He wasn't making fun of someone with a disability - he was making fun of a politician running for office with an eye path and a weird smile - he was making fun of each political candidates of various photos. There is a line but how many people draw it at the same place. And the fact that a lot of conservative vets wrote things like this on the youtube video tells you something: My point is - that what he did wasn't universally offensive even by vets and conservatives. Crenshaw himself wasn't offended and had to go on SNL to help the poor guy out. Where's the line? It's in different places for different people. To say he shouldn't do x or why as a COMEDIAN is a bit ridiculous. He's not a political candidate, he is not representing the population. Do you really think he is making fun of a guy because he was wounded in a war???
Yes. I think he made fun of someone's appearance and physical disability so I don't much care about some posts you pulled from somewhere. I also think comics should be given a lot of latitude but if it is ok with you, I will stick to my opinion that this went too far. You have a different opinion. Great. That is the beauty of opinions.
Like I said, the line is in different places for different people. If you can appreciate that for many people, including war vets were not offended and in fact amused, than that's a good thing
A crappy SNL comedian, the latest in the long list of people held to a higher standard than the President of the United States. Somewhere @Space Ghost and @pgabriel are smiling.
I'd also say it's fitting that the only talk on this board about this guy is what some dumb comedian said about him on a comedy show. If you actually read his policies, they're quite Trump-centric, even replete with MAGAMan type language about the leftists and blah blah. Looks like he'll make a fine addition to the swamp. https://crenshawforcongress.com/issues/
I certainly do. Esepecially ones not named John McCain. That war hawk died sad he didn't get to see the launch of WW3.
yeah, he is full-on trumpublican. which is funny b/c this is what he said about trump in 2015... "The Trump-fueled acrimony is also unfolding in Texas races where the Club is not involved. In the runoff for the 2nd Congressional District — where U.S. Rep. Ted Poe, R-Houston, is not seeking re-election — Houston state Rep. Kevin Roberts has seized on a series of years-old Facebook posts from his opponent, Dan Crenshaw, to paint him as unfriendly to Trump. In a 2015 post that has drawn the most scrutiny from Roberts and his allies, Crenshaw writes that Trump's "insane rhetoric" toward Muslims "is hateful" and takes away from conversations around "the reform of Islam." He also calls Trump an idiot while writing of "equally ignorant liberals" on the other side of the debate." https://www.texastribune.org/2018/05/14/texas-republican-runoffs-youre-either-trump-or-youre-not/ sounds to me like just another sell-out politician. wow...this dude is a real piece of work - im liking him less after reading where he stands...also, a lot of his positions are actually not in line with what trump is doing... he says he wants "free market principles", but trump is pro-tariff and protectionist trade policies. he calls for "embracing free trade", but again that is not what trump is doing. he bemoans the "national debt" and says "we can't keep borrowing from our children", but trump is blowing that up. he says he will fight for 2nd amendment rights, but trump actually called for gun confiscation without a court order.
