Episode 159 — Rainbow Bridge

[AndyPacheco-Fores 437]

Thomas invited everyone on this forum who had a strong opinion to join the Case Closed. I even told him to have mutiple callers on at the same time if need be. Only this guy showed up.

Just wanna make clear that I was only given an hour's notice in the middle of a Tuesday afternoon and I couldn't just leave work to call in to a podcast. If I had known yall were just gonna go with the next guy and I wouldn't get my say then I might have faked an emergency or something. I ain't no coward of the county.

 

I'll post a bigger response that's more or less what I wanted to say, but for here I just want to add one thing to what erudite crudite said in the IQ of a Corpse episode's forum. Basically I call bullshit on the idea that keeping the dress meant Monica Lewinsky wanted people to find out and that she's lying when she says she didn't want people to know.

 

The only verifiable lie Monica Lewinsky told was when she committed perjury to keep the affair secret. When the investigation was in its early stages, before they knew about the dress, she lied in an affidavit and said she and Clinton didn't have a relationship. After they found out about the dress from Linda Tripp's secretly recorded conversations, she testified in exchange for immunity from prosecution for perjury, which could have landed her in jail for up to 5 years. So just to repeat, she risked going to jail to avoid revealing the affair.

 

EDIT: 5 years is the perjury sentence I got from googling it really quickly so it might not be accurate; in her cyberbullying speech she said prosecutors threatened her with 27 years.

Edited November 7, 2014 by pfchangs

[Mathew Shit 115]

The case closed guy for this episode was the literal definition of a figurative strawman. Though I thought it was very funny to hear Matt talk over him in order to launch into a meandering non sequitur about hikers. I've got no stakes in this argument but I would gladly take the opposition for a proper debate.

[AndyPacheco-Fores 437]

So as a preface, I'll say this: Monica Lewinsky has never said she's above criticism or totally innocent or any of that shit. Almost no one is saying that or has ever said it. Every time she talks about the affair she says she deeply regrets it, acknowledges that people were hurt, and generally admits it was a huge mistake. In her speech, she only compares herself to Tyler Clementi to say that a very private part of their lives were made public online in a way that was deeply humiliating to them, and she admits to having periodically contemplated suicide in 1998 at the height of the scandal. Both of them had their sex lives exposed to the world. Monica contemplated suicide, Tyler actually did it. So your characterization of her as acting like she's the same as Tyler Clementi because she's a perfect victim who didn't do anything wrong is straight up bullshit. She's always owned her mistakes, the beef has always been that the punishment vastly outweighs the crime. Even you admit that she got a lot of terrible shit that she didn't deserve.

 

Now to the main point: when you first brought it up on the podcast you seemed confused about the difference between cyberbullying and criticism, and later on you say Lewinsky doesn't deserve slutshaming but isn't a good spokesperson for cyberbullying. And it's true that she's not a perfect victim. She's not above reproach or totally innocent the way Tyler Clementi was. But the thing is, she is a victim of cyberbullying--slutshaming is a very common form of cyberbullying. And she actually resembles the people who are at the most risk from the worst cyberbullying, its most intense and emotionally damaging forms, much more than Tyler Clementi does.

 

For a starting reference, Lewinsky's fourth tweet links to a Pew research project about who experiences online harassment. It finds that young women ages 18-24 are more than twice as likely as men in the same age group to be sexually harassed online, and almost four times as likely to be stalked. The study doesn't mention slutshaming but I think it's reasonable to infer that it figures heavily into those numbers. Slutshaming is just much more common than outing or gayshaming, it affects more people. And Monica Lewinsky's been getting slutshamed online for longer and at a higher volume than maybe anyone in the internet's short history.

