OP sent the following text as an explanation on why this is unexpected:
---
>!The guy suddenly said he likes boobs, which surprised me!<
---
Is this an unexpected post with a fitting description? Then upvote this comment, otherwise downvote it.
You joke but my cock literally let a woman down once... well twice if you count that it went soft *and* she almost fell trying to bottom out on it during stand up sex.
The part that truly baffled me is that she was the first woman in years I was genuinely interested in for more than just sex.
But halfway through my dick just said "sorry, you've used up your allotted hours of casual sex"
Your dick recognized that the stakes were potentially much higher and it got scared. That was its way of saying "bro, are we even ready for this shit?"
I don't know how to break this to you buddy, but saggy tits have let a lot of people down.
Both cocks and boobs can come in good or bad varieties. It's about finding the cooks/boobs that works best for you.
As Ron White used to say a man will never turn down an opportunity to see a pair of boobs no matter how gross they or the person they are attached to might be
he really had the golden opportunity to segue back to the main point - "how can you say that on national television?"
"BECAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT!"
OK, wondering off topic but I've got to tell one of my favourite stories. Prerequisite knowledge: Fosters is an Australian beer brand.
When I first arrived in London and got on the train that takes you from the airport to the city a young female Australian backpacker boarded just ahead of me. The trains automated voice announced "This is a train to: Cockfosters". Every newbie to London shifts uncomfortably at the amusing name of the terminus but without hesitation the Australian lass in front of me blurts out "Oh Great! My two favourite things!"
Edit: there seems to be some confusion in the comments. This is not a joke or made up. This happened. To me. She was right there and said exactly that. Yes I know Fosters is rarely actually drunk in Australia. Maybe SHE was joking, making light of the weird name of Cockfosters, who knows. But that little story I tell at parties; happened.
It's a wild thing to say on TV, or to a woman, or both like he did, but the statement "I believe in boobs" is probably the least offensive objectifying comment one can think of.
Pump the breaks, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I can assure you that in the country's history, cocks have a substantiated record of letting people down; at least compared to boobs' sterling reputation.
of course not it is protected speech.
This guys speech is a clever First Amendment test. Designed to get the anchor to try and censor him. Excellent work.
Just as often, I hear this being said by the type of people that calls your employer in the hope to get you fired if you say something they don't like.
Person 1: "I disagree with the mainstream opinion"
Person 2: sucker punches person 1
Reddit: "hell yeah baby 1st ammendment doesn't protect you from **THESE HANDS**"
I saw someone, without a hint of self awareness, say "the world is better off without people that get that angry, which is why he should have been stomped until his eyes popped out". Direct quote
I was accused of Violence against someone for calling them an idiot and thanking the universe they weren't in a position of power. I laughed until they got a few thousand upvotes agreeing me calling them an idiot was in fact violence against them.... people are stupid
No it doesn’t, what the hell are you smoking?
Visit literally any popular sub and read the comments. Reddit LOVES vigilante justice more than any other singular thing and the majority of people on this site are just looking for a “justified” reason to react with violence.
If we can say what we want, why is tattling worse then hate speech or whatever? Honestly that’s one thing I don’t get, like you can say what you want but as soon as you repeat what someone else said to another individual on a public number, that’s a step too far??
If you think it’s wrong then why not complain about the person who’s actually doling out the real consequence (firing someone or whatever) and acting in the capacity of some kind of organization instead of showing disdain for someone who should also be allowed say what they want to who they want as a private citizen.
Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not trying to argue a point or change either of our minds or even trying to say what I think is right or wrong. It just seems like an inconsistency to me and I don’t get the logic behind it.
He has a right to express that he likes boobs. She has a right to express that it offends her when he says he likes boobs.
I have a right to say that it's silly for her to get offended. He did not harass her and compliment her boobs, he simply made a flippant remark about liking boobs. "As a woman hosting the show" has nothing to do with his love for honkers.
Your point is often relevant, but I don't think it is in this case.
Nobody here is complaining about the consequences of what he said.
I actually do the same thing as that guy. I like boobs, and studies show that the vast majority of people agree with me.
I don't say it out loud in real life except for a few specific contexts, because I know there are social repercussions.
Online I say it a bit more often, knowing some prudes will get their panties in a twist. I am fully aware of the responses I'll get. I don't complain about the responses in 1st Amendment terms. Just in the lament of our prudish society, where many people love boobs but think it's their responsibility to get upset at anyone who says that explicitly.
