That card is perfectly fucking designed, because the result of the design was that Steve Harvey fucked up royally on live TV.

You I like.

Dude he’s a raging misogynist. Really? You’re defending him?

First, I’m a guy. Second, I saw a show during vacation where he berated women for the choices they made, and talked to them like they were stupid. I’m actually quite surprised Harvey has fans in these parts. THanks for the “He’s not stupid...you’re stupid!” argument. Really well reasoned and on point.

Dude, I’m sure that like me, you work during the day. Happened to catch it on a rare weekday off. DVR that bitch for a couple days, and you’ll wonder what the fuck is up with that show, too. The guy is not funny, and acts like a dick. See for yourself.

Yeah, I didn’t really articulate why I hate him. He went off on some rant about how atheists have no moral code, which is bullshit. Falling somewhere on the atheist/agnostic scale, I’m really offended by the way he thinks someone like me would have no moral code. I have a pretty strong moral code, actually. Like I’d…

Athiests lack a moral compass, but he wrecked three marriages (of his own) by slinging dick at everything with a pulse.

Why? It’s snl, it won’t be funny

Man, fuck that guy.

I’m Ron Burgandy?

Look at all the dumb shit this man says. There are very few entertainers I hate more than Steve Harvey:

He makes a lot of really uneducated statements.

While we can’t know the author’s intent for sure, “what’s in this drink” most likely, for the time period, meant there was more liquor or an additional liquor that the drinker wasn’t expecting rather than an exclamation of the delicious flavor. Remember, this was a time when drinking scotch before bed nightly was a…

It IS a date-rape scenario though. Yes, the listener is expected to be in on the joke that she really does want to stay, but the thing is the cover story is still a date rape scenario. And it still only works as a cover story if the woman is interpreted as “secretly wanting [sex].”

I think what complicates things is that the norms of dating back them really are against modern sensibilities. What we call rape now back then was seen as boys will be boys. It’s was a woman’s job to say no, and a man’s job to persist. And neither of them labeled it rape, even if it was rape.

I understand that the expectation was that a “proper” young woman was not allowed to say yes when offered anything physical, and was to say no, and make the young man “work” for it by seducing and overpowering her. I also understand that if the woman is not allowed to say yes, and if her No is going to be interpreted…

Because “’No’ just means ‘try harder’” is still an incredibly fucked up expectation that has the same effective outcome of removing the woman’s agency. It was fucked up back then, and it’s fucked up today.

“It’s OK, because she secretly wants it.”

See, I’ve had the same argument be made towards me about that song, but in my mind it really doesn’t matter what the context of the time was. If a piece of artistic history becomes inappropriate due to changing societal norms it can still be appreciated, but it should no longer be celebrated in my book.

Yep. He ran on trying to get 25,000 refugees in the country by the end of the year, but pushed that back to either ensure proper screening was in place, or to have more time to get it done. Depending on which narrative you believe.