 

But now for the really important part: not everyone who gets cyberbullied is a perfect victim. A lot of them are very imperfect. To wit, this blog where people submit pictures and stories about military wives and girlfriends who submitters claim cheated on their partners, Make Them Famous (NSFW - here and here). Take a look at this Jezebel article about it if you can't stomach the primary source. Sometimes they even include personal information like names or where they live, which puts those women at risk for the worst end of cyberbullying--sexual harassment, physical threats, and stalking. It was originally a Facebook page but it got shut down (it's back). We all agree that cheating is wrong, especially so when your partner is overseas fighting a war. But this site is textbook cyberbullying, their stated goal is to expose and abuse these women. You admit that Lewinsky doesn't deserve slutshaming. These women don't either. But if people only associate cyberbullying with what happened to Tyler Clementi, then it's easier for them to deny that what happens to imperfect victims like Lewinsky is cyberbullying. They just think she's getting what she deserves, or she's asked for it. I've definitely been guilty of that in the past. You, Matt, are dangerously close to it with this. If it wasn't for your opening disclaimer in today's Case Closed, I'd say without a doubt that's what you're doing.

 

Which brings me to another point. In today's Case Closed you compare the Lewinsky scandal with a hypothetical same situation but with people you know, your friends. But that's a terrible comparison--you don't know Monica Lewinsky. You, Matt, may be family friends with the Clintons, but the vast majority of people don't personally know anyone involved. More importantly, they don't know you. The abusers have all the power in that situation. We all know all these details about Lewinsky's relationship with Clinton, but she doesn't even know our names. She's accountable to us, but we're not accountable to her. With cyberbullying you often can't verify the identity of the person harassing you--even if you do know them personally, online they're just a username. It could be anyone--your coworker, your closest friend, your own mother. Can you imagine what that's like?

 

Just a quick note on empathy: what's so difficult about having empathy for two women who were wronged in different ways? A lot of people have no trouble hating both Monica and Hillary, as you'll see later on in the primary research. No one's saying you should feel the same level of empathy for Lewinsky that you do for Hillary, even I side with Hillary much more than Lewinsky. It just seems a little petty and mean to have absolutely no empathy for Lewinsky just because you like Hillary.

 

Ok, now for my final thing: the primary research. When you first brought it up in the IQ of a Corpse episode you asked what the difference was between bullying and criticism. To try and find some examples to show you, I went to the @replies to Lewinsky's fourth tweet, the one that linked to the Pew study, and to the YouTube comments on

. I tried just searching her name on Twitter but there were too many reposts of the link to the speech to sift through, and the Ladies Man sketch is on Yahoo, which doesn't allow comments on its videos. Here's what I found, and you can tell me whether you think these are bullying or criticism, and try to justify why she shouldn't say she's a victim of cyberbullying or use her inescapable fame to raise awareness and speak out against it.

 

Tweet replies:

• @stevebaze: you misspelled "Attention seeking whore". #whore
  
• @RealyRyanSipple: When Cock Suckers Complain yet brag about sucking cock and wonder why people make fun of them.
  
• @firemunky: Shut your fat hole & make shitty purses where no one can hear you.
  
• @akaScramz: The only reason you're famous is because you were the first fat girl who didn't swallow. Bill should've held your head down
  
• @akaOV_: I can't believe that whore shows her face on Twitter. She knew he was married. Shameful.
  

Twitter was extremely tame compared to the YouTube comments. Now for some perspective on these--when I went through them, there were about 650 comments on the video in total. From these, I collected 134 screenshots of negative comments. Many of these screenshots contain 2 or more comments so I estimate the actual number of negative comments was somewhere between 150 and 200, basically between a 1/4 and 1/3 of all the comments. I was pleasantly surprised by how many positive comments there were--to be honest, I expected the ratio to be a lot worse. But I think that's part of why she chose cyberbullying as her angle, it positions her so that people who care about cyberbullying might look at her in a new light and be more inclined to defend her. It certainly worked on me. As of this posting, there are now 1,201 comments on the video, with 464,729 views, 1,392 likes, and 209 dislikes.

 

 

Anyway, here are the worst of the bunch. There were several repeat offenders, which follows a commonly observed pattern of a small but vocal group of abusers drowning out more moderate, lenient, and supportive voices. Fair warning, these have incredibly foul, sexist, graphic language and reading them is depressing as shit:

 

EDIT: Uploading the files directly produced illegible thumbnails so I've put them all up in an imgur album here. Peruse at your peril. Below are some verbatim transcriptions of the worst ones. Emphasis mine where present.

