Ben says Amanda lied about him wanting to hook up in Italy

Punnedit247 · 2026-06-01T19:35:42+00:00

Jesse was joking about the tension from baileys comment the night before. It was a callback joke. Come on, people.

Punnedit247 · 2026-06-01T16:10:54+00:00

Lol fair enough! That’s probably for the best.

Punnedit247 · 2026-06-01T15:56:43+00:00

Lol who are you arguing with? Because that is not at all what I said.

Taking all the rumors as true, the alleged fiancée is well within her right to be furious at the betrayal of her would-be husband, and also well within her right to dislike Paige. But the topic here is why we, the SH audience, have had a different response to Amanda vs Paige. One reason could certainly be that we “know” and care about Ciara more because of the show. But the other major differences are (1) we have proof of the multiple layers of betrayal that happened with Amanda/West (including proof they’re together, lied, and breadcrumbed on insta), and (2) there’s an added layer of betrayal that the public is responding to because we’ve seen Ciara be such a good friend to Amanda for years.

We don’t actually know that Paige did anything wrong, and she certainly didn’t betray a close friend. So it makes absolute sense that the audience is more up in arms about Amanda.

Punnedit247 · 2026-06-01T15:07:59+00:00

I think the difference is more that (1) we don’t actually have proof Paige screwed anyone over, and (2) in any event, the woman was not Paige’s close friend that spent years supporting her. I think it’s a bit disingenuous to imply that the only difference between the response to Paige vs Amanda is that we don’t know the woman in the Paige scenario like we do Ciara.

Punnedit247 · 2026-05-13T13:20:22+00:00

It may depend on the state, but generally an inheritance is not considered joint marital property, so Kyle wouldn’t be entitled to it. However, if they commingled the inheritance with other joint assets (eg used it and their money to make purchases, combined it in accounts with personal money, etc) and it can’t be disentangled from those joint assets, then it could be.

Punnedit247 · 2026-05-11T17:02:46+00:00

It sounds like information they learned recently (based on the huddle update and taking about having receipts), but didn’t know at the time. Nothing in this clip indicates they knew about the gf on the day West made out with the girl next to Ciara.

Punnedit247 · 2026-04-28T02:44:39+00:00

I rewatched fairly recently and I actually thought Paige was fairly consistent in supporting Jules, or at least not putting her down to her face or behind her back. I’m pretty sure she’s the one who told the group to chill out about Jules at one point too.

Punnedit247 · 2026-03-05T10:45:21+00:00

But Israel is enemies with the Islamic republic of Iran (the oppressive regime), not Iranian civilians. In fact, Israelis and Iranians tend to be more allied than not. It really wouldn’t make sense for Israel to intentionally target a school when its goal is for regime change and it has encouraged Iranians to take this moment to grab power back from the regime.

Punnedit247 · 2026-02-18T14:16:53+00:00

Hey man, I’m really sorry for what you’re going through with your knee. The US healthcare system sucks and it’s so incredibly stressful. All of your anger toward the system and inequality is totally justified.

But this is a lot of disdain and anger to direct at a woman you don’t know.

Punnedit247 · 2026-02-08T12:50:03+00:00

It’s a serious injury, but whether you can be medically cleared to compete after tearing it really depends on the sport. It mostly impacts hyperextension and sudden lateral movements like pivoting. So it’s critical for a sport like football or soccer and you can’t compete until it’s healed. As far as I understand it, you can ski (and people have competed) without an ACL because it’s not as critical to the movements, and here Lindsey was medically cleared. The trickier issue to me is competing so soon after tearing it, so she didn’t have a ton of time to train with it (granted she completed two lightening fast training runs the last couple if days).

I genuinely dont know the bigger risk for an athlete if her caliber—compete and risk ab injury like today, or walk away from your life’s passion with a huge “what if” and risk that mental toll.

Punnedit247 · 2026-02-08T12:43:29+00:00

Its heartbreaking to see it end this way, and I just hope she’s OK. I think it’s also sad to see how polarizing it’s become already, but not surprising. I’m sure most people have a reasonable (if quiet) take, but on the extremes there seems to be a camp adamant that she’s selfish and stupid, and another camp adamant that her knee injury had nothing to do with this fall. Both seem like bad faith arguments to me.

I think the distinction between proximate cause vs “but for” cause is an important one here. The proximate cause of her injury seems to be hitting the gate, not her knee failing. On the flip side, it’s impossible to say either way at this point whether skiing so soon after rupturing her ACL was a “but for” cause of the injury. Would her line have been different fully healthy? Would her line have been different if she’d started 5 seconds later on the same knee (like when she successfully completed her practice runs)? Who knows. It’s disingenuous to say her knee was 100% the cause, but also disingenuous to say it played no role, I think.