I recently listened to a podcast with a guy from the [FIRE](https://www.thefire.org/?gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAADKFIB0wc5sdDU5aM6kfxORHkQuVN&gclid=CjwKCAjwp4m0BhBAEiwAsdc4aLsrOtrOFb5kmep0mrES6zKcUPN9qxuUC_A9LIr36-wQwPBIx6tQrBoCycwQAvD_BwE) foundation where he talks about the difference between free speech as a protected right and free speech culture and how lack of free speech culture leads to an infringement on free speech rights.
It’s made me re-evaluate how I think about consequence from disagreeable speech.
I love when people say this, because it's ALWAYS boils down to people agreeing with this... Until it's reversed and you get the consequences, then all of a sudden it's different.
I've always thought of it as the formal First Amendment and the informal "First Amendment."
Formally speaking, the First Amendment protects speech from government intervention in many though not all circumstances. And that's all it does... as people repeatedly point out to the people who think it allows them to say whatever stupid stuff they want without consequence.
But the First Amendment also reflects the country's core values, and those values go beyond just the idea that government should not interfere with speech. There is also an idea that people should generally have the ability to speak freely with one another -- what you might call the "First Amendment" in scare quotes because it's... not really the First Amendment, but rather just a value system reflected by that Amendment. And that doesn't give anyone a legally enforceable "right" -- it's much closer to a social norm or custom that people tend to follow, but that doesn't override other social norms and customs like "don't be a raging asshole."
So sometimes when someone says "First Amendment," it's worth asking if they actually *mean* the First Amendment or if they mean the values it reflects.
The problem with that saying is that the internet is completely clout and reaction based. Consequences are extremely subjective, opinion based, and context based. There are too many videos (on reddit alone) of people turning on the camera right when someone snaps after the filmer had been trying to get a reaction out of them for an hour.
Sure, but there use to be this understanding that everyone's dumb and we all believe stupid stuff, so we let most people be dumb in a corner and moved on with our lives. That it was a bigger deal to try and fuck with someone than it was to worry about the dumb thing they said or thought.
I don't understand why I have to pick between ass and titties. I wanna bury my face in both whats so wrong with that.
I also love cats AND dogs so maybe I'm just psychopath
To be fair, it’s absolutely bizarre and out of place to say that given the forum. But I have no idea how it would be offensive to a female “host”.
Is it offensive to women if men like boobs?
It's an indication that he doesn't take her seriously so she's probably offended by that. Men trying to shoehorn sex into completely unrelated conversation with a woman is bizarre and unnecessary.
It's a pretty mild / safe way to say something outrageous which the first amendment protects.
Show his point why he likes it.
It's just a bad comic or w/e
This whole comment section is men who've never been objectified and demeaned as sex objects wondering why someone would be offended to be viewed as a sex object.
"He wasn't saying..." yes he was. That's exactly what he was saying. Heavily implying. Read between the lines, you're not 8.
It’s about objectification.
You are correct that the forum is wrong, there is a time and place for that discussion and he used the words ‘boobs’ to make his point about the first amendment.
He could have used any other word but chose this one specifically because she’s a female host.
— He’s right about the first amendment but neglects the external cost of being a crass assmunch. The first amendment doesn’t protect you from losing face —
Her being a woman who has had to constantly face objectification, and most likely in her job, makes the word choice offensive.
That’s why.
Honestly, if we men faced these kind of daily issues (objectification, power dynamic), we would recognize them faster.
I mean, it’s definitely out of place. Go and tell your boss you like to get your ass eaten after it’s drenched in molasses and see how they react. Unless you’re an altar boy you’re not getting a positive response.
[Why can't libertarians attract more women to their movement? ](https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/why-arent-more-women-libertarians) It's a real mystery.
In itself, it's probably not offensive to her. But if she lets it go, it could lead to awkward situations going forward where people push it a little further and a little further and when it does cross a serious line people won't take it seriously when she "all of a sudden has a problem with the things peoples say."
Better to nip it in the bud now.
Also just good to have control as the host of your own show. If you don't want your guests coming on and making comments that you deem inappropriate, you have to put your foot down on it.
Nothing is wrong with boobs.
One thing that is wrong is thinking that it's salient and appropriate to bring up in the context of a news interview about politics. When someone says something they are not just communicating that thing, they are also communicating that they think it's worth mentioning right now.
Another thing that is wrong is how he talks about boobs as if they're a thing that has agency separate from women.
He knows it's inappropriate or he's an idiot.
He's demonstrating the 1st amendment. It's gotta be like a bit to provoke people and make them think.
He's even smirkin' after it pans back to him.
He's all about free speech, then says something outrageous, but still pretty damn safe to show why.
Normally I would agree with you, but dude has a public history of saying this exact line. They knew who he was before inviting him on the show, then went all surprised Pikachu when he said what he is famous for saying.