• This stupid cunt is still alive? I love her attempt at comedy. "Peanut M&M'/s were my Xanax". All her stupid attempts to be funny were met with silence. Someone please strangle that stupid bitch.
  
• Bogies Yes she broke the law. The Constitution! And put America to shame.She ought to be hung up by her semen stained dress until she is no longer with us! But if I was married to witch HILLARY I would have banged too if i was him. But they both are trash! Vote for Hillary now you fools because that is what this is leading to. Oh yes, Bogies did I mention I hope you burn in HELL? [note: Bogies is another YouTube commenter]
  
• P.S. My God you have got to be the craziest bitch on earth. yes, i hate you and now I know why! I hope God kills you soon and it is broadcast worldwide You are an embarrassment to the whole human race!
  
• Because she is a lying little piece of shit. No better than Bill! She knew what she was doing and was so ARROGANT!! That's what you GOD DAMNED bleeding heart Liberal socialist pathetic ignorant shit faces do! Blame every body else for your filthiness and evil stupidity! Just die and go to HELL already!
  
• Did she not realize yet that her mouth is only good for sucking and not talking.
  
• Monica please realize that still the only thing you are good for would be giving head and not lectures.
  
• Damn who knew sucking dick qualifies you for big forum public speaking.
  
• This woman is a vain, physcotic scociopath... eat shit and die already! Home-wrecker!
  
• Monica Lewinsky you cannot blame Drudge Report because you were a penis licking whore!! You are one of the dumbest and most ignorant pieces of shit that ever breathed. All of you political savages are stupid as Hell but you are more so than most. You deserve to burn in Hell for what you are doing now! You can be forgiven for what you did but you cannot be forgiven for the atrocities you are committing right now against those young people. Don't listen to this filthy whore folks. She is not patient zero. SHE IS A ZERO PERIOD! Novar 19 you are just about as big a dumb ass fool as she is! [note: Novar 19 is another YouTube commenter.]
  
• Every time she opens her mouth I picture a old wrinkly dick.. Fuck I'll just put down my phone and listen!
  
• GIVE ME A BLOWJOB...
  
• Not so fast you stupid bitch, Bill Clinton ruined you not Drudge!!!! You cum stained Liberal whore!!!
  
• Whore
  
• WHOREinski
  
• She should change her name to Monica Blowinsky : O
  
• squirt, squirt , squirt
  
• Waste of a good cigar
  
• Shut the f up
  
• ah suck a dick and STFU bitch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  
• Stupid CUnt STFU and suck my dick.
  
• Shut up bitch. You were at fault and you're lucky the Blue Dress turned up or the Clinton mob would have DESTROYED YOU.
  
• She apparently loves the abuse. Look at her, it is everyone else's fault. Not hers and certainly not president's. She lives in fantasy land.
  
• Sucking dick must be inspirational for you.
  
• Don't suck off a president and you won't be made fun of... duh.
  
• Bullying? About what? Tell the truth is not bullying. Life is paying back the bill what she did. So don't be stupid.
  
• So .. Monica Lewinsky is the new spearhead figure for the next big gravy train of Victimhood Feminism ? LOL
  
• Hey "victim" don't put a married sitting president's joint in your mouth and your life wouldn't have been "ruined"!!
  
• she blew the president and tried to black mail him for her own benefit - whatever has been said about her is obviously not enough to make her run to whatever bridge she crawled out from under.
  
• She's a nice, pretty, plump one. I'd let her give me a blowie.
  
• she gave the president a bj and let him stick a cigar up her pussy and is wondering why people dont like her.
  
• Your own fault, shouldn't be involving yourself with a married man...!! You deserve what you get...
  
• Lewinsky should pose for playboy, I don't know if they've offered. She's not extremely pretty but better looking than people give her credit for, and she was way better than the alternative, Hillary.
  
• Well she deserves what she's been through
  
• She deserved it, all of it. She was a slut and a moron. Definitely still a moron, probably still a slut too. She decided to do it and she payed the price.
  
