Bitsy

His mother is really religious (as is his father) and I think the Bill Clinton thing was just a one-off crush from college. Mulaney's long line of Republican politician ancestors mentioned upthread are from his mother's side of the family.

That joke didn't bother me. Why? He was not leading a political rally, he was hosting a comedy show and it was a joke. A joke that was really about slumber parties. Were you in danger of changing your whole political outlook and scrapping your plans to vote because you were exposed to a comedian's quip on SNL? I'm guessing no. There's no need to assume that anyone else is that stupid and impressionable either.

Yes, but Mulaney himself is not conservative at all. The jokes in his routine center around how different he and his wife are from his conservative Catholic parents.

I think that woman was intentionally giving him weak little prissy screams because she knew that's what he wanted her to do so he could prove his point. Those people all learned what to do and not do when it came to Keith. Showing him up in front of a group of people? That's a no no. You play along. The women were getting satisfaction out of it - the satisfaction of self improvement and better intimacy with their partners (according to them). Bonnie said she was proud of what she was doing. That's what a lot of people get out of the "discipline" part of BDSM. It's not necessarily about directly getting off from it. I disagree with your definition of BDSM. Mutual respect, rules, safety, trust, mutual pleasure - that's all just ideal practice. Lack of those things does not necessarily make the activities something other than BDSM. Keith was a sadist? Yes, and that's what the S stands for. And I would say many of the women in this cult were willingly engaged in a lot of different forms of masochism. Keith committed crimes that were non-consensual and that's a totally different thing, but what Bonnie and Sarah were doing in that JNESS program was consensual. Later when all of their cult thinking was shattered, they "realized" that what they were doing was kink. But like a lot of things they did within the cult, I think the delayed realization was largely because they had been kidding themselves or didn't want to admit what they were really doing.

Everything that went on in that JNESS class (men giving out "faults" to the women, the women being publicly humiliated and being punished) was straightforward BDSM. I got the impression that Bonnie sleeping on a dog bed as penance was not something directly ordered by Keith, but resulted from something that went on between her and Mark privately. She mentioned it was because she'd "said something against Mark". And I think Mark's guilt was because he issued her faults and perhaps even issued the penance (with the original idea coming from Keith, of course). I don't buy that Mark was so upset and filled with shame because he "let" his wife sleep on a dog bed; I think he had a direct hand in it. Keith tricked them into living out his BDSM fantasies, but Keith was the only one getting off. And I think Mark's freakout was also because he's probably aware of how lucky he is that Bonnie hasn't left him yet (even though I think she will eventually).

I'm not that keen on any of these people, and that includes Bonnie. She got involved in this because she liked Mark's asinine movie. She currently makes her living reading tarot. I could do without she and Mark's self-congratulatory assertions that they were targeted by the cult because they are successful, beautiful and superior "critical thinkers". They aren't. All of them are dumbass suckers with very little personality who threw themselves into the cult because it gave them something to form their identities around. Bonnie only has a modicum more personality and common sense than the others. I'm pretty sure that the guy in the Dalai Lama video who was labeled an "advisor" is Robert Thurman (Uma Thurman's father) who is a long-time mover and shaker among New York celebrities. He's big into fundraising for various Tibetan organizations. I think the presence and backing of the Bronfman $ister$ had everything to do with Raniere getting that meeting, and with his lame answers being accepted with no proof whatsoever. An article linked upthread said there was a rumor that the Dalai Lama was ultimately paid $1 million for his appearance with Raniere. The Dalai Lama denied receiving an honorarium, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Bronfmans made a hefty donation to one of his charities.

I don't think she got warnings. She seemed very surprised and the violations seemed to be administered with swiftness. I agree with everything you said, particularly the part about making the violations as standard as the racket-breaking violation. We really shouldn't be having to debate whether one tirade deserved a violation and not another. I would be happy if all yelling and angry outbursts directed at umpires got an automatic violation. I don't like watching anybody scream at people. If players choose to do it anyway because they feel they absolutely have to express themselves, then they know they will get a violation, just as they do with the rackets, and will budget their violations accordingly. There is an abundance of cherry-picking going on by people who are determined to glorify all of Serena's behavior and chalk it up to noble crusading. Accusations of ignorance and racism should be set forth directly and backed up, the same as any other argument. To chalk opinions you don't like up to "dog whistling" is an indirect accusation of racism designed to shut down opinions you don't like rather than addressing them head-on with persuasive evidence.