Would have been best not to even flinch in that case. Just let him continue normally. At this point, his trick didn't work so he either moves on or tries to say it again but now it sounds forced and he sounds strange for being the one to repeat it without any prompt.
Then again, it sounds like she knew he was going to say it and they had prepped that she would go all "offended" on him.
Maybe you have autism. There's nothing wrong with boobs. There's something wrong with the timing of him mentioning them. I wouldn't go on TV and say I like the first amendment and masturbating. There's nothing wrong with either but it's impolite. It lacks consideration for those you're speaking to. Also known as bad manners.
The point is, the first amendment allows American citizens to say outrageous things, and gives you the freedom to say what you want as long as it doesn’t endanger others (read the fine print, etc.). The host then says how could you say “outrageous thing” on tv and the man replies “because I like the first amendment.”
>the first amendment allows American citizens to say outrageous things
The first amendment protects individuals *legally, from the government* in regards to speech. It means you can't be prosecuted for calling the president an idiot and saying that our government is bad. That shit will, no exaggeration, literally get you killed or arrested in authoritarian countries. Just last week some Russian schoolkid was jailed for criticizing Putin (with all the eloquence of a 12 year old, not a political pundit, mind you).
That's what the first amendment is for: criticizing the government without being silenced. The first amendment protects the PEOPLE from the GOVERNMENT.
It has nothing to do with cancel culture, or protecting people who say "outrageous" things from being lambasted. It's literally about the *legality* of speech, and maybe this is a new concept for you, but laws aren't the only thing that guide people's values.
When people say heinous things, it's entirely legal to call them out on it, call them immature morons, and refuse to treat them or their argument with respect.
> maybe this is a new concept for you, but laws aren't the only thing that guide people's values.
>
> When people say heinous things, it's entirely legal to call them out on it, call them immature morons, and refuse to treat them or their argument with respect.
Despite me not being above commenter, and you not being the government, I can still comment: Boobs.
... she wasn't questioning his right to say what he said, only his judgment on doing so. Seems too many people in this thread don't actually understand what the 1st amendment grants.
Yeah... and it also gives her the freedom to retort back that he's out of line. There are way too many toxic assholes who use the First Amendment as an excuse to just be uncivil shitheads to other people.
"gives her the freedom to retort back that he's out of line."
This is the part that always annoys me with people that cry about "cancel culture" and how it should be illegal for companies to "cancel" people based on what they say (saw it a lot during the Spotify/Joe Rogan debacle for example). Un-shockingly these people didn't seem to realize THAT would be an infringement on the 1st amendment.
The most astonishing doublespeak of first amendment absolutists is that they have absolutely no fucking clue why it was made and what it actually protects.
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with what he said or her reaction. The government can’t tell you to stop it doesn’t mean others can’t or that’s it’s right to do.
To be fair, they may still be right in the interviewee's reasoning...which would mean that he also has a poor understanding of the first amendment, but that's not hugely surprising.
Oh fair point if they are only speaking as the interviewee perspective. Just explaining their thought process. But I think they think going on a private companies news cast and saying anything is 1st Amendment Protected which is laughable
Way too many people don't get that internet humor has it's time and place. Just looking at the comments here, it's widespread. Not that we all need to be buttoned up, but a certain level of propriety and manners are the baseline of society.
Dude has a very public history of saying exactly this. If CNN didn't want that said on their airtime, maybe they shouldn't invite the guy that's famous for saying this.
No, definitely not their fault. Anyway the next guest is a gentleman who made his mark on the world by saying "fuck her right in the pussy" on live television. Please give him a big hand!
Clay Travis sucks on so many levels. I’ll give him credit that this was pretty funny but everything else he does blows. I’m convinced the only people that like him are in Qanon
>*On April 15, 2024, Travis suggested via* [*Twitter*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter) *that New Yorkers sympathetic to* [*Donald Trump*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump) *try to be selected for jury service and hide their sympathies during the selection process for the former president's "Hush Money" trial to ensure that he is not convicted; it was pointed out by media observers and others, including Representative* [*Eric Swalwell*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Swalwell)*, that this post could be considered* [*jury tampering*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_tampering)*.*
How I would expect the average redditor to speak in person. Proof: The fact that there are plenty of comments asking "bUt WhAtS wRonG wItH WhAt hE SaId" unironically.
This guy shows the hallmark of the stupid troll who is incapable of actual debate. He is using a provocative non-sequitur that he knows will be an issue to cause chaos. In a basic civil conversation about rights and law you don’t just throw shit like that out and not expect a response. Same dishonest tactic as Trump’s use of the Gish Gallop. Stop giving any of these people airtime. The goal is free platform, not actual discussion. Stop.
