r/ParkerGetAJob

If black people were 1% of the population then would you not care about segregation?If only 10 black people visited a shop in a year then would you care if they banned all black people from entering? Trans girls can be banned from school and college sports teams according to this decision in many republican states.It also excluded women who had taken hormones,pass very well or have no advantage over an average woman.

Laws give legitimacy in the eyes of the public and help in social acceptance.Support for gay marriage increased rapidly after legalisation.Trans women who already have such high depression rate can now be legally segregated from playing sports and we know that social acceptance would help in reducing the suicide rate.

Dean should engage in the trans debate instead of saying why do you care about such a small percent of the population.

—TL/DR: Abortion is defined as the termination of a pregnancy, not the killing of a fetus. Not all pregnancies are safe and healthy. D&P need to stop arguing the moral grounds and instead focus on the laws that are harming pregnant people.—

I've been watching these debates for a long time. The abortion debates, as a woman of childbearing age, are often infuriating. And they seem to be happening much more frequently these days on both Parker and Dean’s streams.

Too often, the conversation gets pulled into abstract questions like "When does personhood begin?", "Is abortion morally justified?", “cellular vs sentient life,” or "Does bodily autonomy allow abortion?" Those are interesting (well, kind of) philosophical questions, but I don't think they're where minds are most likely to change.
By the time someone identifies as pro-life, they've usually already decided how they answer those questions. Spending hours debating bodily autonomy or personhood often just results in both sides talking past each other. And more importantly, this is not going to turn them off of Trump or Republicans. We see this every day on the lives.

I think the stronger approach is to keep bringing the conversation back to what abortion laws actually do. It’s also the more ethical approach.

Where Dean and Parker gets things painfully wrong is that abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. That’s its definition. Ending fetal life is often a consequence, but that's not the complete medical picture. Abortion is also the standard treatment for miscarriages that don't resolve naturally, ectopic pregnancies, pre-viable premature rupture of membranes, severe preeclampsia, certain life-threatening infections, and numerous other pregnancy complications. Dean and Parker keep trying to attack pro-lifers about whether it’s murder, or whether it’s acceptable. This is a mistake.

The discussion often ends up implicitly treating abortion as though it only means one scenario: a healthy woman choosing to end a healthy pregnancy with a living, healthy fetus. That’s often where these pro-life guests want to center the conversation. Dean and Parker allow them to stay there. However, abortion laws don't just regulate that scenario; they regulate every circumstance in which ending a pregnancy may become medically necessary. If these debaters really want to change minds and political opinions, they need to lead people here.

Instead of asking, "Should abortion be allowed?" I’d ask questions like:
What should happen when a pregnancy implants in the fallopian tube and has no possibility of resulting in a live birth?
At what point should a physician be allowed to intervene: before the tube ruptures, or only after the patient is in immediate danger? When you say you’d allow exceptions for the “life of the mother,” how close to dead does she have to be?
If a woman develops a severe infection after her water breaks months before viability, should doctors wait until she's septic before acting?
If a fetus has already died but the miscarriage isn't complete (hasn’t been expelled from the body), should physicians have unrestricted authority to provide the standard of care and remove the products of conception?
Who should make these decisions: physicians treating the patient, or legislators writing laws that can't anticipate every clinical situation?
Extending past that, they should bring up mental health cases like Andrea Yates. In cases of a known history of severe postpartum depression and/or psychosis, should terminations be allowed? How about for pregnant individuals in active addiction?

These aren't edge cases in the sense that they don't matter. They're exactly the situations that test whether abortion policy is workable.

I also think the debates miss an important distinction between having an exception in a law and having meaningful access to care. A statute may say there's an exception for the life of the mother, but if physicians have to wonder whether a prosecutor, licensing board, or hospital attorney will later decide they acted too early, many will understandably delay intervention until the legal risk is lower. Medicine shouldn't work that way. And women shouldn’t bleed out in parking lots for it.

We've already seen numerous cases in which abortion restrictions have delayed treatment because physicians feared criminal prosecution, loss of licensure, or civil liability. Women have lost fertility, become critically ill, and in some cases died after delays in receiving care. Those aren't hypothetical concerns. They're foreseeable consequences of laws that create uncertainty around emergency pregnancy care.

