They think you're a joke...

[jamil]

Journalists are also private citizens, and in the case of Don Lemon (an opinion talking head) enjoys every right and freedom that any other American has. The contention being made, is that because he's doing it with the power of private news entity backing him, it is somehow unfair to the folk who do the same thing albeit in a smaller venue, with a smaller audience. That's rubbish. Any person here, if so inclined, has the freedom to start their very own media business, and offer their views to the masses. If you choose to not do so and pursue other opportunities, fine, but don't complain about someone else who did put in the effort to have their voice heard.

No johnny. When you grow up you can’t be anything you want to be. You can be what you have the aptitude to be. And if you’re lucky, the things you have the aptitude to be will line up with the things you desire to be. You can get better at anything, but you can’t necessarily get good.

Not everyone can be an elitist **********, the mouthpiece with a long reach to spread his drivel to masses of ignorant people. And not everyone wants to.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No johnny. When you grow up you can’t be anything you want to be. You can be what you have the aptitude to be. And if you’re lucky, the things you have the aptitude to be will line up with the things you desire to be. You can get better at anything, but you can’t necessarily get good.

Not everyone can be an elitist **********, the mouthpiece with a long reach to spread his drivel to masses of ignorant people. And not everyone wants to.

Your post sounds like something a so-called liberal would say. You’re essentially implying (given the defense offered) since people don’t have the ability to do something someone does, then it’s perfectly acceptable to criticize them for it. Welcome to life. Everything ain’t fair.

 

[jamil]

Your post sounds like something a so-called liberal would say. You’re essentially implying (given the defense offered) since people don’t have the ability to do something someone does, then it’s perfectly acceptable to criticize them for it. Welcome to life. Everything ain’t fair.

What? A so called liberal is more like Disney. “You can be anything you want to be if you just believe.” I’m saying that’s bull****, no you cannot. You can become only that which you have potential to be and usually when you are willing and able to work to live up to that potential. And the reason for that is, life isn’t fair. It’s just what it is. Not everyone can make their own news network, or be a TV personally who can use their high position in life to ridicule others.

With great power comes great responsibility. That bit if wisdom predates Stan Lee. The **********’s reach burdens him with a greater moral responsibility. So, him ridiculing people on line is not the moral equivalence of normal folks spouting off. Saying, if you don’t like that then grab yourself the same power, is a copout. Few people can do that.

I’m not saying average people have no moral responsibility. I’m saying it’s not a moral equivalence.

 

[Kutnupe14]

What? A so called liberal is more like Disney. “You can be anything you want to be if you just believe.” I’m saying that’s bull****, no you cannot. You can become only that which you have potential to be and usually when you are willing and able to work to live up to that potential. And the reason for that is, life isn’t fair. It’s just what it is. Not everyone can make their own news network, or be a TV personally who can use their high position in life to ridicule others.

With great power comes great responsibility. That bit if wisdom predates Stan Lee. The **********’s reach burdens him with a greater moral responsibility. So, him ridiculing people on line is not the moral equivalence of normal folks spouting off. Saying, if you don’t like that then grab yourself the same power, is a copout. Few people can do that.

I’m not saying average people have no moral responsibility. I’m saying it’s not a moral equivalence.

In this case, the responsibility to not offend people? Yeah, that sounds like a liberal talking point. Just because people are too dumb, too poor, lack the aptitude or inclination, doesn't mean that people who do have the smarts, money, skill, and want should take them into consideration when they are pursuing their own intentions.

And by the way that comment, by Stan Lee? Yeah, currently owned by Disney.

 

[jamil]

In this case, the responsibility to not offend people? Yeah, that sounds like a liberal talking point. Just because people are too dumb, too poor, lack the aptitude or inclination, doesn't mean that people who do have the smarts, money, skill, and want should take them into consideration when they are pursuing their own intentions.

And by the way that comment, by Stan Lee? Yeah, currently owned by Disney.

Wait. Let's reset to the thing you actually complained about. This moving target **** isn't getting us anywhere. You were drawing a moral equivalence between a "journalist" with a primetime show and a much bigger reach, and just average people, ridiculing people for yucks. I'm saying that they're not moral equivalences. That the person on TV with the reach has a higher responsibility for how he conducts himself. Doesn't matter if it's Don Lemon or Sean Hannity. The guys yucking it up on an online gun forum doesn't have the same moral responsibility not to do it. I'm not saying it's good for one and not the other. I'm saying it's worse for the one.

You're trying to make this into something it's not. My aim is from the responsibility side, not from the victim side. I'm not calling people who are being ridiculed victims. I'm saying people who ridicule people have a measure of irresponsibility for doing it, and that measure of responsibility is not the same for people who are in positions of power with a larger reach. There's no responsibility not to offend people. That would be an absurd standard because just about every expression of opinion can be taken as an offense, especially today. Instead, there's a responsibility not to talk **** about people.

It's a responsibility to conduct oneself befitting of one's position. The construction worker whistling at an attractive woman walking by is behaving like a douchebag. But it's a greater responsibility if a news anchor did that on air. Surely you get that. You complain about the conduct of the President. And that's something I agree with. He should conduct himself befitting of the office. So let me ask you this. I'm just talking with the guys, and I say things like, "yeah, you can just grab 'em by the *****," at most, that makes me a disrespectful douchebag. But if I'm POTUS and I use that kind of language in public (notwithstanding that this happened long before Trump ran for president, and it wasn't in public) this makes me not just a disrespectful douchebag, but also morally irresponsible for not conducting myself befitting of the position.