Took me a couple of days to get around to reading this. Good essay. This excerpt should be a sticky for the D&D: "How, then, do we live together in this world of differing ideas? For starters, let’s agree that the ideas are fair game. If you think my idea is awful, you should say as much. But there is a difference between attacking an idea and attacking the person behind that idea. Labeling someone as an “-ist” who believes in an “-ism” because of the person’s policy preference is just a shortcut to playground-style name-calling, cloaked in political terminology. It’s also generally a good indication that the attacker doesn’t have a solid argument and needs a way to end debate before it has even begun. "Similarly, people too often attack not just an idea but also the supposed intent behind an idea. That raises the emotional level of the debate and might seem like it strengthens the attacker’s side, but it’s a terrible way to make a point. Assuming the worst about your opponents’ intentions has the effect of demonizing their ideas, removing the need for sound counter-reasoning and fact-based argument. That’s not a good environment for the exchange of ideas." https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...6cca409c180_story.html?utm_term=.95e009484848 SNL mocked my appearance. Here’s why I didn’t demand an apology By Dan Crenshaw November 13 Dan Crenshaw, a former Navy SEAL, is a Republican representative-elect from Texas. The past couple of weeks have been unusual for me, to say the least. After a year of hard campaigning for Congress in Texas and gradually entering the public sphere, I was hit by a sudden, blinding spotlight. But I have no complaints — it wasn’t as bad as some other challenges I’ve faced, like a sudden, blinding IED explosion. (See what I did there? “Saturday Night Live” has created a comedic monster.) On the Nov. 3 show, SNL’s Pete Davidson mocked my appearance — “he lost his eye in war . . . or whatever,” Davidson said, referring to the eye patch I wear. His line about my looking like a “hit man in a porno movie” was significantly less infuriating, albeit a little strange. I woke up on the Sunday morning after the show to hundreds of texts about what Davidson had said. A lot of America wasn’t happy. People thought some lines still shouldn’t be crossed. I agreed. But I also could not help but note that this was another chapter in a phenomenon that has taken complete control of the national discourse: outrage culture. It seems like every not-so-carefully-worded public misstep must be punished to the fullest extent, replete with soapbox lectures and demands for apologies. Anyone who doesn’t show the expected level of outrage will be labeled a coward or an apologist for bad behavior. I get the feeling that regular, hard-working, generally unoffended Americans sigh with exhaustion — daily. Was I really outraged by SNL? Really offended? Or did I just think the comment about losing my eye was offensive? There is a difference, after all. I have been literally shot at before, and I wasn’t outraged. Why start now? So I didn’t demand an apology and I didn’t call for anyone to be fired. That doesn’t mean the “war . . . or whatever” line was acceptable, but I didn’t have to fan the flames of outrage, either. When SNL reached out with an apology and an offer to be on the show, I wasn’t fully sold on the idea. It was going to be Veterans Day weekend, after all, and I had events with veterans planned. I asked if another weekend might work. No, they said, precisely because it was Veterans Day, it would be the right time to send the right message. They assured me that we could use the opportunity to send a message of unity, forgiveness and appreciation for veterans. And to make fun of Pete Davidson, of course. And that’s what we did. I was happy with how it worked out. But now what? Does it suddenly mean that the left and right will get along and live in utopian harmony? Maybe Saturday’s show made a tiny step in that direction, but I’m not naive. As a country, we still have a lot of work to do. We need to agree on some basic rules for civil discourse. There are many ideas that we will never agree on. The left and the right have different ways of approaching governance, based on contrasting philosophies. But many of the ultimate goals — economic prosperity, better health care and education, etc. — are the same. We just don’t share the same vision of how to achieve them. How, then, do we live together in this world of differing ideas? For starters, let’s agree that the ideas are fair game. If you think my idea is awful, you should say as much. But there is a difference between attacking an idea and attacking the person behind that idea. Labeling someone as an “-ist” who believes in an “-ism” because of the person’s policy preference is just a shortcut to playground-style name-calling, cloaked in political terminology. It’s also generally a good indication that the attacker doesn’t have a solid argument and needs a way to end debate before it has even begun. Similarly, people too often attack not just an idea but also the supposed intent behind an idea. That raises the emotional level of the debate and might seem like it strengthens the attacker’s side, but it’s a terrible way to make a point. Assuming the worst about your opponents’ intentions has the effect of demonizing their ideas, removing the need for sound counter-reasoning and fact-based argument. That’s not a good environment for the exchange of ideas. When all else fails, try asking for forgiveness, or granting it. On Saturday, Pete Davidson and SNL made amends. I had some fun. Everyone generally agreed that a veteran’s wounds aren’t fair game for comedy. Maybe now we should all try to work toward restoring civility to public debate.
