Hard disagree. The feeling of liver damage being directly transferred from duck to man is one of the best delicacies I have ever experienced.

Who would have thought that television from the 00’s would be politics in the 20’s?

But they are not a coordinated cabal like Fox, which is the point I was trying to make.

No, but it sure was in the room when a lot of people got fired.

Kill Tony is the name of a show that has featured hundreds of comedians—that is what I was endorsing as funny, and that is what most viewers come to see. Tony Hinchcliffe is a person, and he serves primarily as a judge on the show, not a featured entertainer.

This exact misunderstanding—that enjoying the product is an endorsement of the political opinions of the creator—is a good example of what I’m talking about. If Democrats want that audience to watch a Democratic comedian’s show, then all they have to do is make a better comedy podcast than he did.

In my opinion, the heavy policing of language during the 2010’s made the Democratic Party a hostile environment for improvisational artists. The whole style of their art is to make an omelette on the fly while definitely breaking a few eggs along the way. It is fundamentally necessary for them to be able to make a mistake and move on, and that is something that the “cancel culture” was progressively trying to deny.

It has gotten a little better, but this latest round of blaming comedians and podcasters for Trump isn’t going to help. The Democratic Party needs to realize that when they point the finger at others, there are three fingers pointing back at them.

I find this frustrating. Yes, many of those podcasters are conservative and have participated in spreading misinformation, but there is a huge difference between a private cable news company that is designed to manipulate the electorate, and a bunch of loosely connected yahoos on YouTube who share similar opinions.

Trump gained ground with nearly every demographic out there. They weren’t all watching Kill Tony. Working class people, comedians who rely on unrestricted speech, and a whole lot of other demographics have legitimate grievances that the Democrats have either ignored or shamed them for. They either need to lean how to address these people’s needs, or they will continue to suffer the consequences.

And when you aren’t trying to form a political opinion about it, Kill Tony is actually a pretty funny show. That is why it is the number one comedy podcast, not because of Tony’s political opinions.

When you consider the drugs and toxins we consume, it isn’t that surprising. I feel like I blocked out a lot of memories from his first term, but I still had enough left to know it was a nightmare I didn’t want to repeat.

He’s used to it.

I’m no expert, but it just feels like dropping nukes on Russia is a good way to get WWIII.

I could be wrong, but I think the religious logic is that it keeps the men in the community focused on society and their families rather than casting a wandering eye towards other women. Pretty sure that Muslim men aren’t looking at themselves as barely restrained rapists.

Whole thing is awful though, and I am in no way trying to support mandatory hijab laws.

I second this pronunciation.

That is not what I was saying, and I don’t appreciate your interpretation of it.

You are taking only the most inflammatory version of what I’m saying. Sex isn’t the only intimacy, but it is a very powerful tool for that. There are strong biological drives for sexual expression and satisfaction, and denying those leads to emotional problems—we see this all the time with homosexuals who can’t be happy in a heterosexual box. If someone has been manipulated by one of the most advanced propaganda machines ever created, that isn’t a sign that they are a “terrible” ally.

I’m not saying men only want sex, I’m saying that suddenly taking away a biological tool for human connection that they have typically had, while also living though really difficult times, while also acting like the continued desire for sex is somehow selfish on the man’s part, is a really effective way to make someone listen to the opposing side when they are promising a fiction where men have it good again.

You didn’t answer my question about what allied men should do though.

Well they should consider making the implication clearer, because I honestly feel that the way it is stated will do more harm than good. If it is a birth strike aimed at abortion risks, then call it that.

I have supported women’s rights in every way I know how in my lifetime, but I can’t go along with this movement as it is currently stated—to me that suggests that they need to refine the messaging a little, or explain the desired outcome more clearly.

Short of shooting people, what step should the average man take beyond voting, protesting, donating, and holding other men in our circle accountable? Trump gained ground with women too.

That is reducing my point to the most inflammatory interpretation.

Some men have been very negatively impacted by the political climate of the last 10 years too. They have weathered a lot of “white man” blame while trying to be a force for good. They have voted as an ally, protested as an ally, and held their peers accountable. And now their partner cuts off physical affection.

A man doesn’t have to be a false ally for those realities to put him in a psychological place that will make him vulnerable to conservative manipulators. It opens the door to the question “how’s your liberalism working for you?”

Denial of physical affection is a real grievance, and outside of this protest, it is usually considered an issue that needs to be fixed in a relationship. Think hard before intentionally creating relationship issues to prove a political/moral point.

The movement is to deny sex, not specifically to deny pregnancy. If it was about that, then sterile men and women would be excluded from this movement, but there is no mention of that at all. It’s just “swear off men, swear off sex”.

I’m asking because you seem to be an ally. How would your partner withholding sex from you improve the national situation at all? How does lack of sex enhance your already current position of being a supportive ally? How does others knowing that your partner is denying you sex entice them to adopt your views as their own?

My point is that the people this is likely to be deployed against are not the ones causing the problem.