And yet you’ve spent a lot of time either insulting people without contributing anything else, or arguing against the sky being blue. You’re giving away the game on how intellectually honest your arguements has been, in case you don’t notice...

No, not at all. If your reading comprehension is so bad you haven’t picked up this question/frame being addressed...well it’s pretty bad, then.

Please, read the head of the article. Saying he’s in a position to explain himself is not the same as having a strong opinion on what he knew.

If he knew of rumors, which is plausible, and feigned ignorance because he wanted to protect his friend, that is helping. You don’t have to be knowing to be an accomplice either, the level of your responsibilty for wrong doing is just relative to that, not the reality of the fact.

Based on how you define “crime”, sure. I get your point, but think you’re using it wrong considering legality has never been a question.

Allow me to make a counterpoint: You have no clue what you’re talking about.

Possibilty of innocence isn’t a complete exonoration. And again, this isn’t to the standards of a legal case. If he had no knowledge, he owes no appology other than just the decision to be an ass in that moment instead of not being. As noted in the story, for example, other people navigated this without that and…

The term you’re pretending doesn’t exist is “accomplice”. It’s literal ignoramuty to confuse that with guilt by association.

It’s possible, but not plausible Stewart knew nothing and had heard no rumors. With the abuser admitting to the accusations, it’s fair to address this with Stewart (and Maron and everyone else who were decidedly silent or refusing to comment) post that revalation.

Woman having a right to sexual consent is more prosperous for our civilization than them not having that right. That is the realization that has played out and is now driving the current shift.

I’d say it implies silence is somehow equivalent also. I would not say exactly equivalent, but it is wrong doing, correct? I mean, this isn’t a legal case, where you expect very high standards, but even in that realm this is being an accomplice if there is also knowledge. And, again, that’s a higher standard than…

You’re being needlessly defensive instead of understanding the point. You used the term “social contract”. That’s not an individual. But whatever. Like I said, you make an excellent overall point. Just trying to help you avoid needless inaccuracy, but please enjoy doing that if you like.

As hyperbolic as it sounds, it’s ridiclously common for conservative thinkers to very literally not understand the concept of consent in any other context than how it applies to justifying people who have lots of wealth and a white penis attached to their bodies in their desire to avoid taxes.

That is explicitly what the piece here does. Maybe actually read what was written instead of trying to divine or imagine some attitude about it.

Is he being blamed for that? Being ignorant or refusing to speak are different from pushing back or bullying or discrediting. You’re right that he’s not guilty of things he’s not guilty of, and can’t be blamed for things he can’t be blamed for, but the criticism is about what he can be blamed for and is guilty of,…

I don’t want to detract from the excellent points you are making, but morality is an evolutionary survival strategy, not an arbitrary construct. Same thing with racism/xenophobia/tribalism. It’s ultimately empirical. Whatever set of behaviors lead to the best survival results determine the social contract. The…

Its offered as one of the reward options for hunters after a mission, fyi.

You could just try growing the fuck up. Poor fucking baby, I own a white penis and I don’t have any issue understanding the reality and just supporting progress any way I can, instead of whining about how I need a country all for myself and people who look like me as my safe space.

Yeah, you kind of seem to be expressing that in a rather a-holish manner, but Clinton being a bad candidate is empirical fact at this point.

Most, if not all, of them. Freedom of (whatever), for too many people means freedom to do (whatever) the way I do it and freedom to prohibit others from doing (whatever) their way because it offends me.