I think when Pete said it the context was that millennials have never known a time when the US was not at war. For them, returning servicemen are not "special" but just common, 16 years worth of war somewhere, everyday of their entire lives, with no victories, no parades and a lack of VA services for the people we are supposed to revere ( constant hypocrisy)
To be clear the eye patch is just a look to make him stand out in the crowd - he could probably contact Shannon Sharpe to hook him up with proper glass eye manufacturer. If he moves up the political food chain I'm betting he loses the eye patch.
I do think this aspect is under-reported, of course: People can rouse themselves from a couch and shake their fist over an eye-patch joke, but still don't care if returning vets receive proper care long-term. Pathetic.
Chances are high the eye patch is an affectation. If the eye is really totally gone a normal glass eye would be the same and not draw attention to him. I suppose he could have a totally disfigured eye socket which would look better with a patch. Aside from that I can totally understand the craving to have a new guy in the GOP who is not a total humorless dick.
This is such garbage. All ideas are not fair game. The present doesn't happen in a vacuum and we shouldn't pretend ideas don't have history and context. This is nothing but the latest con by a Republican to advocate for failed ideas that are bolstered by slogans and nonsense. Nothing raises the "emotional level of the debate" more than having some Congressman promoting free market health care that leaves tens of millions of people without access to health care or talking about tax cuts for millionaires that precede taking away people's benefits to pay for them. Give me a break.
Come on, CometsWin, indeed, we must consider all ideas with equal seriousness and respect. Why, I heard the idea not so long ago -- can't remember where -- we could water our crops with gatorade and have them growing like never before. You know, that stuff has the electrolytes that plants crave!
Crenshaw was previously an administrator for a group on Facebook called “Tea Party,” which shared conspiracy theory posts and other questionable content. Florida gubernatorial candidate Ron DeSantis was also found to be an administrator of the group, as well as Corey Stewart, who ran a pro-Confederacy campaign in Virginia. Media Matters reported Crenshaw was no longer listed as an administrator of the group as of late August. In a statement to Newsweek earlier this year, he said “never actively managed or interacted with that page” and was added to the group as an administrator “in case I ever wanted to post.”
Crenshaw looked really good on Face the Nation today. He's young and likable and god knows the GOP needs people like him
Yeah, that's usually how it works. If you might possibly want to post in the future, you need to be added as an administrator. Otherwise, how would you ever post in the future should you for some reason decide that's what you wanted to do?
This? Such being the reasons which make it imperative that human beings should be free to form opinions, and to express their opinions without reserve; and such the baneful consequences to the intellectual, and through that to the moral nature of man, unless this liberty is either conceded, or asserted in spite of prohibition; let us next examine whether the same reasons do not require that men should be free to act upon their opinions—to carry these out in their lives, without hindrance, either physical or moral, from their fellow-men, so long as it is at their own risk and peril. This last proviso is of course indispensable. No one pretends that actions should be as free as opinions. ....... That mankind are not infallible; that their truths, for the most part, are only half-truths; that unity of opinion, unless resulting from the fullest and freest comparison of opposite opinions, is not[Pg 105] desirable, and diversity not an evil, but a good, until mankind are much more capable than at present of recognising all sides of the truth, are principles applicable to men's modes of action, not less than to their opinions. As it is useful that while mankind are imperfect there should be different opinions, so is it that there should be different experiments of living; that free scope should be given to varieties of character, short of injury to others; and that the worth of different modes of life should be proved practically, when any one thinks fit to try them. It is desirable, in short, that in things which do not primarily concern others, individuality should assert itself. Where, not the person's own character, but the traditions or customs of other people are the rule of conduct, there is wanting one of the principal ingredients of human happiness, and quite the chief ingredient of individual and social progress. ...... There is one characteristic of the present direction of public opinion, peculiarly calculated to make it intolerant of any marked demonstration of individuality. The general average of mankind are not only moderate in intellect, but also moderate in inclinations: they have no tastes or wishes strong enough to incline them to do anything unusual, and they consequently do not understand those who have, and class all such with the wild and intemperate whom they are accustomed to look down upon. Pretty good stuff.
