Ah yes, the people supporting the leopards eating faces club are once again surprised the leopards ate their face.
Heeeyyy I wonder leopard ate my face transitioned to Lemmy.
The problem with those sorts of niche communities is that they need constant (sometimes heavy-handed) moderation to remain on topic. The Fediverse is not really good at that yet.
That and there needs to be a core of dedicated posters producing new, and good, content.
Reddit made a lot of it easy. Good(ish) mod tools (if you used third party apps or browser extensions) and communities that were large enough to keep people interested in the niche subs.
Every single time I see, hear or think any variation of that phrase, I can't help but mentally follow it up with "Caaaarl".
Paul: "How could you eat MY face?"
Carl: "It's quite simple actually: I took a look at your face, found it tasty, tool a little bite and ate it."
Paul: "That doesn't answer my question!"
Carl: "I remember you specifically giving me permission to, and i quote, 'eat all these faces'."
Paul: "Yeah, i was hoping that you wouldn't eat MY face! The face of your buddy, your best friend, your... soulmate."
Carl: "You could have been a bit more specific then. Now your face is gone. I ate it. And it was quite delicious."
Paul: "... Caaaaaarl."
Carl: "Really delicious! Yum!"
He is the leopard.
Ooo, is this like cutting off your nose to spite your face, or a leopard fight?
Yes bill, that was the fucking point everyone was making to you while your republican colleagues wrote and ratified that poorly worded and ill-conceived piece of bullshit legislation. I don't remember what it was exactly but I do remember laughing at how obviously it would come back and bite yall in the ass and you dumbfucks, who lack the insight necessary to spot your own hypocrisy, had no idea.
Republicans are always surprised when language cuts both ways. Which is every time. Not really capable of learning; ergo, not fit to govern.
"Bill O'Reilly", That's a name I haven't heard in a long time. TIL: he's still alive.
Alternate title: Turns out Bill O'Reilly is still alive?
Fuck it, he's doing it (barely) alive!
I hate that bitch but really they pic could be 10 years old and I wouldn't have known
Yo Bob Odenkirk can probably play him in a movie if they age him up a bit
Yes Billy, your book and the law you championed are absurd.
Thanks for finally noticing.
What was his new book? I imagine it was his fascination with penis and vagina.
Does anyone remember the time this asshole was sexually harassing one of his underlings and he didn't know the difference between a falafel and a loofah sponge? "I'm going to rub you down with middle eastern food.... "
There's no reason this hack's books should be in any school library to begin with.
Bill O'Reilly on sex:
Say baby, put down that pipe and get my pipe up.
I would like you to unhook your bra and let it slide down your arms. You can keep your shirt on.
Cup your hands under your breasts and hold them for ten seconds.
I wish I were a lesbian.
All from his classic 1998 novel, Those Who Trespass.
And no, I'm not making a single one of those quotes up.
I would like you to unhook your bra and let it slide down your arms. You can keep your shirt on.
Um.. how is that supposed to work? I hope he included a diagram or something.
Maybe she was wearing a loose sweater and he wanted to... never mind, I have no fucking clue.
This image reminded me of something I couldn't quite put together, til I googled "dentist lawyer Orly". Then it all came back. Unfortunately.
That leopard looks real full of faces
Mofos got to stop feeding it faces before it gets heart disease.
TIL Bill OReilly still exists, people listen to him and Journalists comment on the things he says.
They let him back in the club once he abandoned the last of his dignity and started gobbling orange knob.
“I want to emphasize the fact that there are abuses in certain school districts that harm children,” he said. “There are materials that are inappropriate and those materials have to be specifically included in the law with language that is very specific.”
He'd rather the law say "don't talk about gay people or gay sex but all the other kinds of sex are fine you can talk about that". Does he want them to go down the list by position? Have a specific yes/no on each sexual act? I'm half being facetious because no, seriously, what is "materials that are inappropriate...have to be specifically included in the law with language that is very specific." supposed to mean?? Like what is he talking about. This is literally exactly what he supported.
I seriously thought he was dead. Haven't heard his name in years.
They never care about something until personality affected.
It’s almost as if banning books of any kind sets a bad precedent that is likely to be abused.
Either way, get fucked O’Reilly.
Damn, I forgot this guy was still alive...
What a fragile little snowflake.
I honestly thought this guy died. Then I realized I was thinking of that other blowhard Rush.