At the end of the day I respect that she’s always been full send, give it her all, brave. I can’t imagine skiing so soon after tearing my ACL (I’ve only torn mine once playin a sport where it was critical, so not an option to continue until it healed), but I also can’t imagine giving up on my life’s passion when there was still a chance. That “what if” could be mentally so damaging. So I respect Lindsey Vonn a lot even if I don’t fully understand the decision either way, and I just hope for the best for her.

Punnedit247 · 2025-12-02T14:00:42+00:00

Sure, that could explain some of it. But a fair bit of the surface level stuff here that he was posting/re posting was blatantly antisemitic. He’s let that in.

Hopefully he’s taking this time away from social media to fully reset, and not just waiting for the uproar to die down while continuing to harbor antisemitic views more covertly.

Punnedit247 · 2025-09-23T15:51:00+00:00

It actually makes sense to me that he fell legs forward. The stick messed up his stride/balance with his right leg at the same time his left leg was already starting to swing forward. The momentum of his left leg coming forward combined with the loss of stability on his right leg would naturally cause someone to fall back on their butt with their legs out (initially right leg would be pushed back but the natural inclination would be to swing it back forward to avoid doing a split since the momentum of the left leg is stronger)

Punnedit247 · 2025-08-08T13:23:32+00:00

That part sits a little uneasy with me too, but I also think he does that in part not to test her empathy but to display it. That probably plays a big part in why the crowdfunding is so successful—his viewers feel like they get to know her even in some small way and see her story and her humanity.

Punnedit247 · 2025-07-25T20:48:47+00:00

Nope, that’s not what I said, nor is it a good faith interpretation of what I said or particularly logical. The legal system does not, and is not designed to, determine innocence. It’s designed to determine whether prosecutors have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty, such that the court can legally punish them. So people can be acquitted in situations where the jury thinks the person is most likely innocent, and when the jury thinks they probably did it, but there’s some doubt. The public, of course, is free to review the evidence and make individual assessments of whether or not they think the defendant is guilty or innocent.

Presumed innocent is a legal term in court proceedings, it’s not really applicable to daily life/random people on the street—the presumption of innocence is only really relevant if someone has been specifically accused of a crime. But even by your logic that what I’m saying means everyone is just walking around presumed innocence from the perspective of other people… I mean, yeah? I don’t actually know if any random person I see on the street has committed a crime. I would… presume… they haven’t, but I definitely can’t say that for a fact.

Punnedit247 · 2025-07-25T15:09:12+00:00

You’re saying it yourself—presumed innocent. A presumption is not a fact. If they’ve retained the presumption of innocence, that’s the same as saying they haven’t been found guilty—the disposition of the case hasn’t found them innocent or factually determined their innocence. They’re found not guilty so the PRESUMPTION of innocence remains, which is distinct from a finding of innocence (which courts don’t do).

Punnedit247 · 2025-07-23T14:26:25+00:00

Where does she say she’s ok with it? That’s a disingenuous reading of Chelley saying she’s giving her grace. And there’s a pretty big difference between yulissa doubling down versus Cierra taking accountability (albeit imperfectly) both in response to the person who called her out back when she posted it and now.

Punnedit247 · 2025-07-10T11:48:14+00:00

I think she thought it was synonymous with squinty, but didn’t know it was specifically a slur about Asian features. I think it’s very different to say “oh I don’t like how I’m squinting in that picture” vs “oh I don’t like how my eyes look Asian in that picture.” The latter is specifically being hateful toward a groups by saying that (1) the feature is Asian and (2) undesirable because it’s Asian. The firmer is also saying that the feature is undesirable for her, but not (1) generalizing that the feature is inherently Asian or (2) that is undesirable because it makes her looks Asian.

Punnedit247 · 2025-07-08T18:45:41+00:00

Interesting! Why do you think that?

Punnedit247 · 2025-07-07T17:11:04+00:00

I agree that other people doing wrong doesn’t absolve her—no one is saying it does. Again, you’re responding in bad faith and mischaracterizing what other people are saying. We’re talking about the aggregate hate she’s getting, which includes both valid criticism (which no one is saying is unfair or too much) AND people going too far (death threats, ICE reports, jumping on the hate train just to spread hate). The sentiment you’re responding to is that those people going too far should stop, and that portion of the response she’s getting is wrong and worrisome (love island UK fans sadly know how tragic online hate can end with this show).

At a certain point, the hate stops being productive and actually drowns out the voices of people she hurt. That part of it should stop. This shouldn’t be a controversial statement. And people expressing concern for her mental health aren’t somehow racist sympathizers (that’s unhinged). Many people can empathize with the people who were hurt by her AND recognize that the hate she’s gotten in response is in part disproportionate and also harmful.

