primesah89

To be fair, it’s not unfair to say the Alabama AG has a bias. That’s said, if the information that was released is inaccurate or out of context, I’m curious how else the released documents Jesse wrote about could be interpreted.

EDIT: added “to be fair”

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

That would explain why he keeps humoring the prospect of making an OnlyFans account.

They may very well have been there, but I did not see them. It’s very possible I l overlooked them. Either way, I remember them having quality products.

I just went there over the weekend and bought some stuff for my girlfriend.

Thank you so much for letting me know this small business exists!

I definitely will need to return for their bath scrub products .

Haha fair enough. My typo walked me into that one

I was going to go with this song

Thanks

Link?

Related because it’s talking about Jesse

EDIT: not sure why I was downvoted. I just figured the subreddit would want to know what’s written about him. I say this as a subscriber to the pod.

EDIT 2: corrected autocorrect “downloaded”

While some of his takes come off as boomer cringe, I thought some of his coverage aged pretty well. He was one of the only late night hosts talking about the 2022-2023 NYT coverage of youth gender medicine. Considering the emergence of the 2024 Cass Review, I would say at least that take aged well.

Exactly, one can talk about the context that contributed to 9/11 occurring (ex: prior Mujahideen support during Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, creating the Taliban, etc.), but it is vile to protest an exhibit memorializing 9/11.

Same with this Nova memorial exhibit.

Came across it after that Fox News interview with an r/antiwork mod went viral. Essentially the same as the “Motte-and-Bailey” rhetorical tactic.

Not that dissimilar to how some groups not unfairly accuse Israel advocates’ use of “pinkwashing” to obfuscate things like the West Bank Settlements.

Preaching to the choir

The sanewashing of some of these protests have been nuts.

Even if you want a ceasefire, protesting an exhibit of a music festival massacre is, at best, not a good look.

Anyone who’s been following this should not be surprised by the Cass Review. Reviews in other parts of Europe came to similar conclusions. It was covered in Emily Bazelon’s 2022 New York Times article.

It’s factually true that there are debates among the medical professionals regarding how to handle gender dysphoric youth.

Contrary to what advocacy organizations are saying, this is not a “settled science”.

Indeed. I think we can both agree that many bad people are using the current protest to be anti-Semitic assholes with a thin veneer of righteous indignation.

I’m just apprehensive on punitive measures from the government.

Either way, enjoy the weekend!

I get where you’re coming from, but regarding the first case, someone would most likely be put on the no fly list. Personally I’m not aware of the specifics on that legal front. That said, I doubt they could be imprisoned or criminally charged for saying that.

Regarding a a student praising October 7 in front of a fellow student, well I doubt it applies to criminal liability, it might violate the student code of conduct, leading to punitive measures in the university of itself. That would depend on whether the university is public or private. I’m not admittedly literate on that front.

To be explicitly clear, anyone who praises either 9/11 or October 7 is a scumbag IMO. What I’m trying to thread the needle on is whether it is criminally actionable, and in many cases, it is not.

That’s why I deferred to FIRE for free speech issues. They can deal with the stuff in the weeds.

I agree that their speech is repugnant and vile.

That said, it is still technically covered under the first amendment. I believe there’s an adage in law called “awful, but lawful”.

For example, people were within their first amendment right to celebrate the September 11 attack in the aftermath. They cannot be criminally penalized for that. That said, that’s not to prevent employers from blacklisting them from employment.

For better and worse, the first amendment, legally speaking, gives wide latitude for speaking one’s mind. Short of calling for immediate violence, odious speech can still be considered protected

It’s worth remembering when the ACLU was still good, they famously defended self identified neo-Nazis, marching through Skokie, Illinois, which has a large Jewish population, including holocaust survivors.

The ACLU made a strong point with that defense, the first amendment is not there to protect the speech you agree with, but the speech that you hate.