Bill is a piece of shit. But, Limbaugh was an even bigger piece of shit.
I hate it for the students of Florida, but I love this for him.
No, not like that!
brexit moment
Knew he was an arsehole. Now I realise how much I underestimated how much of an arsehole he was. Out of 2,000 voters in the UK only one in ten believe leaving the EU has helped their finances. Only 9% believe brexit has helped the NHS financially. Rightwingers around the world need to shut the fuck up about brexit when they clearly don't have a clue that it's been a fucking disaster in multiple ways.
But... it kept those people out!
Isn't that the point of the comment?
If only they knew what words meant...
"We don't need regulations! Why is my water poisoned???"
"I hate socialism! And you better not touch my Medicare!!!"
"We need to protect children! No, we aren't going to just provide free school lunch or healthcare for kids, wtf?"
It's like some people only use words to get what they want; With no inherent understand of the meaning of words.
What a useless article because I have no idea if he is right and this was political play, or if this is a case of leopards ate my face. I would love for it to be the latter, but I have no idea because it doesn't actually provide any information for me to make that determination.
He supported a book banning law. He's in the wrong.
Now he's not gone back on that, he's complaining the law he supported is applying to his books.
He wants to be above the law while others are not.
He doesn't want to be above the law, he just wants language to only be understood how he understands it. Grade 4 reading level tops, all ambiguity and questions disallowed in favour of whatever baseless, glib assertion he wants to make. He wants, essentially, for everyone to be him. Narcissism, in short. The typical republican operating principle - "I'm right because I know everything by my feels" the goddamned retards
The clip of him screaming "Fuck it we'll do it live" is s great example of this. He doesn't understand the term "play us out" so he gets angry at everyone. He can't comprehend that that there are turns of speech he doesn't know, but rather than ask he gets angry at everyone else and pitches a fit like a toddler when they are confronted by something they don't understand.
We don’t know if the law actually applies to his books or if the school is just mad at him for supporting the law because the article doesn’t say anything
if the review board removed the book for violating guidelines its because the law allows for it. Period. This probably means the law itself is broader than he realized and now he's being a little baby.
I’d rather not buy his book to check, the journalist should have though if they wanted to cover this
Laws like these are designed to be vague. It's the intent that they get selectively applied. Of course it's a political play and it's a fair move. Same with banning the bible even though the law wasn't intended for that.
He supported a book banning law. He’s in the wrong.
Agreed, absolutely. The law is stupid, in any form.
Now he’s not gone back on that, he’s complaining the law he supported is applying to his books.
Can you support this claim? In the article he says that he supports the original theme of the law, but that the wording of the actual law is too nebulous. Did he actually support the law as-written because that changes a lot about my position.
He wants to be above the law while others are not.
Maybe that is the case, but the facts as I've seen them don't really support this conclusion. Unless I'm missing something.
Why are you giving Bill O'Reilly the benefit of the doubt, he's a ghoul
I don't really think this is a fair question no matter how you look at something or what you support.
The question he is asking is fair and this commenter genuinely once an answer to avoid the assumption which and then spin into misinformation about a subject.
It's not about giving benefit of the doubt its about asking for a valid claim. I don't support book banning and I hate this guy but I also hate Trump but I wouldn't want the current case to something of the opposite stance based on the way you are thinking.
Imagine if Trump was not given the benefit of the doubt and we got something factually wrong about his case. That creates room for an appeal. Same goes if Biden was on that stand.
Asking for something to support a claim is asking for something to support a fact not an opinion. The commenter is well within their rights to ask for information to support a claim not giving Bill the benefit of the doubt.
Thanks for putting it much more kindly and eloquently than I can.
If the question is "do you like O'Reilly" the answer is "no."
But the question is "do the facts support this current outrage against him" and, as far as I can tell, the answer is also "no."
You are basically arguing that the facts don't matter. I don't work this way, even when it comes to those I dislike.
I fully agree he's a ghoul. It is important however to be intellectually honest and morally consistent, lest we sink to the level of people like Fucker Carlson and Shill O'Reilly. Okay, maybe I'll sink a little sometimes...
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster."
Leftism is skepticism
You should be skeptical about O’Reilly having a decent, coherent thought.
Principles go right out the window when you dislike someone, eh?
