This is hilarious.

[Horace]

One can imagine thought experiments, the classic gun-to-the-head scenario, where Candace is told to bet, one way or another, on the truth of a certain claim. Her children's lives are at stake. Would her bet be the same as Candace professed before? That thought experiment remains incoherent, because the gun-to-her-kid's-head Candace is not the same person as the Candace in front of the microphone. You are interrogating the belief of one thing, and assuming it's the same as the belief of the other thing. The difference between the two things is interesting, and predictable, but it does not impute true "belief" to one or the other. Their motivations are different, and belief is generally motivated.

[jon-nyc]

Heraclitus tells us you can’t interrogate the same Candice Owens twice.

[Renauda]

@Horace

What a tortuous way of reaffirming Klaus’ trenchant rhetorical question.

[Horace]

@Renauda said in This is hilarious.:

@Horace

What a tortuous way of reaffirming Klaus’ trenchant rhetorical question.

No, that's bullshit. I interrogated the trenchant question. You're welcome to do so yourself. I didn't get any of those insights from books.

[Renauda]

Regardless, it was still a tortuous interrogation.

And no, I’m not all that interested.

[Horace]

@Renauda said in This is hilarious.:

Regardless, it was still a tortuous interrogation.

And no, I’m not all that interested.

Well the human condition does not rise large over your persona here, unless it's the fact that rage and vindictiveness dominates.

[Renauda]

Would you like a saddle for your high horse?

[Horace]

No I probably just want to fight there, and then I'd die. You know, the human condition.

[Renauda]

Yes, of course. You’ll get over it.

[Doctor Phibes]

So we have to choose between a Candace who is a cynical liar and one who is completely fucking nuts.

Neither seems like a good reason to listen to her show.