If you pay for the comments tier, can Burneko still shadow ban you for participating in a thread where someone else mildly criticizes one of his bafflingly awful hot takes?

All good points. You could also make the argument (knowing the Emmy’s wouldn’t agree) that Jovan Adepo was the most deserving male lead - he may have only been in one episode, but he WAS that one episode, and his total screen time for the season is probably close to Irons.

Honestly while the number of acting nods is kind of shocking on the surface, I feel like they each individually justified their nominations.

You are almost certainly correct! But on paper it’s still funny. Especially since you could make the case that, if you had to pick a single lead, it would be David.

So David and Alexis are supporting characters on Schitt’s Creek...

Has Fisher expanded on those comments at all? Because I don’t know how much the word of Snyder, who a) clearly has a grudge with Whedon and b) wasn’t there, adds to the story.

I feel like you’ve done a good job explaining why cheating with a random barfly could still be very hurtful and a not good job at explaining why cheating with your spouse’s sister is somehow less so.

Any prospective client could ask him what law school he attended, how many years he’s been practicing, how many cases he’s defended, etc, and if he answers honestly then they’d have all the info needed to make their decision on whether or not he would provide legitimate defense.

1) why on earth are you taking this so seriously? 2) they absolutely could not throw out a verdict in favor of the defendant, due to a transgression by the defendant’s lawyer. If it was the prosecutor then yes they would absolutely throw out guilty verdicts, but it does not work both ways.

Lol you thought your last comment was some sort of drop the mic moment?!

You’re open-minded about deeply anti-Semitic conspiracy theory garbage?

Well you’ve picked the wrong side to be defending and it’s shows everything one needs to know about you.

What offends me is that you defended Nick Cannon’s virulently anti-Semitic comments and have been given ample opportunity to understand why those comments were anti-Semitic, well past the point where you can claim ignorance as an excuse, and yet you keep trying to dig into your position.

For this specific family, yes it does, especially since you’ve now been told more than enough times why it does.

You’ve been told multiple times in this thread that the Rothschilds are basically only used as an anti-Semitic dogwhistle and you’ve doubled and tripled down on saying fuck ‘em in response. So we’re well past the point of it being “neither” and veering close to the point where “ignorant asshole” isn’t an option…

You are the company you keep, and if the vast majority of people who say fuck the Rothschilds are anti-semites, that would suggest you’re one too. Unless you’re just an ignorant asshole.

If you don’t know who the Rothschilds are look them up. They’re a boogeyman for anti-Jews. So by saying fuck ‘em what are you actually saying?

If you go to Spain and ask a Spanish person what their favorite movies and shows are they will almost certainly start listing American ones. So yeah, in regards to media America kinda is the absolute center of the world.

The “I can’t be anti-Semitic since Black people are the actual Semites” part is laughably bullshit. His comments weren’t just broadly anti-Semitic, they were directly and specifically anti-Jew, and arguing terminology doesn’t make it any less hateful to co-sign the statement that “Jews are wicked”.

The very fact that they waited a full day until after his apology to post something, rather than right after the news broke yesterday, is telling enough.