victimizer" for slapping another big strong man on the cheek; those powers are equal

You still haven't explained how you got to where you did from the very simple joke/compliment. And I've spelled out to you how I got to "probably innocuous" very clearly. Still baffled, not because I'm stupid, but because you haven't explained.

[washing machine]

Me, ms harmless and warehouse. An odd RM alliance that has never existed before and one that I'm not sure has an agenda or purpose beyond this thread.

Prepare for battle, mosquito swarm.

ms harmless, I am sorry, but I am withdrawing from this short-lived alliance. I simply can't stay along for the ride. I still think Chris Rock had it coming, but these last few pages have been too much for me to put my name on. godspeed.

[Mickey]

washing machine said "take my name out of your fucking mouth"

[spike]

he must've caught his reflection scowling at him

[Ms Harmless]

either I'm minimising the power of a smack on the cheek, or others are minimising the power of a "harmless" joke

I've taken a position that makes sense to me and been dragged for it, it's fine, but even if you think the joke wasn't harmful, I can't for the life of me imagine how you've walked away from this thinking Chris fucking Rock is irreparably damaged

[Mickey]

Who (other than Judd Apatow) said that Chris Rock was irreparably damaged?