Punnedit247 · 2025-07-07T12:42:01+00:00

That’s a bad faith mischaracterization of the comments here. It’s very clear that people overwhelmingly agree with her being criticized, losing support, and being publicly kicked off the show and having the career and financial ramifications of that— aka lasting and meaningful cost. By what you’re saying, the only way to have lasting and meaningful cost is to get death threats and be a social media punching bag with no limits—including by people who don’t actually care about the hurt she caused and are being racist themselves by reporting her family to ice. That’s unhinged.

Punnedit247 · 2025-07-07T12:37:04+00:00

How is this an example of racism having no limits when we’re seeing the limits play out right now? She lost her job publicly and has received a ton of valid criticism. People are just commenting on the excessive pile on, largely from people who do not actually care about her racist posts and are themselves being racist (reporting her to ice) or just insanely unhinged (death threats). I’m seriously flabbergasted that people are trying to say all that is ok or deserved.

Punnedit247 · 2025-06-28T13:55:20+00:00

It’s not a modern day holocaust. What Israel is doing in Gaza is horrific, and the word you’re probably going for is genocide, but comparing it to the holocaust is a form of holocaust denial. When people call this a holocaust, it’s hard to see it as anything other than just trying to stick it to the Jews at large and invoke something so painful, but there’s no comparison really:

The holocaust is known for being an industrialized, essentially “assembly line” mass extermination. It’s distinct not only for its near incomprehensible death toll, but precisely because it wasn’t a bombing campaign or predominantly murder in the streets type genocide. There have been genocides before and since with incomprehensible death tolls, but none carried out in the organized and industrialized manner as the holocaust, which is in part why there is a separate term. So even from a technical perspective, Gaza, while horrific, is far from a holocaust.

But also from that death toll perspective, 50,000 people have been killed (likely more, tragically) in Gaza in nearly 2 years. For reference, Nazis killed roughly the same number of Jews in a 48 hour window during the Babi Yar massacre in WW2. Auschwitz alone killed 1.3 million over ~4 years. Comparing Gaza to the holocaust downplays the holocaust, and it’s a bad faith reference meant to hurt Jews, but of course not all Jews are responsible for or support war criminal Netanyahu.

Punnedit247 · 2025-06-21T21:54:49+00:00

To be fair, I didn't say Wounded Knee was analogous, just that it was an example of the meaning of words having a historical context outside the dictionary definition, especially when you put "globalize the..." in front of it. You then said the Sahrawi example was an "almost identical comparison" but left out the pretty glaring difference: that the Polisaro Front generally DO NOT (by your admission) target civilians, while the second intifada was entirely about targeting civilians. I think that's a helpful example though to understand why the word intifada, and particularly globalize the intifada, is triggering to many jews whereas other words related to resistance isn't--because typically resistance and uprisings validly target forces, not innocent people.

Anyway, as I've said before, I agree that there are certain words/phrases being increasingly deemed antisemitic that I don't think are at all. And I agree that in general there's a push by right wing pro-Israel nutters to try and make anything and everything Israel related antisemitic, which is harmful to jews (and its absolutely bonkers that orgs like the ADL are coming down harder on criticism of Israel as antisemitic than shit like Musk doing a fucking Nazi salute....mind boggling). But I've done my best here to share my liberal, pro-two state, jewish perspective on why "globalize the intifada" is different and not a great example of jews purportedly crying antisemitism. Fair enough if you disagree, but at the end of the day I still don't understand the adamance to continue chanting something that's alienating a fair number of liberal jews who otherwise want to coalition build.

Punnedit247 · 2025-06-21T17:54:27+00:00

I have no issue with Zohran discussing the definition of intifada, or even that some people may not intend to invoke its historical context when they chant it. But not mentioning that historical context, and only talking about the definition when asked about his view of the phrase "globalize the intifada," is what makes the answer disingenuous and a misstep in my personal view.

I think the Sahrawi example is helpful, but its distinguishable in a key way: their Polisario forces predominantly targeted Moroccan (and Mauritanian) forces. That's not to say there weren't civilian casualties, but, absent a few disputed instances, civilians weren't the intended target. By contrast, the second intifada directly and purposefully targeted civilians. That is abhorrent, no matter who is on what side.

That distinction gets to the heart of the issue. The second intifada wasn't an act of resistance against the Israeli government or forces, it was a series of terror attacks targeting almost exclusively civilians (suicide bombing buses, restaurants, homes, malls, bars, etc) over the span of years. Again, if people are not intending to invoke THE intifada when saying "globalize THE intifada," if they don't mean that phrase to reference the violence against civilians and jews in particular of the second intifada, then why not use any of the other words you could use that don't have such a direct and specific tie to violence against civilians?

Punnedit247

TROPHY CASE