Tbh it's not totally useless, as it notes the books have only been temporarily removed, and so the reality is that it's neither him being right about a political play nor leopards eating his face...Yet. I haven't found any followup articles on Escambia County Public School District's review of their books, and wouldn't expect to for awhile given they're reportedly reviewing over 1,600+ books for legal compliance. Also, it's kind of ironic that O'Reilly's benefiting from the group Freedom to Read tracking the books under review...
Right now O'Reilly's fuming over kind of nothing, as no decision has been made regarding whether to ban or remove any of the books up for review. They're simply all in-process of review to comply with the ridiculous new legislation. Maybe in that sense it's kind of more of a leopards ate my face situation that his books have even been temporarily pulled for review because of the legislation?
I don't really know what they were expecting though, as I'm guessing many school districts in Florida are having to go through similar processes to avoid running afoul of the law.
Why does it matter
What do you mean "why does it matter"? Specific claims were made about the content of two books, and whether or not there's even a story depends on if those claims are true. If the claims aren't true, then the only story is that a librarian lied about some books in order to pull them off shelves.
If his book doesn't violate the law, and people removed it anyway as political retribution, then that is an abuse of power.
-or-
If he didn't support the law as-written, and is now pointing to his books being banned because of the poor wording as a reason to support that position, then the position is pretty consistent.
-or-
He is a hypocritical piece of shit who wants to evade the rules he helped put into place for everyone else because he thinks he is elevated above the rest of the citizens of this country.
Yes, absolutely. Which goes back to my original point: the article provides no information upon which you can make this judgment, which is why it's useless.
Y'all, this isn't some sort of centrist gotcha. Dude just wants a citation to which part of Billy's book violated the stupid and dumb law.
Or we can use our brains and recognize that hypocrisy is a constant feature of this type of ideology? For fuck sake dude. These people don't deserve the benefit the doubt anymore, and the fact that you seem to believe so strongly that they do is suspicious.
One of the most common, and probably most dangerous, cognitive biases is confirmation bias. It's the exact opposite of "using your brain" to accept a claim simply because it confirms what you already believe to be true. In fact, that might be the time it's most important to ask yourself whether or not it's true.
It's sad that you find my objectivity when it comes to the facts "suspicious" but that's your own short-coming you need to deal with. The accusation is a reflection of yourself and maybe you need to sit and think on it a bit.
This isn't confirmation bias, this is literally just making a (very) educated guess about a person's motivation given decades of behavior. Don't be fucking stupid.
this is literally just making a (very) educated guess about a person’s motivation given decades of behavior.
You are admitting it's just a "guess" but it's safe to admit it's true because it confirms what you already believe to be true. And you're trying to claim it isn't confirmation bias. lmao. Classic.
No, it's an educated guess. Not a guess. An estimate.
I am using past behavior as a predictor for current/future behavior. Something that is done constantly (e.g. our credit system), and isn't fallacious.
No, it’s an educated guess. Not a guess. An estimate.
Holy shit, this is hilarious. Do you understand how language works? In this case "educated" is an adjective that modifies the noun "guess." An educated guess is a guess. Just specific type. . .basically, not "a blind guess", but one based on being "educated" on the topic. Using the monty hall problem as an example, when they remove the door, it's an "educated guess" to also switch your answer. But you don't know what's behind that door, you just are making the best bet. You're not "estimating" it's behind the other door, you're guessing it is. This is a ridiculous (and failed) attempt at a pedantic argument.
I am using past behavior as a predictor for current/future behavior.
So, again, admitting that it's not based on facts, but simply a guess.
Something that is done constantly (e.g. our credit system), and isn’t fallacious.
If you had just said "I bet it's hypocritical" I wouldn't have said anything. But you didn't. You state it as if it is fact. The credit system does not state "it is fact that they will be bad with any future credit" they are saying "the risk that they will be bad with credit is high, so we are not giving it to them."
Nobody fucking cares dude. Take a step back and think about what you're arguing about here. Just stop. I'm certain you have better things to do.
That's the beauty of it. Republicans write laws that always leave a backdoor for them to pull shenanigans that aren't in the spirit of the law. And if/when they're called out on it they hand wave and say "well it's not clear so the law is up for interpretation".
Now they're crying foul because it was used against them and kung-fu clutching those pearls.
The book was pulled for too many mentions of loofah.