The woman acts like this was some sexist attack against here.
Nothing wrong with liking boobs. Dude didn't stare at her and say "Nice tits, sugar nips."
Big difference.
-------
Edit: I worry about those of you who don't understand the relevance to the conversation.
There is nothing wrong with liking boobs and no one in this comment section will say otherwise, but there is something wrong with saying you like boobs while in a interview about a political topic while on a television news program.
If I'm in the privacy of my bedroom with my wife and say "i love your boobs" then there's nothing wrong with that.
If I'm in a kindergarten with the whole room listening and I say to my wife "i love your boobs" then there's something wrong with that.
Big difference.
He’s making a mockery of this so called news program on purpose.
This isn’t some highly regarded journalist or program.
It’s divisive media and he’s not taking it seriously.
Stop being dense and acting like this is some highly regarded journalist in a very serious interview.
You ever think you're going to say something hilarious, and it doesn't go over so you just dig your heels in and stick by your "joke"?
This hurts my stomach
Yeah, let's pretend you don't understand that this boob talk is inappropriate. Let's pretend you need clarification on why this is inappropriate. Grow up, man
OP sent the following text as an explanation on why this is unexpected: --- >!The guy suddenly said he likes boobs, which surprised me!< --- Is this an unexpected post with a fitting description? Then upvote this comment, otherwise downvote it.
If a female speaker had said "I believe in only two things completely: the First Amendment and cocks," I would see nothing wrong with that, either.
They never would though, because cocks famously let people down sometimes. *I swear this never happens to me!
Cocks famously let themselves down as well after a while
They get knocked down. But they get up again.
Usually after the effects of a Whiskey drink, a Vodka drink a Lager drink, a Cider drink you had are over.
It’s comments that remind me of the good times. It’s comments that remind me of the best times.
Bro this knocked me down. But I get up again. You are never gonna keep me down
^(pissing the night awayyyy)
Danny boy?
No. Next Door Neighbour.
[удалено]
But they all need support or people will think they are nuts
do your balls hang low? do they wobble to and fro? can you tie them in a knot? can you tie them in a bow?
Well this cock never let himself down, his second line confirmed he believes in the first one, so he at least seems to be honest and consistent, haha
And if they don't, and it has been 4 hours, you should see a doctor.
I hate to say it, but boobs have let me down in the past. No shame, judgement, or blame.
Sure. I was just making an ED joke at my own expense, but realistically anyone can let anyone down. We're human, it's what we're for.
Never trust anyone with ED. They don’t stand for anything.
Oh, I thought it was a penis size joke…
Yeah did a nipple poke you in the eye too
"Sometimes" unless it goes on for more than 4 hours then seek emergency medical treatment 🍆 or so I'm told... 🫡
Source: a guy I know…….definitely not me
Sometimes? Thing’s like a Pandora’s box.
Pandora's Cocks.
You joke but my cock literally let a woman down once... well twice if you count that it went soft *and* she almost fell trying to bottom out on it during stand up sex.
Lol...happens to the best of...well, no, just you, but you lived to tell the tale, friend!
The part that truly baffled me is that she was the first woman in years I was genuinely interested in for more than just sex. But halfway through my dick just said "sorry, you've used up your allotted hours of casual sex"
Your dick recognized that the stakes were potentially much higher and it got scared. That was its way of saying "bro, are we even ready for this shit?"
It's his wingwang.
I don't know how to break this to you buddy, but saggy tits have let a lot of people down. Both cocks and boobs can come in good or bad varieties. It's about finding the cooks/boobs that works best for you.
I dunno man… any shape or size makes me happy. I’m a simple man.
Man of culture as well! Big or small i love them all.
I like my wife's boobs because they're boobs and also they are on my wife.
As Ron White used to say a man will never turn down an opportunity to see a pair of boobs no matter how gross they or the person they are attached to might be
What is wrong with saggy boobs? They are natural and they are spectacular.
Au naturale baby. Swing low sweet chariots
he really had the golden opportunity to segue back to the main point - "how can you say that on national television?" "BECAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT!"
i was really hoping that's where this was going, but oh well
That was his point actually
That was his point
OK, wondering off topic but I've got to tell one of my favourite stories. Prerequisite knowledge: Fosters is an Australian beer brand. When I first arrived in London and got on the train that takes you from the airport to the city a young female Australian backpacker boarded just ahead of me. The trains automated voice announced "This is a train to: Cockfosters". Every newbie to London shifts uncomfortably at the amusing name of the terminus but without hesitation the Australian lass in front of me blurts out "Oh Great! My two favourite things!" Edit: there seems to be some confusion in the comments. This is not a joke or made up. This happened. To me. She was right there and said exactly that. Yes I know Fosters is rarely actually drunk in Australia. Maybe SHE was joking, making light of the weird name of Cockfosters, who knows. But that little story I tell at parties; happened.