• The internet didn't shame her she shamed herself!
  
• why do i keep picturing that mouth sucking dick?
  
• No matter how you put, explain or justify it, every time you open your mouth, unfortunately, I see a president choice. So keep your mouth shut.
  
• I can't believe she is still talking about this shit. How many times do we got to hear this? She is not a victim. She created this situation. She only has herself to blame.
  
• No one was bullying her. Reports of her actual actions were put online - today we call that facebook.
  
• Lewinsky's "Patient Zero" fantasy reveals the bullying nature of those who play victim.
  
• This bitch is atrocious.
  
• She's a slut because she knowing had the affair with a married man. Morals didn't stand in her way.
  
• Monica you are irrelevant and a whore... off..
  
• I'd do her
  
• does she give good head ? if so got next
  
• Go suck a dick monica.
  
• Famous for being a whore. Famous for being an adulterer. She should be ashamed of her self! Disgusting pig!
  
• Get over it pig. You should have to pay for your adultery. You brought it upon yourself. Sleazy liberal demons.
  
• Does she has dignity? Jajajajajaja! You make me laugh! She's a Fucking bitch and slot.
  
• She sounds like this is her first speech ever. Plus she is trying to claim she was the first viral cyber bullied person on social media. What a fucking bimbo slut.
  
• I'd f**k
  
• epitome of a hoe
  
• You didn't loose your reputation Monica, you earned your reputation. Quit playing the damsel in distress and women up to the fruits of your labor.
  
• Yes Monica, we do need a cultural revolution. It starts by people not having any more affairs with married people. You also could have given your audience some advice on how to avoid being called a tramp, such as not being tramp.
  
• Does she still give Dome.
  
• there's a few cum stains on her jacket. look closely
  
• Fucking bitch! She needs money. She must be making porn movies.
  
• nice dsl on her. [note: DSL stands for Dick Sucking Lips.]
  

***

 

...and the beat goes on. There are way more where these came from. This is over 15 years after the scandal first broke. Some recurring themes:

• "Shut the fuck up and suck my dick"
  
• Whore / slut / bitch
  
• It's your own fault / you deserve what you get
  

So tell me Matt, bullying or criticism? Do these waters feel muddied to you? Is this what you think she's asking for?

 

 

 

 

Case closed.

[Kngdkdkssl 56]

As someone who was groomed and taken advantage by a (married) boss when I was in my early 20s, I think there's something more to the "I was young" statement than what was addressed. The publicity stunts were not dignified moves on Lewinsky's part and she may not have been at all innocent in this, but as a general idea I feel compelled to address the issue of power play. In my case it was not an affair, but I ignored the predatory aspects of this man because I desperately wanted this career path, allowing myself to be constantly harrassed both physically and verbally, on top telling myself it was my own problem for not objecting so it technically couldn't be labeled assault. But I was legitimately terrified of losing this job and I worked for this person for a much longer time than I care to admit. Had it not been for brief a moment of clarity it could have been even longer.

 

I guess I just want to speak on behalf of young people getting manipulated by someone else in higher power. I overall very much like Bill Clinton and HOPE that this was not the case. Again, it could have been completely consensual in every sense of the word. I don't know the details of the relationship. I just believe that the circumstance is something to consider. I think it is grossly self-indulgent to take someone else's tragedy and use it to declare yourself "patient zero," but I sincerely do think there's something to be said about the "i was young" argument.

[hypnotizingchickens 1025]

How do we get Matt Besser his own talk show?

fuck a talk show, we need long form improv on television. if anyone can do that, it's Ben Schw...*ahem*... MATT BESSER!!!

[Erudite crudite 225]

Aw man, I really wish pfchangs had made it on the show. That post was outstanding. (It's some comfort for me to know that there was only an hour of notice given beforehand on a Tuesday afternoon... I don't have to feel so much like I ditched my responsibility, because I wouldn't have been able to make it either.)