“I DID IT,
LEO-PAAAAARD”
More like MediaLite. What were the books? What official pulled them and on what grounds/passages? Who filed the initial motion/complaint and why? Does Bill plan to do anything more than whine?
Escambia County School District has at least temporarily removed more than 1,000 titles from its shelves because those books have been “alleged to contain pornography or obscene depictions of sexual conduct.” Those include O’Reilly’s Killing Jesus: A History and Killing Reagan: The Violent Assault That Changed a Presidency.
Second paragraph in. The complaints are probably anonymous... so we'll never really know why.
Huh. Don’t know how I missed that. Thanks.
I wonder what kinda sick sick person would come up with this plan. All they have to do is apply the rules. How terrible that someone did this. Tsk tsk
The Florida Freedom to Read Project recently obtained a list of books that have been temporarily removed from libraries in the Escambia County Public School District, which included encyclopedias, The Guinness Book of World Records and two books from conservative pundit O'Reilly: Killing Jesus: A History, and Killing Reagan: The Violent Assault That Changed a Presidency.
In a further statement to the Pensacola News Journal, a district spokesperson clarified that the books included on the list obtained by the Florida Freedom to Read Project "have not been banned or removed from the school district; rather, they have simply been pulled for further review to ensure compliance with the new legislation."
The second chapter describes the life of the Roman general and dictator Julius Caesar, his conquests, his seduction by the Egyptian Ptolemaic queen Cleopatra, and his eventual assassination.
Chapter Seven describes the alleged debaucheries of the Roman emperor Tiberius at Capri, described by the Roman historian Seutonius, accepting all of them as historical.
What are these debaucheries? According to the Wikipedia page of Tiberus:
While Tiberius was in Capri, rumours abounded as to what exactly he was doing there. Suetonius records the rumours of lurid tales of sexual perversity, including graphic depictions of child molestation, cruelty, and most of all his paranoia. While heavily sensationalised, Suetonius' stories at least paint a picture of how Tiberius was perceived by the Roman senatorial class, and what his impact on the Principate was during his 23 years of rule.
As for Killing Regan, the Wikipedia page doesn't provide an indepth summary like Killing Jesus. However, it does say this:
In an op-ed published in National Review, she further stated, "Why the authors want to present this distorted 'witch and wimp' view of Nancy [Reagan] and the 40th president is puzzling, especially since an alternative view of the effect of Reagan's near-death experience is so readily available."
My guess there's a couple of chapters of Throat GOAT Nancy Regan giving someone head.
Ah yes, the people supporting the leopards eating faces club are once again surprised the leopards ate their face.
Heeeyyy I wonder leopard ate my face transitioned to Lemmy.
The problem with those sorts of niche communities is that they need constant (sometimes heavy-handed) moderation to remain on topic. The Fediverse is not really good at that yet.
That and there needs to be a core of dedicated posters producing new, and good, content.
Reddit made a lot of it easy. Good(ish) mod tools (if you used third party apps or browser extensions) and communities that were large enough to keep people interested in the niche subs.
But we all know how that tuned out.
!leopardsatemyface@lemmy.world
Sweet, thanks.
Every single time I see, hear or think any variation of that phrase, I can't help but mentally follow it up with "Caaaarl".
Paul: "How could you eat MY face?"
Carl: "It's quite simple actually: I took a look at your face, found it tasty, tool a little bite and ate it."
Paul: "That doesn't answer my question!"
Carl: "I remember you specifically giving me permission to, and i quote, 'eat all these faces'."
Paul: "Yeah, i was hoping that you wouldn't eat MY face! The face of your buddy, your best friend, your... soulmate."
Carl: "You could have been a bit more specific then. Now your face is gone. I ate it. And it was quite delicious."
Paul: "... Caaaaaarl."
Carl: "Really delicious! Yum!"
He is the leopard.
Ooo, is this like cutting off your nose to spite your face, or a leopard fight?
A leopard sword fight, perhaps?
Poor guy! Suffering the consequences of his own actions like some non-rich person!
Fuck that letter spacing
The keming on that is atrocious.
I hate you for this comment lol
Bravo! 😆
How dare you.
Yeah.. Also not too big of a fan of using awe instead of aww, but it gets the point across 🤷
Fuck around and space out.
I think the original meme didn't say "find" at first ("send"?)
Unless it's protecting them from hunger. Or lead in water. Or child labor.
Or school shootings. Or bad curriculum. Or critical thinking. Or...