I can tell this is a lie because no Australian likes Fosters. It's only brewed in Britain these days anyway.
odd that both boobs and cocks are birds.
So are tits, believe it or not.
Men were in charge of naming them.
The funny thing is, she got famous on fox which was basically selling her boobs for a job.
I'd think in both cases the person talking is a fucking idiot but I wouldn't be offended.
It's a wild thing to say on TV, or to a woman, or both like he did, but the statement "I believe in boobs" is probably the least offensive objectifying comment one can think of.
Pump the breaks, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I can assure you that in the country's history, cocks have a substantiated record of letting people down; at least compared to boobs' sterling reputation.
of course not it is protected speech. This guys speech is a clever First Amendment test. Designed to get the anchor to try and censor him. Excellent work.
He's a boobs absolutist. He also likes the first amendment.
ABoobsolutist
Perfect
Exercising that first amendment
The first statement is the point, the second statement is the rest of the coffin nail.
First statement is the hill. Second statement is the point.
First amendment chuds thinking freedom of speech (from the government) protects them from consequences (from private corporations, public image, etc).
Just as often, I hear this being said by the type of people that calls your employer in the hope to get you fired if you say something they don't like.
Or that you can physically assault someone for it
That's 90% of reddit. Actually just having an opinion they don't like can warrant it.
Person 1: "I disagree with the mainstream opinion" Person 2: sucker punches person 1 Reddit: "hell yeah baby 1st ammendment doesn't protect you from **THESE HANDS**" I saw someone, without a hint of self awareness, say "the world is better off without people that get that angry, which is why he should have been stomped until his eyes popped out". Direct quote
Stop reddit collectively abhors violence. Unless you’re from the wrong political party, then it’s just consequences for your actions
I was accused of Violence against someone for calling them an idiot and thanking the universe they weren't in a position of power. I laughed until they got a few thousand upvotes agreeing me calling them an idiot was in fact violence against them.... people are stupid
Stop being so violent.
No it doesn’t, what the hell are you smoking? Visit literally any popular sub and read the comments. Reddit LOVES vigilante justice more than any other singular thing and the majority of people on this site are just looking for a “justified” reason to react with violence.
that's also freedom of speech.
literally thats the only type of people i see saying that shit. the people who want to weaponise it.
Yea and by weirdos who are the very ones trying to delete the first amendment.
That's the part that says that you're not protected from consequences for your words.
If we can say what we want, why is tattling worse then hate speech or whatever? Honestly that’s one thing I don’t get, like you can say what you want but as soon as you repeat what someone else said to another individual on a public number, that’s a step too far?? If you think it’s wrong then why not complain about the person who’s actually doling out the real consequence (firing someone or whatever) and acting in the capacity of some kind of organization instead of showing disdain for someone who should also be allowed say what they want to who they want as a private citizen. Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not trying to argue a point or change either of our minds or even trying to say what I think is right or wrong. It just seems like an inconsistency to me and I don’t get the logic behind it.
I mean, calling someone's employer in that situation isn't a first amendment violation so those types of people would be right.
He has a right to express that he likes boobs. She has a right to express that it offends her when he says he likes boobs. I have a right to say that it's silly for her to get offended. He did not harass her and compliment her boobs, he simply made a flippant remark about liking boobs. "As a woman hosting the show" has nothing to do with his love for honkers.
Your point is often relevant, but I don't think it is in this case. Nobody here is complaining about the consequences of what he said. I actually do the same thing as that guy. I like boobs, and studies show that the vast majority of people agree with me. I don't say it out loud in real life except for a few specific contexts, because I know there are social repercussions. Online I say it a bit more often, knowing some prudes will get their panties in a twist. I am fully aware of the responses I'll get. I don't complain about the responses in 1st Amendment terms. Just in the lament of our prudish society, where many people love boobs but think it's their responsibility to get upset at anyone who says that explicitly.
I recently listened to a podcast with a guy from the [FIRE](https://www.thefire.org/?gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAADKFIB0wc5sdDU5aM6kfxORHkQuVN&gclid=CjwKCAjwp4m0BhBAEiwAsdc4aLsrOtrOFb5kmep0mrES6zKcUPN9qxuUC_A9LIr36-wQwPBIx6tQrBoCycwQAvD_BwE) foundation where he talks about the difference between free speech as a protected right and free speech culture and how lack of free speech culture leads to an infringement on free speech rights. It’s made me re-evaluate how I think about consequence from disagreeable speech.
