Also, non-substantive response, I was aware of the potential issues of using "SJWs" given the baggage of the term, but I think its meaning neatly fits the point I was making, which is people who know which side they're on of every case before even having read what happened.

If you believe he did it then I think forgiveness is a hard case. The victim killed herself. So while I think everyone wants to give someone a second chance and not let one bad decision ruin their life, what if that decision did unquestionably ruin (and, at least in part, lead to the end of) someone else's life? Not…

There's a distinction you're missing there. There's a condescension inherent in the quote you ended with, which is reasonable in a UFO context because that person is actively ignoring the easier (and correct) explanation for whatever they saw.

This is true, but it doesn't respond at all to the problem raised in the article, which is how Parker's work should be treated. That necessarily depends on his own case.

Part of the reason they have little incentive to lie is because their life gets destroyed by even making the accusation. Between people not believing them and people blaming them, among other things. Plus the odds of even getting to trial, much less getting a conviction, are so slim that there's not much point. And…

If you read the comments, of which there are more now than there were when I posted this, so maybe there more variety, they said exclusively "good, he did it and fuck him." If your position is that he doesn't deserve to have a career or to be discussed in any fashion, which is the opinion of many, then you need to be…

They've posted other articles on the subject as well. Although discussing Parker's rape allegations every time Nat Turner is mentioned seems excessive, we'd have to edit all the high school history books.

And I called everyone who isn't "MRAs." I've got condescending terms for everyone, don't worry. If you can read this story and be 100% sure on either side then you're not an advocate, you're an ideologue.

Yeah. Either way, the standard for a new trial requires that whatever the problem was could have actually made a difference. It's a complicating factor regardless.

This case brings up everything that is complicated about this issue. Every detail is laid out in a way that is open to interpretation:

I think that was part of the joke, particularly early on.

Best moment of the oral history:

But I love my debt and it loves me. That's why it will never leave me. Shouldn't everyone get to feel that?

You're just too churchy.

Better or worse than: you're fired, find another job.

I'm not sure that Calvin and Hobbes has become more meaningful, necessarily, but it has added depth. I loved it as a kid for the goofy jokes and visuals, the colors of the Sunday strips, and that it included a tiger. My dad used to read the strips to me during pre-bed reading time which, in hindsight, had to be…

I don't buy this though because you could have done a four month contract or something. It's hardly unheard of for shows to get short leashes when the network is having doubts. Maybe Wilmore wouldn't have accepted that deal, but I don't know why. You don't just give up your TV show.

His restrained personality is part of why the panels didn't work, so that part is still true. The age part is irrelevant though.

But none of the alternatives you gave were somewhere they could have gone at the time. The alternatives were Fallon, Conan, and Letterman (for four months.) Wilmore had six months to follow Stewart when everyone wanted to watch him because he was leaving. People can get a perfectly good handle on whether they want to…

The cancelation of the show doesn't bother me because I don't think it was working, but I agree that the timing doesn't make sense. How could giving it three months have hurt, especially since they have nothing to replace it with anyway? Keep your political shows through the election and see if they can gain traction.