I feel bad for people who are stuck in Florida and can't afford to leave.
Can afford to leave. Stay for family I can't unbrainwash. 😢
I feel for folks in your position too. Take care
Don't be foolish save the world.
Written as someone in the same position and planning to cut ties.
It's like that in New Hampshire too. The Florida of the North. Shit, I might have to become a sugar baby or whatever the fuck that is.
This fuck is still alive? After I stopped hearing about him for awhile I assumed he'd done us all a favor and followed Rush to hell.
i didnt either
https://moist.catsweat.com/m/stillalive/t/127989/Bill-O-Reilly-74-sorry
Leopards, face-eating, and whatnot.
He never thought they'd eat HIS face.
They never do, honestly...
Yes bill, that was the fucking point everyone was making to you while your republican colleagues wrote and ratified that poorly worded and ill-conceived piece of bullshit legislation. I don't remember what it was exactly but I do remember laughing at how obviously it would come back and bite yall in the ass and you dumbfucks, who lack the insight necessary to spot your own hypocrisy, had no idea.
Republicans are always surprised when language cuts both ways. Which is every time. Not really capable of learning; ergo, not fit to govern.
"Bill O'Reilly", That's a name I haven't heard in a long time. TIL: he's still alive.
Damn he looks old. Irrelevant fuck.
Alternate title: Turns out Bill O'Reilly is still alive?
Fuck it, he's doing it (barely) alive!
I hate that bitch but really they pic could be 10 years old and I wouldn't have known
Yo Bob Odenkirk can probably play him in a movie if they age him up a bit
Yes Billy, your book and the law you championed are absurd.
Thanks for finally noticing.
What was his new book? I imagine it was his fascination with penis and vagina.
Does anyone remember the time this asshole was sexually harassing one of his underlings and he didn't know the difference between a falafel and a loofah sponge? "I'm going to rub you down with middle eastern food.... "
There's no reason this hack's books should be in any school library to begin with.
Bill O'Reilly on sex:
All from his classic 1998 novel, Those Who Trespass.
And no, I'm not making a single one of those quotes up.
Um.. how is that supposed to work? I hope he included a diagram or something.
Maybe she was wearing a loose sweater and he wanted to... never mind, I have no fucking clue.
Time to resurrect a classic
take that to !antiquememesroadshow@lemmy.world, might get a good price for it
insert best I can do.jpg
This image reminded me of something I couldn't quite put together, til I googled "dentist lawyer Orly". Then it all came back. Unfortunately.
That leopard looks real full of faces
Mofos got to stop feeding it faces before it gets heart disease.
TIL Bill OReilly still exists, people listen to him and Journalists comment on the things he says.
They let him back in the club once he abandoned the last of his dignity and started gobbling orange knob.
He'd rather the law say "don't talk about gay people or gay sex but all the other kinds of sex are fine you can talk about that". Does he want them to go down the list by position? Have a specific yes/no on each sexual act? I'm half being facetious because no, seriously, what is "materials that are inappropriate...have to be specifically included in the law with language that is very specific." supposed to mean?? Like what is he talking about. This is literally exactly what he supported.
I seriously thought he was dead. Haven't heard his name in years.
They never care about something until personality affected.
It’s almost as if banning books of any kind sets a bad precedent that is likely to be abused.
Either way, get fucked O’Reilly.
Damn, I forgot this guy was still alive...
What a fragile little snowflake.
I honestly thought this guy died. Then I realized I was thinking of that other blowhard Rush.
Bill is a piece of shit. But, Limbaugh was an even bigger piece of shit.
I hate it for the students of Florida, but I love this for him.
No, not like that!
Knew he was an arsehole. Now I realise how much I underestimated how much of an arsehole he was. Out of 2,000 voters in the UK only one in ten believe leaving the EU has helped their finances. Only 9% believe brexit has helped the NHS financially. Rightwingers around the world need to shut the fuck up about brexit when they clearly don't have a clue that it's been a fucking disaster in multiple ways.
But... it kept those people out!
Isn't that the point of the comment?
If only they knew what words meant...
"We don't need regulations! Why is my water poisoned???"
"I hate socialism! And you better not touch my Medicare!!!"
"We need to protect children! No, we aren't going to just provide free school lunch or healthcare for kids, wtf?"
It's like some people only use words to get what they want; With no inherent understand of the meaning of words.