For pro-life viewers, none of this requires abandoning your moral beliefs about elective abortion. I don’t think pro-choicers should ask this of pro-lifers, and I don’t think it works. You can believe fetal life deserves protection while also recognizing that pregnancy is medically complex, that emergencies don't fit neatly into statutory language, and that laws need to allow physicians to provide timely, evidence-based care. By pointing this out to pro-lifers without attacking their values, we stand a much better chance of getting them on our side.

I urge Dean and Parker to avoid conceding the framing that abortion is simply "killing a fetus." At best it is lazy, and at worst it’s irresponsible given the reach of their platforms. That framing overlooks the fact that abortion is a category of medical care encompassing a wide range of clinical situations, many of which involve pregnancies that cannot continue safely or cannot result in a live birth. Precision matters, because the laws being debated apply to all of those situations.

I like Parker and Dean. Of course I have some issues, but in general I enjoy them. However, it’s becoming increasingly unbearable to hear the same arguments over and over and over - I understand the point of their debates, but they’re constantly complaining that there’s so many trolls, that they can’t find any debates, that the people that do debate them are idiots, etc. Why don’t they ever take the hint from this and make a change? It’s been going on so long. And yet, day after day, it’s the same thing, and they still complain about trolls and having such few debates. Why don’t they see this as a sign that there isn’t as much of a demand for this particular debate right now, and change it up, even SOMETIMES. For such bright dudes, it’s really surprising to me that they don’t see the value in making changes and giving their audience something new.

Who knows?

He used to come up all the time but not anymore what happened?

According to Merriam-Webster someone is described as "performative" when their actions, words or emotions are done primarily for show to impress others or curate a specific image,rather than being sincere and authentic.Some people argue that everyone is a little performative.When you are new to something in the starting you will have to be a little performative untill you transform into the very thing you were performing.Others say it is better to be performative while doing a good thing than doing nothing at all(Mr. Beast).Just like most people think that a majority of politicians are liars who don't actually care about their principles and care more about money,fame and power.Most people think a lot of youtube apologies are insincere and half hearted.

I think one of the reasons haters think Dean is performative is because sometimes he uses incel [used as synonym for misogynist] terminology(alt right anti feminist in nature)unironically or uses them at all in a serious debate live.He body shames bald guys and was making a joke about Trump's Penis size (ungraceful but more dark woke adjacent).Interested in crypto (most people on the left think crpto is a scam). Sometimes it feels like he is shitting on guys to impress the women in his audience.

Performative male "feminist" (right believes every male who is a feminist is performative as they cannot conceive of a male who genuinely believes in the ideals of feminism) is not just a feminist who happens to be a male or just a feminist who believes in equal rights for all genders and liberation of people from the patriarchy and is very sincerely committed to the cause and extends solidarity to women.He has very surface level knowledge of feminism who just wants to impress women and sleep with them.

People expect more principles and morally righteous behavior from advocates of a political cause than people doing regular jobs.

Nobody used to say I am advocating for a cause to make money.No politician would say I want to be the president for fame and power.People think people in politics can have a very significant effect on lives of many and they should be super transparent especially if they are lieing or misleading their audience after accepting donation("scaming the audience").

One reason some people might think Dean is performative is because he is not progressive enough and still believes in a lot of reactionary views or his moral views are not logically consistent.[Maybe he doesn't have "correct" position on a progressive cause].

Some people think that maybe he intellectually believes in his views but not emotionally believes it or sometimes makes statements or jokes which contradict his views. Like a person who believes logically that all human beings have equal moral worth but he might be a racist or do and say racist things unconsciously.

Dean also has a maga family.There is a reason Parker doesn't get called performative as much as Dean.

I’ve noticed Hasan bringing up Dean more and more. He’s defended him before but lately he’s been commenting on Deans jubilee debates. It seems like he’s trolling him but it’s not harsh. I’m just curious if they have a connection now. It seemed strange to me.

I think the Karen meme was originally used to refer to a middle aged entitled racist white woman who harrased people of colour and the term originated in the black community.