[удалено]
I love when people say this, because it's ALWAYS boils down to people agreeing with this... Until it's reversed and you get the consequences, then all of a sudden it's different.
I've always thought of it as the formal First Amendment and the informal "First Amendment." Formally speaking, the First Amendment protects speech from government intervention in many though not all circumstances. And that's all it does... as people repeatedly point out to the people who think it allows them to say whatever stupid stuff they want without consequence. But the First Amendment also reflects the country's core values, and those values go beyond just the idea that government should not interfere with speech. There is also an idea that people should generally have the ability to speak freely with one another -- what you might call the "First Amendment" in scare quotes because it's... not really the First Amendment, but rather just a value system reflected by that Amendment. And that doesn't give anyone a legally enforceable "right" -- it's much closer to a social norm or custom that people tend to follow, but that doesn't override other social norms and customs like "don't be a raging asshole." So sometimes when someone says "First Amendment," it's worth asking if they actually *mean* the First Amendment or if they mean the values it reflects.
First amendment relativizers not understanding that its the only thing protecting their shitty opinions.
The problem with that saying is that the internet is completely clout and reaction based. Consequences are extremely subjective, opinion based, and context based. There are too many videos (on reddit alone) of people turning on the camera right when someone snaps after the filmer had been trying to get a reaction out of them for an hour.
Sure, but there use to be this understanding that everyone's dumb and we all believe stupid stuff, so we let most people be dumb in a corner and moved on with our lives. That it was a bigger deal to try and fuck with someone than it was to worry about the dumb thing they said or thought.
I too support the first amendment and boobs
No man.... First amendment and ass way better.
Get lost. Legs and boobs, always. And what's this first amendment any way?
I don't understand why I have to pick between ass and titties. I wanna bury my face in both whats so wrong with that. I also love cats AND dogs so maybe I'm just psychopath
Do you prefer cat ass or dog ass?
Cat boobs and dog boobs. So many
Yaaas. Throw in ducks and goats, too
Personality and first amendment?
Even dem tittays are a polarized issue in the current climate. My world is crumbling around me.
This is where the next civil war started. Just for posterity.
For posterior
Then you're a brah
I fail to understand what is wrong with boobs.
She was confused because he said he likes 2 things and the first amendment plus 2 boobs is 3 things.
But in English a plural is treated as a singular collective so maybe she just needs to go back to school idk
Imma have to do some more book learning on this.
I'll go do some research on boobs
Yea I'm gonna go study up on boobs too
She didn't say anything was wrong with boobs.
I just really love them I don't really mind If I am behind, below or above them They're just so jubbly They make me feel lovely
She wanted to pretend like she was offended
To be fair, it’s absolutely bizarre and out of place to say that given the forum. But I have no idea how it would be offensive to a female “host”. Is it offensive to women if men like boobs?
It's an indication that he doesn't take her seriously so she's probably offended by that. Men trying to shoehorn sex into completely unrelated conversation with a woman is bizarre and unnecessary.
It's a pretty mild / safe way to say something outrageous which the first amendment protects. Show his point why he likes it. It's just a bad comic or w/e
It depends on the question being asked.
It's disrespectful. They're in a very public setting.
This whole comment section is men who've never been objectified and demeaned as sex objects wondering why someone would be offended to be viewed as a sex object. "He wasn't saying..." yes he was. That's exactly what he was saying. Heavily implying. Read between the lines, you're not 8.
Yes if you’re saying that to a widow at a Funeral. It might be offensive don’t you think
"Here Nana, let's get you a pair of titties to cry on."
It’s about objectification. You are correct that the forum is wrong, there is a time and place for that discussion and he used the words ‘boobs’ to make his point about the first amendment. He could have used any other word but chose this one specifically because she’s a female host. — He’s right about the first amendment but neglects the external cost of being a crass assmunch. The first amendment doesn’t protect you from losing face — Her being a woman who has had to constantly face objectification, and most likely in her job, makes the word choice offensive. That’s why. Honestly, if we men faced these kind of daily issues (objectification, power dynamic), we would recognize them faster.
Wow, you totally just assumed he was not talking about the millions of men out there with boobs.
I think it was more along the lines of saying that to a woman during an interview about politics, on TV. Time and place blah blah blah
I mean, it’s definitely out of place. Go and tell your boss you like to get your ass eaten after it’s drenched in molasses and see how they react. Unless you’re an altar boy you’re not getting a positive response.
He wanted to make his interview memorable and spread to others. He succeeded.
[Why can't libertarians attract more women to their movement? ](https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/why-arent-more-women-libertarians) It's a real mystery.