What a useless article because I have no idea if he is right and this was political play, or if this is a case of leopards ate my face. I would love for it to be the latter, but I have no idea because it doesn't actually provide any information for me to make that determination.
He supported a book banning law. He's in the wrong.
Now he's not gone back on that, he's complaining the law he supported is applying to his books.
He wants to be above the law while others are not.
He doesn't want to be above the law, he just wants language to only be understood how he understands it. Grade 4 reading level tops, all ambiguity and questions disallowed in favour of whatever baseless, glib assertion he wants to make. He wants, essentially, for everyone to be him. Narcissism, in short. The typical republican operating principle - "I'm right because I know everything by my feels" the goddamned retards
The clip of him screaming "Fuck it we'll do it live" is s great example of this. He doesn't understand the term "play us out" so he gets angry at everyone. He can't comprehend that that there are turns of speech he doesn't know, but rather than ask he gets angry at everyone else and pitches a fit like a toddler when they are confronted by something they don't understand.
We don’t know if the law actually applies to his books or if the school is just mad at him for supporting the law because the article doesn’t say anything
if the review board removed the book for violating guidelines its because the law allows for it. Period. This probably means the law itself is broader than he realized and now he's being a little baby.
I’d rather not buy his book to check, the journalist should have though if they wanted to cover this
Laws like these are designed to be vague. It's the intent that they get selectively applied. Of course it's a political play and it's a fair move. Same with banning the bible even though the law wasn't intended for that.
Agreed, absolutely. The law is stupid, in any form.
Can you support this claim? In the article he says that he supports the original theme of the law, but that the wording of the actual law is too nebulous. Did he actually support the law as-written because that changes a lot about my position.
Maybe that is the case, but the facts as I've seen them don't really support this conclusion. Unless I'm missing something.
Why are you giving Bill O'Reilly the benefit of the doubt, he's a ghoul
I don't really think this is a fair question no matter how you look at something or what you support.
The question he is asking is fair and this commenter genuinely once an answer to avoid the assumption which and then spin into misinformation about a subject.
It's not about giving benefit of the doubt its about asking for a valid claim. I don't support book banning and I hate this guy but I also hate Trump but I wouldn't want the current case to something of the opposite stance based on the way you are thinking.
Imagine if Trump was not given the benefit of the doubt and we got something factually wrong about his case. That creates room for an appeal. Same goes if Biden was on that stand.
Asking for something to support a claim is asking for something to support a fact not an opinion. The commenter is well within their rights to ask for information to support a claim not giving Bill the benefit of the doubt.
Thanks for putting it much more kindly and eloquently than I can.
If the question is "do you like O'Reilly" the answer is "no."
But the question is "do the facts support this current outrage against him" and, as far as I can tell, the answer is also "no."
You are basically arguing that the facts don't matter. I don't work this way, even when it comes to those I dislike.
I fully agree he's a ghoul. It is important however to be intellectually honest and morally consistent, lest we sink to the level of people like Fucker Carlson and Shill O'Reilly. Okay, maybe I'll sink a little sometimes...
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster."
Leftism is skepticism
You should be skeptical about O’Reilly having a decent, coherent thought.
Principles go right out the window when you dislike someone, eh?
Tbh it's not totally useless, as it notes the books have only been temporarily removed, and so the reality is that it's neither him being right about a political play nor leopards eating his face...Yet. I haven't found any followup articles on Escambia County Public School District's review of their books, and wouldn't expect to for awhile given they're reportedly reviewing over 1,600+ books for legal compliance. Also, it's kind of ironic that O'Reilly's benefiting from the group Freedom to Read tracking the books under review...
Right now O'Reilly's fuming over kind of nothing, as no decision has been made regarding whether to ban or remove any of the books up for review. They're simply all in-process of review to comply with the ridiculous new legislation. Maybe in that sense it's kind of more of a leopards ate my face situation that his books have even been temporarily pulled for review because of the legislation?
I don't really know what they were expecting though, as I'm guessing many school districts in Florida are having to go through similar processes to avoid running afoul of the law.
Why does it matter
What do you mean "why does it matter"? Specific claims were made about the content of two books, and whether or not there's even a story depends on if those claims are true. If the claims aren't true, then the only story is that a librarian lied about some books in order to pull them off shelves.
If his book doesn't violate the law, and people removed it anyway as political retribution, then that is an abuse of power.