And maybe Disney owns the rights to "with great power comes great responsibility", I don't know. But that doesn't make the statement irrelevant. If Disney owns it it's just because Stan Lee made it popular enough to want to tag ownership.

 

[two70]

I suppose we're even then because I think Don Lemon and his ilk are the real jokes.

The thing is though, Mr. Lemon is largely dependent on those of us he despises for his livelihood, well being, and continued survival. If we were to cease to exist, he would be helpless to fend for himself and would follow in short order. On the other hand, those he despises probably would not notice any substantive change to their lives without Don Lemon and his like around. Sillier yet for Mr. Lemon, were the policies he advocates ever put fully put into place and the goals he promotes ever achieved, he and those like him would be the first to be eliminated because they would have served their purpose and be of no further use.

While it may be popular with some to constantly race about tilting at big, mean conservative windmills and ignoring real liberal dragons, the real difference between the Don Lemons of the world and us is that Don despises us simply because we exist as an impediment to his desire for control and power. We, on the other hand, would be unlikely to even pay those like Don any attention were it not for those like him constantly making their contempt known and seeking to control us.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I suppose we're even then because I think Don Lemon and his ilk are the real jokes.

The thing is though, Mr. Lemon is largely dependent on those of us he despises for his livelihood, well being, and continued survival. If we were to cease to exist, he would be helpless to fend for himself and would follow in short order. On the other hand, those he despises probably would not notice any substantive change to their lives without Don Lemon and his like around. Sillier yet for Mr. Lemon, were the policies he advocates ever put fully put into place and the goals he promotes ever achieved, he and those like him would be the first to be eliminated because they would have served their purpose and be of no further use.

While it may be popular with some to constantly race about tilting at big, mean conservative windmills and ignoring real liberal dragons, the real difference between the Don Lemons of the world and us is that Don despises us simply because we exist as an impediment to his desire for control and power. We, on the other hand, would be unlikely to even pay those like Don any attention were it not for those like him constantly making their contempt known and seeking to control us.

I'm taking credit for that usage.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Wait. Let's reset to the thing you actually complained about. This moving target **** isn't getting us anywhere. You were drawing a moral equivalence between a "journalist" with a primetime show and a much bigger reach, and just average people, ridiculing people for yucks. I'm saying that they're not moral equivalences. That the person on TV with the reach has a higher responsibility for how he conducts himself. Doesn't matter if it's Don Lemon or Sean Hannity. The guys yucking it up on an online gun forum doesn't have the same moral responsibility not to do it. I'm not saying it's good for one and not the other. I'm saying it's worse for the one.

You're trying to make this into something it's not. My aim is from the responsibility side, not from the victim side. I'm not calling people who are being ridiculed victims. I'm saying people who ridicule people have a measure of irresponsibility for doing it, and that measure of responsibility is not the same for people who are in positions of power with a larger reach. There's no responsibility not to offend people. That would be an absurd standard because just about every expression of opinion can be taken as an offense, especially today. Instead, there's a responsibility not to talk **** about people.

It's a responsibility to conduct oneself befitting of one's position. The construction worker whistling at an attractive woman walking by is behaving like a douchebag. But it's a greater responsibility if a news anchor did that on air. Surely you get that. You complain about the conduct of the President. And that's something I agree with. He should conduct himself befitting of the office. So let me ask you this. I'm just talking with the guys, and I say things like, "yeah, you can just grab 'em by the *****," at most, that makes me a disrespectful douchebag. But if I'm POTUS and I use that kind of language in public (notwithstanding that this happened long before Trump ran for president, and it wasn't in public) this makes me not just a disrespectful douchebag, but also morally irresponsible for not conducting myself befitting of the position.

And maybe Disney owns the rights to "with great power comes great responsibility", I don't know. But that doesn't make the statement irrelevant. If Disney owns it it's just because Stan Lee made it popular enough to want to tag ownership.

Wait, I ain't complaining. I'm the one pointing out, to the apparent victims, that they ain't victims at all. I'm not buying into this "he has a larger platform to attack me, so because my platform is smaller, it's unfair," nonsense. People should man the **** up. Ohhh, someone's poor little feelings got hurt? Ok, do something about it.... "IF" you care. If they don't care, why be bothered with it? But what they shouldn't do is complain because the exact same behavior the "mean person" engaged in, they too have engaged in. Geez, have we gotten so soft that now even conservatives want a 6th place trophy?

 

[Twangbanger]

The reason Don Lemon is getting "sacrificed," is because those who do it have a higher purpose in mind, and that's going after people like Tucker Carlson. That has more long-term value to them, because they feel he's "holding up" and "platforming" and giving a voice to dangerous people who previously had none, and stopping him from doing it and discouraging others has more value to them than any message Don Lemon can spread. They realize they can't go after one, without criticizing the other.

 

[MinuteManMike]

Look, the U-Crane joke WAS funny. I know I have started a laughing fit over less in my life. This is a nothing-burger with blank sauce. If you ever thought these scumbags had any regard for common citizens, I have a few thousand bridges to sell you.