scozzie

"Long winded posts that make little sense" You suck at understanding /= makes little sense. Edited: (I deleted a half snarky paragraph about whining b/c it made it sounds like I also think whining is bad, which I don't.)

"he spoke his mind and didn't pretend he was something he's not" What does speaking your mind have to do with anything? The god-hates-fags church is probably speaking their minds too, to quote Chris Rock should I give them a cookie? * "He's not a raging sexist or anything, guys." Nobody said he was, "raging sexist" is not where my bar (for embarrassing and cringeworthy) is. * Not saying David is anything like them, I just don't see what difference it made if he spoke his mind or not, it was the things he was saying (that I already mentioned a couple and I'd have added 1 or 2 more if not for length) that I found cringeworthy.

I assume you are joking.

tl;dr Why can women even sing? Men want to have sex with women, women don't need to sing for them. If you give me a reason other than mating that singing can evolve, how do you know no reasons for humor other than mating?

dholl_omog (32) "and therefore, men have adapted to a need to be 'funnier'" That's a theory (and it's a bullshit theory). You can make up all the theories you want it doesn't PROVE your claim. And we've seen things like this before: "Phrenology was used as justification for European superiority over other lesser races." * As I've mentioned in a different post people in classical music could give similar theories of why men should naturally be better instrumentalists: "they adapted to feel and play music better to attract women, additionally they have better reflexes so they can play fast and then change on a dime to play slow, they are really naturally built to be better instrumentalists" and it might sound like a reasonable theory but is it true? When auditioning behind a screen: "Among musicians who auditioned in both blind and non-blind auditions, about 28.6 percent of female musicians, and 20.2 percent of male musicians, advanced from the preliminary to the final round in blind auditions. When preliminary auditions were not blind, only 19.3 percent of the women advanced, along with 22.5 percent of the men." It also just occurred to me why can women even sing? Men want to have sex with women, women don't need to sing for them. Hitchens: "If you can't make them laugh you have no chance." Before the women's movement, who had more to lose if they didn't get married? A woman who would find it almost impossible to earn and support herself? Or a man who could work and be a man? In hunter-gatherer times men supposedly were the main protein/protection providers but they don't have a chance with women? Let's say you add elements to make this story "work" it still doesn't come close to being proof or proven itself. Let me make up a BS story. Women in tribes helped each other with their children, why didn't they adapt humor to be able to get more help from other women (i.e. the funniest woman could get the best ratio of resources from other women vs resources she expends helping others). Women would adapt humor even faster than men b/c women already had sense of humor (from Hitch's theory) b/c men trying to use humor on the men they were hunting with all day were playing to deaf ears (hadn't adapted to wanting to listen to jokes yet b/c nobody was trying to sleep with them). I'm not putting this forward as a serious theory I am saying stop using Hitchen's creative writing as "science". * Let's be clear here I'm not saying anything that ends up with results supporting sexism or racism is automatically false I am saying just because you make up a little story (men adapted to be funnier to attract females) doesn't by itself make it true. And just because it "explains" the current order of things (more male comedians than female) doesn't mean it is the scientifically correct explanation, because the true explanation may (almost certainly does) have more to do with pipeline (and present) sexism and discrimination.

Hate that I think we would probably get along in real life haha... Or I'm just too much of a girly-man to stay mad at you

Sorry didn't see bdavids comment (21). So you don't think of sexist or racist comments as intolerant because they are not always a literal statement of "those people should not get to work in that field". So if he criticizes + negative stereotypes women, gays etc as a group, it is not intolerant because he is not literally "not tolerating them in society". So if we criticize him, don't take that as my not tolerating him. If I say he's a racist, or I say he's a douchebag, that's not intolerance, that's just a comment I am making about him. He makes comments, I make comments, nobody is being intolerant here! Stop trying to censor the words racism, sexism, homophobia. Stop being intolerant of my beliefs that he's a racist, you probably Jew. Just kidding, still think your "definition" of intolerance is ridiculous, but hey it's probably working for you. (sorry I'm intolerant of moderates).

I agree with Lukas Holmes. Now let me be wordy about it. "it is unfair to rip someone who has a different belief". The original (racist etc) "belief" is already intolerance. What ridiculous "halfway" point do you want us to meet you at. This would be the breakdown from "I would like to see fairness and civility from all sides": Carolla types would get: - tolerance for being a white dude/ or an uncle tom (just kidding, calm down) - tolerance for their opinion (of intolerance - racism, sexism, homophobia etc.) "Gay Hollywood Jew women" types would get - non tolerance for who they are BUT - the tolerance that it is okay for them to not be racist or sexist, just don't try to be "intolerant" of those of us who are, okay tutts? - (almost forgot to add Carolla isn't exactly "tolerant" of the "beliefs" of liberals either (in the way you have defined tolerance to mean don't criticize a belief), but just for you I'll knock this one off, 33% off just for you!) You moderates you always pull me in!

Carly Rae Jepsen, and if you can't get her then Steve Martin. The above was a joke but would love Abed from Community to be on (Danny Pudi).

Pretty cool idea. I don't really read books but maybe I'll check out what other people are enjoying for suggestions for you and might even consider reading myself (I probably will never finish a book written by male or female haha).

Was listening to your episode of "Fitzdog" recently, when are you going to have him on Sklarbro Country?

"Why are you being so intolerant of my racism/sexism/homophobia?" That one is my favorite!

Gotta say I found David embarrassing in this episode. In his pondering on male vs female artists and architects. He asked, "is it just because men are better at these things?" just ignoring centuries of sexism. I think a very succinct illustration of sexism (at just 1 point in a career) is given by studies that examine the difference between blind and non-blind orchestra auditions (whether the judges can see if a musician is male or female): "Using data from the audition records, the researchers found that blind auditions increased the probability that a woman would advance from preliminary rounds by 50 percent. The likelihood of a woman's ultimate selection is increased several fold, although the competition is extremely difficult and the chance of success still low." Now multiply the non-blind version by many events over the woman's life. When thinking of famous artists of the past include much more severe sexism than today and think about whether the gate keepers (in training, buying, judging) of the time would accept on merit "blindly on merit" the work of female artists vs male artists. (As just one example, the churches were very important early art buyers, I am sure the all male power at the top of churches were especially eager to support female artists who were equally talented to men.) David made many cringeworthy statements throughout this episode. I think several times he described women as being (I can't remember if he used the word "obsessed") with diamonds and dresses. I hope you guys will consider having some other feminists on (Sasha Cohen is probably great but she didn't seem to want to delve into anything and seemed to comment more on the different views about feminism and different types of feminism.)