-or-
If he didn't support the law as-written, and is now pointing to his books being banned because of the poor wording as a reason to support that position, then the position is pretty consistent.
-or-
He is a hypocritical piece of shit who wants to evade the rules he helped put into place for everyone else because he thinks he is elevated above the rest of the citizens of this country.
Yes, absolutely. Which goes back to my original point: the article provides no information upon which you can make this judgment, which is why it's useless.
Y'all, this isn't some sort of centrist gotcha. Dude just wants a citation to which part of Billy's book violated the stupid and dumb law.
Or we can use our brains and recognize that hypocrisy is a constant feature of this type of ideology? For fuck sake dude. These people don't deserve the benefit the doubt anymore, and the fact that you seem to believe so strongly that they do is suspicious.
One of the most common, and probably most dangerous, cognitive biases is confirmation bias. It's the exact opposite of "using your brain" to accept a claim simply because it confirms what you already believe to be true. In fact, that might be the time it's most important to ask yourself whether or not it's true.
It's sad that you find my objectivity when it comes to the facts "suspicious" but that's your own short-coming you need to deal with. The accusation is a reflection of yourself and maybe you need to sit and think on it a bit.
This isn't confirmation bias, this is literally just making a (very) educated guess about a person's motivation given decades of behavior. Don't be fucking stupid.
You are admitting it's just a "guess" but it's safe to admit it's true because it confirms what you already believe to be true. And you're trying to claim it isn't confirmation bias. lmao. Classic.
No, it's an educated guess. Not a guess. An estimate.
I am using past behavior as a predictor for current/future behavior. Something that is done constantly (e.g. our credit system), and isn't fallacious.
Holy shit, this is hilarious. Do you understand how language works? In this case "educated" is an adjective that modifies the noun "guess." An educated guess is a guess. Just specific type. . .basically, not "a blind guess", but one based on being "educated" on the topic. Using the monty hall problem as an example, when they remove the door, it's an "educated guess" to also switch your answer. But you don't know what's behind that door, you just are making the best bet. You're not "estimating" it's behind the other door, you're guessing it is. This is a ridiculous (and failed) attempt at a pedantic argument.
So, again, admitting that it's not based on facts, but simply a guess.
If you had just said "I bet it's hypocritical" I wouldn't have said anything. But you didn't. You state it as if it is fact. The credit system does not state "it is fact that they will be bad with any future credit" they are saying "the risk that they will be bad with credit is high, so we are not giving it to them."
Nobody fucking cares dude. Take a step back and think about what you're arguing about here. Just stop. I'm certain you have better things to do.
Unlike conservatives, I prefer to be outraged by facts instead of misinformation.
That's the beauty of it. Republicans write laws that always leave a backdoor for them to pull shenanigans that aren't in the spirit of the law. And if/when they're called out on it they hand wave and say "well it's not clear so the law is up for interpretation".
Now they're crying foul because it was used against them and kung-fu clutching those pearls.
The book was pulled for too many mentions of loofah.
“I DID IT, LEO-PAAAAARD”
More like MediaLite. What were the books? What official pulled them and on what grounds/passages? Who filed the initial motion/complaint and why? Does Bill plan to do anything more than whine?
Second paragraph in. The complaints are probably anonymous... so we'll never really know why.
Huh. Don’t know how I missed that. Thanks.
I wonder what kinda sick sick person would come up with this plan. All they have to do is apply the rules. How terrible that someone did this. Tsk tsk
FUCK IT! WE'LL DO IT LIVE!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu2NK5REvWM
Tide Comes In for the Fashits
Irony much?
Thumbnail looks like a depressing Wish version of Max Headroom.
Something something that quote about wanting to free the in group and bind the out group,
this aggression, it will not stand, dude
"kill Bill O'Reilly" (not my words) "older" East Coast real hiphop for the youngins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ6d8w20-zY&t=1
Damn that's pretty good
And here I thought he had died a few years ago. Dangit. Still assholing along.
For those who want more information:
Former Fox News Host's Books Removed From Florida Schools
According the Wikipedia page of Killing Jesus:
What are these debaucheries? According to the Wikipedia page of Tiberus:
As for Killing Regan, the Wikipedia page doesn't provide an indepth summary like Killing Jesus. However, it does say this:
My guess there's a couple of chapters of Throat GOAT Nancy Regan giving someone head.