Based on much of what I'm reading around the internet, many people aren't holding back with their opinions despite flat-out not knowing what they are talking about. Serena's a big celebrity so people want to weigh in on the headlines a) without having watched the match at all, b) understanding the violations Serena received, and c) having watched enough tennis to have an informed opinion about whether or not the violations were out of the ordinary. It's not demanding a PhD level of knowledge to dismiss opinions that are largely uninformed. (And by the way, I find that throwing the term "dog whistling" into conversations is itself a form of dog whistling.)

Djokovic did not threaten his career. Distorting the facts does not bolster your argument. Everyone in the tennis community seems to agree that Ramos deserves blame for letting things get to the point of a game violation. He should have given her a soft warning on the coaching violation and he should have done more to calm Serena when she was on the verge of violation #3. He did not owe her an apology or an announcement that she "didn't cheat" which was a ridiculous and entitled demand for Serena to make. But he could have spoken to her more and definitely should have given her a soft warning that if she kept going, she would get a third violation. The second half of a deciding set in a championship match at a grand slam final is not the time for the umpire to be a hard-line stickler for the rules - even though that is this umpire's MO with both male and female players. But it's not like Serena didn't earn all three violations. She was not the innocent victim of some out-of-left-field sexism.

Not for verbal abuse. In all these instances, the verbal abuse comes after the players already got a different type of code violation - and he lets the abuse slide. Simply not true. Did you read the articles you yourself linked? Andy Murray received a violation for saying "stupid umpire". Others did not, but their tirades were also much briefer and less personal. Serena went after this guy multiple times for an extended period, called him names (liar, thief), attacked his integrity and threatened his career (told him he would never officiate on *her* court ever again). It was absolutely worthy of a violation. Arguing with the umpire is not an automatic violation like breaking a racket is and not all arguments are equal. If Ramos automatically handed out violations every time a player talked back, that would make him a terrible umpire. For the record, Ramos once gave two code violations in the same match to Nadal for receiving coaching and for taking too long between points. Nadal wisely decided to save his complaints for the press conference afterwards instead of threatening the umpire on court and getting a third violation.

You just linked a bunch of articles that demonstrate that Ramos frequently gives code violations to the male players just as he did to Serena. Ramos did not decide the penalty for Serena's code violations, all he did was call the violations. Serena was docked a point and game because of the number of violations she accrued. The incidents you linked did not result in game penalties because the players (reluctantly) got their tempers under control and behaved themselves instead of racking up additional violations. In terms of arguing, it's always a judgment call. Players do not automatically get a code violation just for arguing with the umpire. Or even yelling. If they did, this wouldn't be an issue. Based on the articles linked above, Ramos seems to draw the line at being called names (stupid, liar, thief).

I have seen some other pro players tweet that they have never been penalized a game for a coaching violation or for arguing, as if she received an unusually harsh punishment. That is very misleading to non-tennis or casual tennis viewers. She was penalized a game because she racked up three violations. Most players get themselves back on best behavior after two violations in order to avoid that.

I agree with that. Some soft warnings were in order, particularly as Serena had lost track of where she stood with the violations. Most players will force themselves to calm down when they know they are risking a third violation. And I have seen umpires calm down players in the midst of tantrums. Ramos doesn't seem to have that personality. But both of them are human beings. Serena was offended because she felt the coaching violation was effectively branding her a cheater, but she directly attacked the umpire's integrity by calling him a liar and a thief who owed her an apology. I can see why maybe he wasn't so inclined to go easy on her with a soft warning. Ultimately, it's unfortunate that the whole second half of the second set was derailed by code violations. Serena had just started to get a little momentum back when all of this happened, and the match stopped being about the play after that. That's not how Grand Slam finals are supposed to be decided. Serena and the umpire both are to blame for that IMO.

This is the same detective who investigated Scotty Lockhart's murder for two years before putting the wrong person in prison. He's no Sherlock Holmes.

I know Cole never wanted Alison to leave him, but I don't think he was truly happy with her either. If Alison hadn't died, perhaps we would have seen what a truly awful idea it was for Cole to try to woo Alison back right after she'd fled town - AGAIN - and had a nervous breakdown. Again.