what does this have to do with taking pictures of people without their consent?

the tumblr where the dudes are spreading their legs too far? that's totally different because of PATRIARCHY

more Rachel, more Tim, less Ava.

I always assumed that was sort of the point.

I honestly, and without exaggeration or hyperbole, can not figure out why anyone in the world cares about this.

yup. There's a time and a place for this sort of thing, and it sure isn't after a close friend asks you to do the thing (my stepmother lost a really good friend this way, incidentally)

This is a film with three lady leads, a thing that is sadly uncommon, and should be celebrated. But since they're all white, I guess fuck em?

No, it means that you have some sort of mental retardation, and I have to guess you personally don't have the ability to diagnose that over the internet.

I wonder if that plastic surgeon has ever found a prospective patient's mental state... wanting and refused to do the procedure.

I don't really like to toss around the crazy card either, but...

I think it's very clear that you completely misunderstood the video's message.

just because it's an old joke doesn't mean it doesn't apply here.

the point

agreed. my point is that one thing is being used to justify the other, when neither are required.

If you have to doggedly point out that it's satire, something has failed.

I loathe the sexism in these ads, but what truly repels me is the mysteriously emphasized sounds of chewing. It actually makes me sick.

No, it means there's a clear, obvious difference between the two jokes, and you're refusing to see it (and I admire your hamfisted attempt to shut the argument down with the "you're an MRA!" strawman).

go home Dov, you're not fooling anyone

No. Colbert was making a satirical joke, making fun of the ridiculous Redskins charity that's condescending and insulting. Tosh told a woman heckler in his audience that it would be funny if she got raped.

there's CLEARLY a difference.