 

Just to reiterate a few points:

 

- Lewinski is a good figure for an antibullying movement. Her bullying does not come from a place where there was no wrong in the first place (like Tyler Clementi). It comes from a place where there was a wrong, but the response is disproportionate. And that's why Lewinski is important: if only victims like Clementi represent anti-bullying movements, bullies are not going to temper their actions when they think their criticisms are justified.But most cases of bullying happen when the bully thinks the criticism toward the victim is justified. Anti-bullying campaigns need to put out the message that even if you think your criticism is justified, you need to make sure your response is measured and doesn't contribute to a global effect that destroys the targets person's sense of safety and self-esteem.

 

For instance: I'm sure a lot of the Gamergate dudes really do think that they're on the side of righteousness. As an anti-bullying advocate, you can either spend your resources convincing them the women they're attacking have done nothing wrong, or you can spend your resources teaching them that it's unacceptable to threaten women with bombings are firearms even if they think the women they are attacking have done something wrong. It's pretty obvious to me that the second tactic is better. Lewinski did something wrong (everyone acknowledges), so she provides a good teaching moment for proportionate response.

 

- No one has ever said that Lewinski is above criticism, so I don't know why Matt and a few other people keep demanding that people stop saying that.

 

- I don't understanding the complaint about Lewinski "comparing" herself to Clementi. She's not saying that their stories are identical or even equally tragic. She's just saying they were both subjected to (different sorts of) harassment.

 

- The point that Matt was trying to make about the story of the hikers was the easiest slam dunk. The case was supposed to draw out the principle: if you take on risk by putting yourself in harm's way, and if you then end up getting hurt, you deserve lessened empathy. Leaving aside the fact that "lessened empathy" doesn't have to mean "no empathy", it is super, super easy to find counterexamples to this principle. Here's a case structurally identical to the hiker's case: a college junior goes to a kegger at a frat house dressed provocatively and ends up getting raped. Does she deserve less empathy because those sorts of things are more likely to happen at frat houses keggers and she should have known better?

[Lukas Holmes 2287]

Good god those are some long posts on something that has already been ruled CASE CLOSED!

[Erudite crudite 225]

But it's a kangaroo court!

[Hot - Slunch 772]

Just to reiterate a few points:

 

- Lewinski is a good figure for an antibullying movement. Her bullying does not come from a place where there was no wrong in the first place (like Tyler Clementi). It comes from a place where there was a wrong, but the response is disproportionate. And that's why Lewinski is important: if only victims like Clementi represent anti-bullying movements, bullies are not going to temper their actions when they think their criticisms are justified.But most cases of bullying happen when the bully thinks the criticism toward the victim is justified. Anti-bullying campaigns need to put out the message that even if you think your criticism is justified, you need to make sure your response is measured and doesn't contribute to a global effect that destroys the targets person's sense of safety and self-esteem.

 

- No one has ever said that Lewinski is above criticism, so I don't know why Matt and a few other people keep demanding that people stop saying that.

 

- I don't understanding the complaint about Lewinski "comparing" herself to Clementi. She's not saying that their stories are identical or even equally tragic. She's just saying they were both subjected to (different sorts of) harassment.

 

- The point that Matt was trying to make about the story of the hikers was the easiest slam dunk. The case was supposed to draw out the principle: if you take on risk by putting yourself in harm's way, and if you then end up getting hurt, you deserve lessened empathy. Leaving aside the fact that "lessened empathy" doesn't have to mean "no empathy", it is super, super easy to find counterexamples to this principle. Here's a case structurally identical to the hiker's case: a college junior goes to a kegger at a frat house dressed provocatively and ends up getting raped. Does she deserve less empathy because those sorts of things are more likely to happen at frat houses keggers and she should have known better?

 

1. She's not a good representative of anti-bullying. I know for a fact that if I was being bullied I wouldn't want to look up to her as some sort of hero or martyr.

 

"Mom, I've been getting picked on at school lately."

"Don't worry, son. Monica Lewinsky was bullied in her day as well. Things will get better."

"Gee mom, so you're saying if I stick it out I could be like Monica someday?!"

 

Wasn't that uplifting?