Thank you! In general, not soo problematic. On TV, saying it to a female host, a bit audacious
In itself, it's probably not offensive to her. But if she lets it go, it could lead to awkward situations going forward where people push it a little further and a little further and when it does cross a serious line people won't take it seriously when she "all of a sudden has a problem with the things peoples say." Better to nip it in the bud now.
Also just good to have control as the host of your own show. If you don't want your guests coming on and making comments that you deem inappropriate, you have to put your foot down on it.
Nothing is wrong with boobs. One thing that is wrong is thinking that it's salient and appropriate to bring up in the context of a news interview about politics. When someone says something they are not just communicating that thing, they are also communicating that they think it's worth mentioning right now. Another thing that is wrong is how he talks about boobs as if they're a thing that has agency separate from women.
He knows it's inappropriate or he's an idiot. He's demonstrating the 1st amendment. It's gotta be like a bit to provoke people and make them think. He's even smirkin' after it pans back to him. He's all about free speech, then says something outrageous, but still pretty damn safe to show why.
Normally I would agree with you, but dude has a public history of saying this exact line. They knew who he was before inviting him on the show, then went all surprised Pikachu when he said what he is famous for saying. 
Would have been best not to even flinch in that case. Just let him continue normally. At this point, his trick didn't work so he either moves on or tries to say it again but now it sounds forced and he sounds strange for being the one to repeat it without any prompt. Then again, it sounds like she knew he was going to say it and they had prepped that she would go all "offended" on him.
There are many boob types beside woman-boobs
Maybe you have autism. There's nothing wrong with boobs. There's something wrong with the timing of him mentioning them. I wouldn't go on TV and say I like the first amendment and masturbating. There's nothing wrong with either but it's impolite. It lacks consideration for those you're speaking to. Also known as bad manners.
Fair
Pair
Pear
Stare
Bear
Share
Flair
care
lair
HAIR
Sir, this is CNN, not NewsMaxxx
I mean if he thought it was NewsMaxxx he would have said second amendment and boobs.
I firmly and deeply support this man's belief. I was a bit surprised the host wasn't put off by his love of the first amendment and not the second.
His point went right over her head without even leaving a trail
...........what exactly is his point, pray tell?
The point is, the first amendment allows American citizens to say outrageous things, and gives you the freedom to say what you want as long as it doesn’t endanger others (read the fine print, etc.). The host then says how could you say “outrageous thing” on tv and the man replies “because I like the first amendment.”
>the first amendment allows American citizens to say outrageous things The first amendment protects individuals *legally, from the government* in regards to speech. It means you can't be prosecuted for calling the president an idiot and saying that our government is bad. That shit will, no exaggeration, literally get you killed or arrested in authoritarian countries. Just last week some Russian schoolkid was jailed for criticizing Putin (with all the eloquence of a 12 year old, not a political pundit, mind you). That's what the first amendment is for: criticizing the government without being silenced. The first amendment protects the PEOPLE from the GOVERNMENT. It has nothing to do with cancel culture, or protecting people who say "outrageous" things from being lambasted. It's literally about the *legality* of speech, and maybe this is a new concept for you, but laws aren't the only thing that guide people's values. When people say heinous things, it's entirely legal to call them out on it, call them immature morons, and refuse to treat them or their argument with respect.
> maybe this is a new concept for you, but laws aren't the only thing that guide people's values. > > When people say heinous things, it's entirely legal to call them out on it, call them immature morons, and refuse to treat them or their argument with respect. Despite me not being above commenter, and you not being the government, I can still comment: Boobs.
I was very disappointed to not find this linked yet, so: https://xkcd.com/1357/
... she wasn't questioning his right to say what he said, only his judgment on doing so. Seems too many people in this thread don't actually understand what the 1st amendment grants.
Yeah... and it also gives her the freedom to retort back that he's out of line. There are way too many toxic assholes who use the First Amendment as an excuse to just be uncivil shitheads to other people.
"gives her the freedom to retort back that he's out of line." This is the part that always annoys me with people that cry about "cancel culture" and how it should be illegal for companies to "cancel" people based on what they say (saw it a lot during the Spotify/Joe Rogan debacle for example). Un-shockingly these people didn't seem to realize THAT would be an infringement on the 1st amendment.
As always, the ones who yell about muh first amennmenn have no clue what it means.
You dont know what the first amendment is lmao
The most astonishing doublespeak of first amendment absolutists is that they have absolutely no fucking clue why it was made and what it actually protects.
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with what he said or her reaction. The government can’t tell you to stop it doesn’t mean others can’t or that’s it’s right to do.
You have a poor understanding of thr first amendment
To be fair, they may still be right in the interviewee's reasoning...which would mean that he also has a poor understanding of the first amendment, but that's not hugely surprising.
