I count three occasions where she's had coughing fits, and she's been on camera for hundreds of hours over the last year. And she's 68. If you filmed me for a hundred hours you'd find a lot more than three occasions where I look and act like I'm at death's door, and also the worst human being in history. So yeah, I'm willing to believe that anybody who's 60+ can drop dead at any time, but I doubt that there's any health conspiracy going on here.

John, Joseph, Peter, Mary, Adam, Aaron, Jacob, Anna, Andrew, Mark / Marcus, Thomas, and NIMROD THE HUNTER. These are all perfectly fine names.

You can tell the last part is fake. He doesn't really have a job; he has to plan and execute this shit full time.

"YouTube is walking a fine line here, their empire is built on all these small creators as much as it's big ones advertisers and their willingness to pay for ads. Piss them off enough and they may decide it's no longer worth it and either quit or take their content elsewhere. The less diversity YouTube has in it's programming and the more it just looks like another TV network, with all the same safe boring advertiser-relevant bullshit."

Karl Rove has whiteboards - plural - detailing her health situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqAiRRVLdHc

I've never understood what this gambit is supposed to pay off in. Do whackjobs believe that Democrats will think - 'well, Hillary might not be long for this world, so I'll vote Trump'? Any president is better than a corpse?

Or do they just want to bolster Trump-trooper spirits? Are they afraid the grass roots will lay down their arms if they don't have at least a remote hope of winning?

Bob - you speak for the whackjobs of the world; what do you say?

With Polygon at the controls, he's about as fast as the senior citizens in front of you in the line at Kroger.

http://www.polygon.com/2016/9/5/12800464/sonic-mania-gameplay

Bah. Walking around drinking capri sun with teenage girls in feather boas? That shit's just asking for moop. Virgin.

The most reasonable counterargument to this I've heard (and I'm not saying they're right, just eminently reasonable) was made yesterday by my favorite Canadian Let's Players:

1. Youtube has always had this content policy. Everyone who signs into the monetization program has always accepted this code of content before joining the monetization program.

2. Youtube has had this content practice for a long time. These videos were demonetized long before this recent 'scandal'. The only thing that has changed is that YT is now letting content creators know which videos were never being monetized in the first place.

3. It's not so much a question of content as it is of tags. The vast majority of content processing is based on the original tags by the uploaders, and you can avoid demonetization easily by having fewer, less controversial tags (that will also limit your viewership).

Obviously Youtube has been opaque and shitty in communicating how and why they make changes. But censorship? I would have a hard time going back in time to Bolshevik dissidents and telling them that censorship in the future means that a corporation that broadcasts your opinion for free won't always force other corporations to also pay you for those opinions.

*Edit: Also, eric3579's already got this shit covered, I just hadn't followed his links yet.

By the way - does anybody here have familiarity with / appreciation for / a part in Deaf culture? I have to admit, for all my rampant political correctness, this is a phenomenon I have a bit of a hard time embracing.

Deaf and Hard sounds like a DJ duo.

Also, deaf people apparently have a very different definition of what a 'witty response' is.

I haven't watched the video yet, but why does it take 3 minutes 42 seconds to say 'blowjobs'?

Guess that it's...

...

GARBAGE DAY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7gIpuIVE3k

I will *promote the shit out of this as long as I can because I believe it will make lives better.

Her laugh at 6:40 and her drunk giggles at 15:30 should be enough to make her a national icon.

I always thought this 'problem' was bullshit - not because I dreamed of being some special snowflake 'outside the box' little shit who just wants to bypass the difficulty in question, but because the answer is so obvious. If you have perfect certainty that you can either save 1 life or 5 lives, then that's the same as choosing to kill 1 person or 5 persons. Perfect certainty makes inaction as culpable as action. It's only in reality, where there's uncertainty, that you can balk at taking action.

In the same way I find the moral dilemma of killing Hitler as a baby to be ridiculous. If you, as a time traveler from 2016, balk at the idea of going back to 1889 to kill baby Hitler, but you're fine with going back to 1939 to kill adult Hitler and maybe prevent WW2, then you essentially want hundreds of thousands of people to die in concentration camps just to make you feel good about your murderous action. Ridiculous.