 

Also, about your 'bullies need to know they can't bully even when they justify it' point. *Insert generic statistics about how the death penalty doesn't really help dissuade violent crime* Bullies gonna bully, man. Whether they think they're right or wrong, or don't care; a shitty home life, shitty work life, bad days, or just straight up assholes are going to be mean regardless. This stuff is to encourage people to find support for when they are bullied and to know they aren't alone, as opposed to stopping bullying... By the way, how's the war on terror going?

 

Campaigns like this need a sympathetic figure. You're going to catch a lot more eyes with Monica Lewinsky, but you're going to get a lot more action and change by using people who've literally been destroyed by this stuff (more than reputation alone).

 

2. Whether or not someone said she's above criticism isn't the point. A lot of people act like saying anything other than something fullly positivite is negative and therefore bullying. There's a difference between accusing someone of using their infamy for monetary gain vs. calling a high school kid a fat loser... Just like there's a difference between constructive criticism and trolling. People should have the right to question motives and justly comment without being called bullies. We're in a culture of if you don't gush about something you're a 'hater', and that's essentially gang censorship to me.

 

3. Her even mentioning the kid's name in conjunction with her own is asking for a negative reaction because the bullying happened for completely different reasons. If she's being a spokesperson, she should solely speak about her own experience. Bringing that kid up is either pandering or attempting to illicit a positive response for herself, by association. If had she said something about another person like I don't know, Ghandi, MLK, or Mother Theresa, don't you think people would find that odd?

 

Imagine something along the lines of, "I'm into the civil rights movement like MLK because I like totally voted for Obama."

 

When you associate yourself with another person, however tangentially, people will naturally compare the situations. When they don't add up, you'll get blasted.

 

4. I don't even want to go there with your rape metaphor... But if you're going there this is more of what you need:

 

- A proficient hiking couple walking the same paths with gear, getting caught in a flash flood.

vs.

- An inexperienced person trying to walk the Appalachian Trail with no gear or training.

 

Compared to

 

- A group of girls going to a party with full knowledge of what they're doing, who's leaving and when, and keeping an eye on each other.

vs.

- One girl who's never been drunk before and wants to get blitzed, alone, visiting a new college, wandering into a strange frat party where she knows nobody.

 

--------

 

I see nothing wrong with anything Besser has said, and think he's well within reason to dislike her for the reasons he's stated.

 

Sorry for the long post and I won't respond again about this topic, but just felt like I should even out the pro/con sides a bit. CASE CLOSED.

[Hot - Slunch 772]

Amanda Sitko was really funny in this episode. Everything about the penny mouth scene was great.

[mattbesser 605]

I have not and will not read your long posts. This is not a politcal talk show. I am not a pundit, nor a politician. I like that we are regular joes giving our opinions and that leads to improv. We have Case Closed to give listeners a chance to give their opinion. We invited multiple people from this forum and only one guy showed up. But if you're going to go with the spirit of the show, when the case is closed, the case is closed. You can go ahead and express your freedom of speech, but opening closed case is not humon. So don't bully me...

Please try using the Your Best Story thread to express your opinion on a societal problem which is have not pissed you off on yet.

[Erudite crudite 225]

OK, sorry to beleaguer you, Matt! Those posts aren't meant to be hostile: they're debatey, not fighty. You often talk about digging debate, so I thought you might be into it, and I've enjoyed reading what other people have been writing. But if you want us to wrap it up, it's over.

[VinsanityV22 500]

fuck a talk show, we need long form improv on television. if anyone can do that, it's Ben Schw...*ahem*... MATT BESSER!!!

 

BENNY SCHWAZ' HOUSE OF PIES! WHY CAN'T I FIND THIS ON TV!?! SCOTT AUKERMAN TOLD ME IT EXISTS!

 

 

==

Also, jeez louise Matt, you gotta refine the way you do 'Case Closed' segments, and take charge of your fellow Humans here -- or at least warn your guests to bring a pad of paper & pencil when the interns call them up. A discussion/argument/whatever cannot be "my block of nonstop talking: now go". At some point, you literally shut him down when he sees a break to jump in, forcing him to apologize, and then you and Mookie just frickin' shut him out constantly going forward (It's okay for me to break up what you're saying, but you don't talk when I'm talking). You also go all over the place and that is THE WORST thing about these discussions. I mean, you bring up at least a dozen points on that guy when you're first ranting. And it is a rant, man. Spread out those talking points.