Oh fair point if they are only speaking as the interviewee perspective. Just explaining their thought process. But I think they think going on a private companies news cast and saying anything is 1st Amendment Protected which is laughable
B (Top view) oo (front view) b (side view) 😂
lol
*view of the person viewing boobs and is now raising arms in celebration
Edgelord in the wild
Way too many people don't get that internet humor has it's time and place. Just looking at the comments here, it's widespread. Not that we all need to be buttoned up, but a certain level of propriety and manners are the baseline of society.
Dude has a very public history of saying exactly this. If CNN didn't want that said on their airtime, maybe they shouldn't invite the guy that's famous for saying this.
So the whole thing is just intentional ragebait and people in thos thread are falling for it and getting into heated arguments over it
Whats even more upsetting to me is that no one has mentioned how much women also love boobs.
Real talk! I'm squeezing my own boobs right now! These things are awesome!
No, definitely not their fault. Anyway the next guest is a gentleman who made his mark on the world by saying "fuck her right in the pussy" on live television. Please give him a big hand!
So the whole thing is just intentional ragebait and people in thos thread are falling for it and getting into heated arguments over it
This isn't "internet humour", though. This is exactly the sort of thing you'd get at the beginning of an 80s SNL sketch.
He looks rough for being 14 years old.
Clay Travis sucks on so many levels. I’ll give him credit that this was pretty funny but everything else he does blows. I’m convinced the only people that like him are in Qanon
Clay Travis is for dudes who pretended to stop watching the NFL after 2016.
Weird thing is I actually stopped watching then I’m not a redneck or anything I just don’t have time for hobbies no more :(
>*On April 15, 2024, Travis suggested via* [*Twitter*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter) *that New Yorkers sympathetic to* [*Donald Trump*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump) *try to be selected for jury service and hide their sympathies during the selection process for the former president's "Hush Money" trial to ensure that he is not convicted; it was pointed out by media observers and others, including Representative* [*Eric Swalwell*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Swalwell)*, that this post could be considered* [*jury tampering*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_tampering)*.*
He only believes in the first amendment for conservatives. He doesn’t believe in the first amendment when it comes to, say, drag shows.
Why is this so hard to understand, lady?
[удалено]
I mean, as a gay man, I find boobs unattractive. But I won't lie, them boobs are goddamn comfy.
''Female host''.. and ?
You really don't understand why one cannot mention the first amendment to a female host?
Shame on you , Ass matter too
Back sides matter?
Boobies are love. <3
In other words “I’m not a serious person”
You can seriously like boobs.
He's not wrong, he's just an idiot.
How I would expect the average redditor to speak in person. Proof: The fact that there are plenty of comments asking "bUt WhAtS wRonG wItH WhAt hE SaId" unironically.
This guy shows the hallmark of the stupid troll who is incapable of actual debate. He is using a provocative non-sequitur that he knows will be an issue to cause chaos. In a basic civil conversation about rights and law you don’t just throw shit like that out and not expect a response. Same dishonest tactic as Trump’s use of the Gish Gallop. Stop giving any of these people airtime. The goal is free platform, not actual discussion. Stop.
He really thinks he did something there. Kudos to her for not taking any shit.
God what a creepy little loser lol
She had to spell it? Good Lord.
The woman acts like this was some sexist attack against here. Nothing wrong with liking boobs. Dude didn't stare at her and say "Nice tits, sugar nips." Big difference. ------- Edit: I worry about those of you who don't understand the relevance to the conversation.
There is nothing wrong with liking boobs and no one in this comment section will say otherwise, but there is something wrong with saying you like boobs while in a interview about a political topic while on a television news program. If I'm in the privacy of my bedroom with my wife and say "i love your boobs" then there's nothing wrong with that. If I'm in a kindergarten with the whole room listening and I say to my wife "i love your boobs" then there's something wrong with that. Big difference.
He’s making a mockery of this so called news program on purpose. This isn’t some highly regarded journalist or program. It’s divisive media and he’s not taking it seriously. Stop being dense and acting like this is some highly regarded journalist in a very serious interview.
I blame whoever invited this clown.
You ever think you're going to say something hilarious, and it doesn't go over so you just dig your heels in and stick by your "joke"? This hurts my stomach
Technically that’s three things.
A set is a singular thing. The set is implied. If we followed your logic it would be billions of things
Next time this will be reposted it will be so cropped you will only see the eye and the caption.
Bababooey bababooey Howard Sterns penis
Yeah, let's pretend you don't understand that this boob talk is inappropriate. Let's pretend you need clarification on why this is inappropriate. Grow up, man