I find it odd when someone says Trump is this or Trump is that as if he’s consistent on anything. His absurd narcissism is the only consistent thing about him. You can bet your ass he would drag us into a war if it would stroke his ego in some way.

That is what makes him so uniquely dangerous. He has no ideology to speak of. His focus shifts back and forth so often that trying to predict exactly what he’s going to do is impossible. You can say with certainty that he won’t be motivated by any sort of desire for the public good but that’s about as specific as you can get until he starts doing something.

You laugh, but we’re getting closer and closer to this every day

Like so many world issues, without a meaningful enforcement mechanism this is a pointless question to ask. Not to mention the added layer of irony in threatening to take military action to force a lower level of military activity.

Europe is going to be a shitshow in the coming decades no matter what direction voters are trending. We’re all talking about this as if it’s primarily a political issue and it just isn’t. Climate change is already fucking our shit up and that’s going to get exponentially worse. Desperate people don’t care about imaginary lines on a map.

We can’t even deal with a comparatively small amount of migrants without backsliding into the same kind of fascism that our grandparents had to invent nuclear bombs to subdue 80 years ago. There’s no way we’re going to deal with what’s coming in a rational way.

I have no idea where that data comes from and that’s exactly the point I’m making. It doesn’t match my personal experience at all.

I build the infrastructure that these data centers need to connect to the internet. Our projected power consumption is at least tripling from last year which was itself double the year before, and that’s only the power draw for the fiber optic infrastructure connecting these data centers together. They’re also building a ridiculous amount of computing power in those data centers which is another massive increase in power consumption.

There are some kind-of green efforts in progress to mitigate a bit of the environmental impacts of that increase in demand but most of what I have seen personally is just more draw from the local utility company. I have serious doubts about any data that indicates that tripling power consumption is not a major environmental problem.

In my experience weed can be a gateway drug when you have to buy it from a drug dealer. As an analogy, lots of people end up buying something other than what they went into Target to buy.

The only thing I’m convinced of is the fact that you’re talking like a Russian psy-ops agent. You may not be one but at minimum you’re doing their work for them.

Well they’re violently protecting their illegal mining operations so violence is certainly part of the equation. Violence isn’t usually profitable on its own though. It’s part of a larger plan to exploit some situation or resource.

Why don’t we all help them out? Everyone crank up your AC and open the windows. We’ll kick global warming’s ass in no time.

Clearly we disagree about how to evaluate comedy, which is perfectly fine, but I think we’re running into a wall at this point. I think most of what you’re saying is reasonable, we just have different perspectives. I think this quote highlights that best:

It’s not his lived experience, so what could he possibly have to add as an insightful observation?

I don’t think you need to experience something firsthand to make jokes about it. I also don’t think comedy needs to involve insightful observations. That might be the kind of thing you find to be the most funny but that doesn’t make it a rule that needs to be followed at all times. Something you find unfunny, or even offensive, can be a genuine attempt at making people laugh. The fact that you find it offensive doesn’t necessarily mean they’ve done something wrong. In many cases it just means that you don’t like that style of comedy. A comedian telling a joke during a comedy show is not the same as a politician or other public figure justifying a bigoted statement by calling it a joke. Choosing to interpret comments that are clearly and obviously presented as jokes as some sort of expression of a deeply held belief does not seem like a logical approach to me.

“Kyle does not wish Trump harm” and “Dave is transphobic” are both judgments that you’ve made. You’re entitled to hold those opinions but it is important to recognize that you’ve used the same kind of evidence (jokes they made) to reach opposite conclusions about the two men. You dismissed one as a joke that does not reflect the character of the speaker and used the other as indisputable evidence of a character flaw.

The fact that these conclusions line up with your own political beliefs is absolutely relevant because it helps you understand why you are doing it. It’s probably subconscious but you’re viewing the world through a distorted lens when you make inconsistent value judgments like this. Correcting those distortions and becoming more consistent is part of what it means to mature as a human being.

OK, let’s assume for the sake of the argument that everything you just said is 100% correct. Why aren’t you also saying Dave Chapelle is a pedophile, or a racist, or a homophobe? Children, racial minorities, and gay men are all other groups he made jokes about and they all fit your criteria of “people at danger in our society”.

The fact that transphobic is the only descriptor I hear about that show suggests to me that this is not really the criteria you’re using to evaluate the situation, it’s merely convenient cover to give when pressed that will pacify most people. At minimum it means you’re giving those other comments a pass as jokes and choosing not to do so with his trans jokes and that is absolutely inconsistent no matter how you try and spin it.

You say that like “no punching down” is an unbreakable rule of comedy. Maybe in your opinion it should be but I don’t think that’s ever been true in reality, certainly not for big name comedians as a collective.

Besides, that’s only your interpretation of the situation and it requires that you assume Dave actually believes everything he says in his comedy shows which is demonstrably untrue for other subject matter he covers. You don’t assume he rapes kids even though he made a joke in that same special where that was the premise. Without that assumption there is no controversy so maybe we should stop assuming the worst about people’s intentions. That way we don’t have to concern ourselves with pointless conjecture.

Don’t get me wrong, I didn’t think much of his trans material was very funny, but that doesn’t mean I have to jump to the conclusion that he’s a piece of shit like the internet wants me to. He’s a comedian with an incendiary style which makes it quite literally his job to say stuff like that.

I get what you’re saying. I’ve got a similar background and it sounds like we have a lot in common in terms of perspective as well.

You’re right, consistency is clearly not important to the more conservative among us. That ship sailed long ago. However, that’s one of the things that I strive to be as much as possible. If one of my beliefs can’t be defended in all circumstances then I do my best to let it go, or at least recognize the fact that it’s situational and therefore not deserving of being presented as unassailable. The subject at hand is pretty inconsequential, all things considered, but I feel pretty confident in making the blanket statement that all jokes should be interpreted as such and not subject to the same scrutiny that the same statement would warrant in a different context.

Of course there are still such things as jokes in poor taste, racist jokes, mean jokes, etc. but at the end of the day a joke is what they are. It’s not a life motto or a campaign slogan it’s just something that’s supposed to make people laugh. Whether or not they accomplish that goal is largely irrelevant as long as that was the primary intent of the person who said it.

I think your interpretation of the two situations has more to do with your political leanings than the content itself. At a basic level they are both comments made by people who get paid to make others laugh. You can assign motives to either of them that would make them more or less palatable to specific people, and it seems like you’ve chosen your path in that regard, but I don’t think it makes sense to spin one in a negative way and dismiss the other as a harmless joke. In my opinion they’re either both harmless or both intolerable. Anything less is just projection in one form or another.

Is this the same angle you took when reacting to Dave Chapelle’s recent controversies? For the record, I agree with you, I just don’t see a lot of consistency on either side when it comes to stuff like this. Jokes are one issue where “both sides are the same” isn’t too far off. People in general pick and choose what they’re offended by and can’t easily follow their own advice to let it go when the subject matter touches one of their pet issues.

Your position is intentionally vague and you know it. That’s why you’re refusing to engage beyond generalities. Framing that refusal as evading a logical fallacy I haven’t proposed is just your way of avoiding introspection.

If that’s true then it should be easy to identify what a productive protest that follows your guidelines would look like and provide a real world example of it. You declined to do that when asked.

People can spin any action you choose to fit that definition and by extension deny your right to protest. That’s the point. If you don’t see that then you’re right, there’s no reason to continue this conversation.