 

You gotta break it up; that guy's trying to keep track of all the points and questions you're asking him, but there's so much shifting from one thing to another to another and then poof; he's already lost. Literally lost - his first thoughts were definitely, "Okay; what was the first thing? What the the main point?". I know you're passionate, but you don't "discuss" things with people like this. It's a super broken format when that takes over. What happened to those rules that writer friend of yours said you should establish for this; where's the Judge and when's the criteria for winning established? You don't even have people vote on it at the end; at least that would be some gauge of if the other comedians & perhaps interns have chosen an opinion/side here.

 

I mean, you're generally pretty civil and entertaining - a lot more than you sometimes have been during these things in the past, at least - but there's too much trampling over these people. And not, "winning the argument" trampling, which would be great - it's just speaking over them and assaulting them with nonstop, "no place for you" talking. At the very least, you'd figure that the other comedians (well, Mookie) would at least wait and/or ask, "can I say something" or "can I jump in here?" before just talking over him.

 

It's a mess at times. At it's worst, it starts to sound like the talking heads on Fox News. Tough to listen to; there were good points buried here, but this was barely a discussion a lot of the times.

[Lukas Holmes 2287]

 

BENNY SCHWAZ' HOUSE OF PIES! WHY CAN'T I FIND THIS ON TV!?! SCOTT AUKERMAN TOLD ME IT EXISTS!

 

 

==

Also, jeez louise Matt, you gotta refine the way you do 'Case Closed' segments, and take charge of your fellow Humans here -- or at least warn your guests to bring a pad of paper & pencil when the interns call them up. A discussion/argument/whatever cannot be "my block of nonstop talking: now go". At some point, you literally shut him down when he sees a break to jump in, forcing him to apologize, and then you and Mookie just frickin' shut him out constantly going forward (It's okay for me to break up what you're saying, but you don't talk when I'm talking). You also go all over the place and that is THE WORST thing about these discussions. I mean, you bring up at least a dozen points on that guy when you're first ranting. And it is a rant, man. Spread out those talking points.

 

You gotta break it up; that guy's trying to keep track of all the points and questions you're asking him, but there's so much shifting from one thing to another to another and then poof; he's already lost. Literally lost - his first thoughts were definitely, "Okay; what was the first thing? What the the main point?". I know you're passionate, but you don't "discuss" things with people like this. It's a super broken format when that takes over. What happened to those rules that writer friend of yours said you should establish for this; where's the Judge and when's the criteria for winning established? You don't even have people vote on it at the end; at least that would be some gauge of if the other comedians & perhaps interns have chosen an opinion/side here.

 

I mean, you're generally pretty civil and entertaining - a lot more than you sometimes have been during these things in the past, at least - but there's too much trampling over these people. And not, "winning the argument" trampling, which would be great - it's just speaking over them and assaulting them with nonstop, "no place for you" talking. At the very least, you'd figure that the other comedians (well, Mookie) would at least wait and/or ask, "can I say something" or "can I jump in here?" before just talking over him.

 

It's a mess at times. At it's worst, it starts to sound like the talking heads on Fox News. Tough to listen to; there were good points buried here, but this was barely a discussion a lot of the times.

 

It was perfect.

[AndyPacheco-Fores 437]

we are regular joes giving our opinions and that leads to improv.

This episode came out yesterday and already has over 14,000 plays on Soundcloud. Don't act like you're just regular nobodies doing comedy in a little theater, you have a huge platform that affects a lot of people and a responsibility to use it for good. That's the humon thing to do.

 

I did love the scenes though, good stuff.

[WellerMartin 18]

I have not and will not read your long posts. This is not a politcal talk show. I am not a pundit, nor a politician.

