Megyn Kelly discusses the problems with the 'affirmation only' model of gender medicine - Real Time with Bill Maher (25 Oct 2024)

I am not censoring anyone and you have assumed my motivations. If I remember correctly, assuming and attributing motivations to others is something you have a tendency of doing .

You made some assertions and didn't offer references. So people will google. Even when an assertion seems quite wacky, it's often interesting to consider new angles.

Up until the point one decides an assertion based on invented hypotheses and imagined correlations is a pointless waste of time, of course.

Subsequent responses indicate you are just after creating an argument based on phantasmal conspiracies, rather than meaniingful discussion, so I'll leave you to it.

Okay. It’s an extremely strong theory without the evidence of a payslip. Your last sentence is nonsense, BTW - how can you even know that?

Someone has googled again! Well done!

Not sure if you’ve seen Sky Australia, Alison, but it’s Conservative on steroids. Labor commentators on there are few and far between.

Not quite, no.

Good try, though.

Good lord above.

I mean - Sky Australia? You’d use that to support an argument?

Ahhh no…. Formula one lovers are going to be very pissed off too!

Anybody with a YouTube channel better go and investigate all the shareholders for google …. Just in case…

Rothblatt was indeed a founder.

This is huge fucking news!

And I think that any Australian Labor Party commentator should get the fuck off Sky Australia and most of Australian media if this is the new standard that has to be considered. I mean. Fucking hell - Kristina Keneally is a shill for Trump and who the fuck knows who else now too! I mean, I didn’t think she was a good Premier of NSW, but I never knew she was a shill for the supposed far right. Who the fuck knew?

Someone tell Jill Biden.

(Image off of Wikipedia, because it's important to cite Sources when creating elaborate theories)

😁

I mean Fuck! I think that Harris has a fucking huge issue!!!

https://www.siriusxm.com/blog/democratic-national-convention-listen

Well. It's a theory.

Sirius XM was founded by Martyn (sp?) Rothblatt, apparently.

One could make other interesting theories about that.

Oh. So Megyn Kelly chooses to use a hugely popular streaming platform to host her work, that a huge number of others also use, and because the owner of that platform has a particular political view (but the platform doesn’t seem to be specifically skewed or targeted with any political leanings) all those using that platform are ‘being paid’ by the person who that major shareholder supports politically?

Is that how you have framed this?

My point is, you and Kelly are a Venn diagram of overlapping beliefs, but somehow you think everything outside of the overlapping circles on Kelly’s side is the result of her being a paid shill. It’s completely illogical, and in keeping with your pattern of castigating conservative women for expressing opinions.

Is it because you’re insecure in your beliefs? You seem to need to say “well, I agree with Kelly/Deeming/KJK on medicalising children, but she’s horrible because of x, y, z.” Are you worried people will think you’re - shock! - also conservative?! Or do you think it’s contagious? That you’re going to catch right wing cooties if you just say you agree with her on something and don’t qualify it with her horribleness?

Or do you just like to be contrary? Which is it?

What? We’re going from one issue to three?

Her podcast is hosted on Sirius XM, owned by Liberty Media. Liberty is owned by billionaire John Malone, a libertarian who is also a Trumper. No doubt Kelly earns a great deal via views alone, but the real deal comes via cross-clicks. If you’ve ever seen a Kelly link on another pundit’s Twitter (or vice-versa), these links (views) add up to revenue. And so it goes for other Trump pundits like a huge network.

Megyn Kelly changed her political home drastically and publicly and few people do that. (I can’t show you a payslip for proof - but ?)

No, the fact you agree with her on a single aspect should indicate it’s not too far for her to feel strongly about a couple more that determines her vote. You’re only two issues away from agreeing with Kelly on everything she determines to be important to vote for, so I don’t see how it can be baffling to you she wants to vote the way she does and somehow conclude it’s actually because she’s being paid to say such things.

You gave an assumption based on your own personal reasoning. This is not 'evidence'.

It's fine to suggest theories or ideas, even if they are totally speculative. But making a theory up does not in any way constitute 'evidencing' an argument.

Okay. So when you wrote “What they can’t do is expect people will simply not discuss the opinions stated,” were you meaning you’d like people to ignore my posts? (However awkwardly stated.)

If so, that’s somewhat censoring of you.

Who is she taking payments from though?

Agreement on a single aspect, IMO, is not enough to encourage others to vote for an odious person for POTUS. Her motives may be questionable. It wouldn’t be quite as bothersome if he hadn’t attacked her previously; but now it appears to sell, to me, the wrong message to young women and girls. She’s fine with someone that abused her, and will even promote him for President - and take payments to do so. There’s just something wrong with that.