She consented and willingly performed oral sex. It was a consensual sex act.

The believe gender is an entirely social construct and that gender and biological sex vary independently.

She gave him head. It wasn’t against her will.

Fuck off, LazerFace, you thought policing puritanical school marm.

Yes, all men must therefore instinctually stop at non-verbal clues and verbal cues of "slow down" before eventually having consensual sex. Stop equating this with rape, it's disgusting.

Jesus Christ, he did not rape her, she willingly participated. How was he supposed to understand her statement of let’s slow down as “I’m afraid of you”? They DID slow down and she had sex with him after that. Stop trying to criminalize bad sex and stop making changing one’s mind afterward rape.

He was guilty of nothing. You’re glad he was raked over the coals to give MeToo a boost? He was an acceptable casualty for being sexually awkward?

There is no reason in the world for Ansari to be lumped in with these men. It was totally consensual, he was just bad at it. Ridiculous.

So progressives want to abolish prisons but bristle at the idea of redemption. Brain dead hypocrisy.

My ilk? You mean actual liberals?

Wasn’t Boots’ critique about not investigating the KKK as much debunked? I can’t find it, I think it was in the comments section.

So you think just because they call themselves progressives that they automatically stand for progress? They don’t. They are against free speech. They love political violence. They judge everyone by race and break people into racial collectives. They teach young people that words are violence. They deny biology. This…

So the outrage mobs will continue until morale improves. Or you could stop. Just a thought.

This is exponentially more pretentious and condescending than what Hawke said.

It’s Trey Stone, you left your book in my rumpus room:

Yeah, I guess trying to shut down speech is a liberal value now. By your logic, the ACLU aren’t liberals: http://archive.is/6LEPL

You are supposed to care more about the ability of someone to express their views than the “safety of their users”, i.e. hearing something they don’t like. What exactly do you mean by "the safety of their users"? It is physically impossible for someone to be unsafe on Twitter. You're talking about feelings, aren't you?

So if it was wrong for the right to do it, why is it fine for the left to do it? Is your argument really “they did it first”? Or is it that you think the existential threat of a president WHO CAN BE VOTED OUT justifies outright hypocrisy and rejection of liberal principles???????

Yes, I know to your ideologically befuddled skull, insisting that we should not judge ANYONE by race is racist. I know that you think this because I have the sheer audacity to include white people in this sentiment. I know. But ask yourself: Do good things happen when you put people into racial collectives? Has…

Yes, I’m a racist for not wanting anyone judged by race. Shifty fucking ideology you got going. But by all means, continue to put people into tribes. What could go wrong? Cough cough all of human history cough cough.