But now the term is used by people to refer to women whenever they are being assertive,showing anger or discomfort and if you disagree with her political views.Liberal/Leftist men call maga women who have internalized misogyny or brainwashed by the religion that they should have less leadership roles Karen all the time.

They think it is okay to be misogynistic if the woman doesn't agree with their political views.Just like how Liberal/Leftist men would say misogynistic things and use the word "white women" instead of women.

I think is it abrasive to ask gay men or straight men who is the top or bottom.If they tell you on their own accord then it's fine but in most cases you should not ask as it is a very private matter and you should not assume the answer either.Gay men should not be fetishized and made uncomfortable by women. I know women get accused of fetishizing gay men when they just love that particular romance series.And women love a romace show with less misogyny, traditional gender roles and more equal partnership.Women also love the settings and world building with less homophobia and misogyny present in these romace shows.

There was someone who joined the stream the other day talking about how Dean owed his success to Parker and how Parker "made that guy". I haven't been following either of them long enough to know how true this is, but I have seen people say Parker has been doing this for longer and if I am being honest, I do prefer Parker to Dean. No shade to Dean though, he's great too.

These kinds of questions and comments are becoming increasingly common. Some probably want a reaction out of Parker, but he always handles these questions and comments with so much grace. It is really commendable. If it's true and he really did show Dean the ropes, it's only human nature to feel a little bit disappointed and it's evident there IS disappointment when people ask him if he wants to do a 1 vs. 20 episode and he answers that Jubilee would have asked him already if they wanted him to do one. People probably expect him to take credit for Dean's success but he never does. Instead, he's always praising Dean and attributing his success to his own capabilities. Anyway, I just found this quality of Parker's quite admirable. Here's to hoping Parker gets to do his own 1 vs. 20 episode one day. 🤞🏾

… maybe that’s just fine.

There’s this move that callers constantly use where they demand that the host names “one good thing” the president has done. Often they’ll explicitly say that if the host can’t do so, they’re just biased, suffering from TDS, or “grifting” or whatever.

Implicitly, they’re saying a fair critic can always find the bright side. That sounds reasonable on its face, but it’s the kind of thing you tell to your children about the neighbor. “Hey, he’s sometimes annoying, but if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all”.

These debates are not about keeping the peace on the cul-de-sac. This is about the supposed leader of the free world. Courtesy is not designed to protect power from scrutiny.

The entire point of elective office is accountability, not harmony. You don’t expect your food inspector to tell you all the things your kitchen did well before saying “I’m writing you up for several critical violations”.

The instinct itself is virtuous. There’s real benefit to tolerating imperfections in people who are close to you in some way. It has no business as a standard for evaluating a presidency. Our hosts often entertain this position in good faith, and while that’s respectable, this angle doesn’t really deserve their energy at all.

Ultimately, it’s signaling. “I’m the reasonable adult in this conversation who sees both sides, and I’m fair. This host is simply being rude at this cocktail party.”

But it’s not a cocktail party. It’s not about who’s perfect, and it’s not about accepting people as people despite their imperfections. It’s about someone’s fitness to be the president of the United States, and that deserves hard-hearted critique.

I think the porn industry as it is now is highly unethical.It is a hub for human trafficking,sexual violence and leads to dehumanization of women.Most of the onlyfans models and sex workers are from lower socio-economic class.Most women on Onlyfans make around $ 200 I believe and only the top earning models make millions.

Some people call prostitution the oldest profession.People didn't hate on porn as much as they hate on Onlyfans.Pornstars had even less autonomy on their income and things they would be comfortable in performing.I believe you cant buy consent(my opinion) when it relates to sex and it is coercion.I know some people would say there is no ethical consumption under capitalism.People bring the example of coal mining.I think it is worse to coerce someone to do something sexually.And I believe it would be a good thing if all the super "hard working jobs" that is jobs that lower life expectancy or quality of life got automated.The industry would not exist if the demand didn't exist. It is very hard for women who worked in the industry to get another job and it lowers their life expectancy.

I think it is better to read smutt books,manga or hentai than watch porn.

BTW I think shipping people in real life or sexualising friendships if they are uncomfortable with it is wrong.It is different for fictional characters.