 

I can understand drawing a hard line on what is an appropriate amount of engagement you can be reasonably expected to give within the context of a comedy show, but when you spend half an hour proselytizing about a real person and her life, it's a little strange to act like people taking time out of their day to consider what you said and address it thoughtfully is somehow a disproportionate response.

 

you indeed have no responsibility to reply or actively participate in this discussion beyond the scope of the podcast recording, but I don't get why you'd broach a touchy topic and then go out of your way to tell your audience you're not even going to glide your eyes across their posts if they happened to care enough to write more than three sentences about it.

 

I enjoy the show, but just read the posts, dude. or don't, but don't pop your head in just to tell your fans you aren't listening.

 

thanks.

[Burton 19]

Big, big, big fan of the show Matt but I'm with the people who think the way you've handled this has been very poor. I think you made many reasonable points during the most recent Case Closed and some I agree with and some I don't. But you also invited on a guy who could barely make any sort of coherent argument, started off by being a homophobe and (according to pfchangs) you only gave your real fan an hour notice to appear on the show. Is there a reason for that? I get that schedules might not work out regardless but it doesn't even sound like you made an effort.

 

Then a guy goes out of his way to make a really good post with specific reasons why he disagrees with you (points he would have made had you made more of an effort to get him on the show) and you tell him you can't even take two minutes out of your day to read it. You're not looking for a debate. You're looking for an entertaining fight and you have zero intention of letting anyone actually try to convince you of a different way of seeing things. Consequently your "debate" feels as genuine as your appearances on Crossballs or any given day on Fox News.

 

I don't want to be all negative so I'll end by saying that aside from Case Closed the show is consistently an absolute joy to listen to every week. Best podcast in the universe.

[Hot - Slunch 772]

^ There's no reason for Matt to read these posts and then argue his same thoughts over and over.

 

It's cool enough that he shows up in the forums at all. It's like he's ONE OF US. ONE OF US. GOOBLE GOBBLE.

[Lukas Holmes 2287]

I am really confused by those of you attacking Matt for not wanting to continute the debate. He made it clear before, with the name of the segment and the explanation of it (and in his post on here about 'the spirit of the show and segment'). He doesn't want endless debates with his schedule as a creator, husband and father. As such, he invited the debate, some couldn't be there for it. He had the debate. The debate closed. The ML segment ended and we all move on now. It has nothing to do with his trying to only have his side heard, but to just keep the process moving. You had the chance to come on, you couldn't do it (not your fault) and the world moves on.

[WellerMartin 18]

i take no issue with matt not wanting to sit down and argue with every single person who has an opinion, nor do i really question the scheduling issue, i just don't see how showing up in the forums to say he's not going to even read posts addressing the thing he spent half the episode talking about serves anyone

[BrettMorris 1862]

Listen to the robot next time

[AndyPacheco-Fores 437]

I didn't really mind about the scheduling or anything, and I didn't expect Matt to respond or even read the post, but it was kinda rude of him to go out of his way just to say that.

[Lukas Holmes 2287]

I didn't really mind about the scheduling or anything, and I didn't expect Matt to respond or even read the post, but it was kinda rude of him to go out of his way just to say that.

 

I thought it was the exact opposite. It was nice of him, instead of just ignoring those SUPER long posts, to explain that while the debate could go on forever for anyone who wants to, his part of it is over.

[AndyPacheco-Fores 437]

 

I thought it was the exact opposite. It was nice of him, instead of just ignoring those SUPER long posts, to explain that while the debate could go on forever for anyone who wants to, his part of it is over.

He'd already made that clear with the robot. This felt more like a 'fuck you.'

[clever username 35]

If Hillary's the Democratic nominee in 2016, it'll probably be her against Jeb. We'll have to choose our third Bush or our second Clinton. "Left" neo-liberalism vs. "right" neo-liberalism. If Monica Lewinksy actually really is trying to sink Hillary Clinton's run for the nomination, then she's the greatest hero who's ever lived. Sadly I think Joe (I think it was Joe who made this point) is right and Monica's reentry into the public sphere is very clever PR on the Clinton's part. She's probably a shoe-in.