The "Galileo Affair" was obviously a pretty funny situation in general. The Catholics were losing so much territory in Europe at that time to Protestantism (relax, it is only England) that they were extremely paranoid about even seemingly insignificant "heresies". Although it is a myth that Galileo was tortured for his views, or even excommunicated, he was condemned and imprisoned for teaching heliocentrism (although it was more like house arrest).
It's quite unclear why exactly it is heretical, of course, to say that the Earth orbits the Sun. The bible sort of suggests that the Sun goes around the Earth, but it isn't some kind of central point about the Earth being the center of the universe because God created Man as the center of all things, like some people seem to think. It's more like, the Bible mentions one time how the Sun stopped in the sky, and that sort of sounds like it means the Sun is moving around the Earth. Not only that, but the Bible probably only takes that view because the people who translated the Bible had that view from Ptolemy, so it isn't so much the Bible being overturned, but Ptolemy. When Copernicus himself presented his ideas to the Pope, a hundred or so years earlier, he was awarded with a gift! But like I said, the Church was very insecure at this time, so I guess they couldn't mess around.
This lead to some pretty funny situations, like some Catholic philosophers refusing to even look through Galileo's telescope, presumably because they were afraid they might themselves get convinced by the evidence, and then be holding heretical opinions. Not much of a philosopher, apparently.
The Pope had actually given Galileo direct permission to argue for heliocentrism, as long as he didn't take a position. Galileo, unfortunately, made the argument far too well, and it was obvious that he believed in heliocentrism. Like the comic suggests, it seems to me that anyone making this argument must have been convinced by Galileo, and therefore heretical themselves. Unfortunately Galileo didn’t take up this argument, and merely denied taking a side on the debate, and also that it wasn't heretical because the bible itself doesn't take sides on physics (two contradicting arguments at once Galileo, not great rhetoric!)
Probably my favorite fact though is that one of his punishments was having to recite seven psalms of penitence once per week, but his daughter Maria Celeste petitioned the Pope to have it count if she did the prayers for him. Presumably this freed up more of his time to...I don’t know, think up more heretical opinions, presumably?

"Oh and one more thing, if you do happen to write anything down, make sure to get my opinions on how loverboys are still hot even if they grow a beard, people in the future need to know."

Sometimes people talk about testing voters on their knowledge before allowing them to vote, but I think forcing them to read Rousseau last minute at gunpoint is just more in line with American Values.

For Rousseau, freedom wasn't just the ability to "do what you want" in a naive sense. Freedom meant obeying one's rationality, which ultimately involved adhering to the rules of a legitimate state, one in which the laws are created by the people themselves, i.e., a democracy. (Although most, if not all, democracies under capitalism might not qualify, given that laws don't necessarily apply equally to the rich and the poor, nor are they equally crafted by both groups.)
Rousseau believed participating in the creation of the laws governing the society in which you live was a crucial aspect of rationality and freedom. People who wish to live in society but do not want to participate in shaping its rules are, in essence, childishly rebelling by attempting to opt out of the social contract.
In other words, Pokémon Go to the Polls.

It's a mistake to ground your marriage in pure logic, you have to ground it in empiricism (looking hot).

It could be worse though, imagine you were in a group of Theater Dorks and they were always trying to put on little skits and do improv to pass the time.

But at least he wasn't wrong. It's better to be on fire than to be wrong, when you think about it.

Pragmatists are well known for their ability to bully nerds, that's just a matter of historical record.

Philosophers like Locke and Spinoza in the 17th century argued a lot about whether knowledge comes from rationalism (i.e. thinking about stuff) or empiricism (i.e. looking at stuff). Many took hard line stances that all knowledge comes essentially from only one of the two. It wasn't until philosophers like William James in the 19th century came along that people started to think of knowledge differently, in a more social way. James more or less held that knowledge is merely what works in the world, and progress comes from agreement among a community of thinkers as to what works.
This kind of thinking, along with the more scientific thinking which puts theories to direct testing, is somewhat similar to how sports like MMA changed martial arts by simply testing what actually worked in the real world (which happens to be conking people's heads together like coconuts).