I really appreciated the "oh, F#ck off!" at the end of Cenk's rant. Mostly because it was directed at Dems for not going after this BS.

I'm sure if you present it as a choice between "knowledge" (in line with what religious parents believe) and critical-thinking skills, the parents would vote for the former.

I never thought visuals were the issue with the ARMA series. If you play single player on ARMA II, everything looks pretty good. The problem is the unbalanced game play and steep learning curve. I'm all for making things more like a simulator, but when you fly/drive around for an hour, looking for action, sorry, that's not fun. I don't care how beautiful the maps are.

And, finding multi-player matches is so tedious and unfriendly for non-ARMA experts, it is just too much in the "con" column. Here's hoping the devs prove me wrong.

I just bought Divine Divinity on GOG.com for less than 3 dollars...seems like a better deal.

"both brilliant and horrible."

That's half right. I stopped watching about 1/3 of the through...I'll drink a beer to kill those brain cells instead. If this makes me a nerd, I'm okay with that.

Good advice, kind of a no-brainer.

It's easy if you don't understand the point they are making in the video.

Your analogy sucks. It'd be more applicable if you were manufacturing peanut butter in your basement and had to get rid of all your equipment, ingredients and all of the records that you'd bought any of it. But then, that would be difficult to do…

What does Olbermann or O'Donnell or Biden, for that matter, have to do with it? Did you watch the video?

Let me summarize: TYT cited a poll that showed a significant number of Republicans (more than Democrats on the same issue) believed a well-publicized lie. That there were no WMDs for the US to find is a fact. Bush and Cheany have both admitted it.

Bush and Cheney switched to saying the region and the world are better off that the US invaded, even if there were no WMDs. This argument is nearly impossible to disprove with facts. It forces you to weigh the indirect results of the war (our failing economy, our loss of prestige on the world stage, our soldier's health and civilian casualties) against a hypothetical alternate future.
Most people, Republicans and Democrats, believed this lie when it was first made. At least, it wasn't 100% clear it was a lie until after the US invaded. That's not the point. The point is that there are a disproportionate number of Republicans who are unable to change their minds when presented with updated information.

TYT are blaming this on Republicans, their elected officials, their voters and their news network. If I were a Republican, I wouldn't double down on crappy leadership by believing nonsense.

Please note: None of this suggests that Democrats are blameless. Its childish to respond with "nu-uh, Obama is the devil" to any criticism of Republicans. In fact, look up some other TYT videos, they are pretty critical of the president and Democrats when it's called for.

Yep, that was pretty funny.

...I'm really surprised I was entertained by that. Thank you, internet.

Yep, it did a good job of looking cool and keeping things moving along, but the editors and writers of this one should take a class or two on how to write a story.

Meh, I agree that if it was autotuned, it wasn't very noticeable and it didn't ruin the song. I wouldn't say that it wasn't plausible that it was autotuned...just not likely. I only glanced, but there weren't any other covers I noticed on the YT channel that required that high of a vocal register. To me, that would be a plausible reason this song might use it while the others wouldn't.

In any event, I liked this version and upvoted.

Obviously the hipster/feminist argument was a bit of a stretch, a figure of speech, and needs to be taken that way.
And back to the question "What should the Army do?" How about don't mix genders, and stop self inflicted wounds.
What would the army actually gain from conscripting female soldiers anyway? The sheer fact that they don't have the physical strength to defend themselves would be a deal breaker for anyone that needs muscles for the job, isn't it?
And please refrain yourselves from calling me names or vote me down as this won't achieve anything constructive. I'am very aware that this is a sensible subject, but please keep hotheaded reactions out of it.
Thanks.




Well, obviously you said something stupid, this is why people jumped down your throat.

Also, by the terms you used - "feminist, hipster and PC" - and the context in which you used them, readers on VS were able to figure out YOUR probable biases, which are part of the problem, in this case. If you really think VS comments are a step above the norm on the internet, it would behoove you to consider what is being said more seriously. At least, in your first comment, you said you could be wrong. Let me assure you, you are.

I think others have already said what should be done by the army in terms of reacting to these rapes. And, it would make a difference, at least to the women who are being raped, if a would-be repeat offender is locked up after being convicted of his first...or even second, rape.

There is a larger problem of how we deal with these sorts of problems in the military. And, while I think your take on what SHOULD be done is asinine, realistically, I think military leadership needs to be on the forefront of these changes. We may still be a few generations away from having military leadership with the balls and intelligence to help implement these kind of institutional changes, but if we want to continue having a military and be a free nation, it is vital.

As we continue in an attempt to treat all people equally, it would be a backwards step to segregate the military by gender...or for that matter, by sexuality or religion or any other potentially contentious trait. I remember making very similar arguments as you are making now in a debate class when I was in 8th grade. I assumed because I was stronger than any girl I knew, and most guys were, that it made sense that only men should be soldiers.

But, for as much as we glorify the military in America, it isn't made up by only the strongest citizens. In fact, the promise of our military is that it will remake that person into an honorable soldier. Now, maybe this is wishful thinking, but it is realistic at least in that it doesn't assume only the "best" (physically)folks will be volunteering. Also, we aren't using swords and battle axes. It doesn't necessarily matter as much now if you are the strongest. Indeed, with new technology (assuming we can continue to afford it) we'll need soldiers with the ability to learn and retain technical knowledge. So, yes there is a baseline physical level we want our soldiers to maintain, but no, the biological differences between men and women should not automatically exclude half of our population.

If you don't want people to call you names, don't be a misogynist. Rape in the military is a problem that should blamed on the rapist and the institution that allows it or covers it up. A woman who has been raped isn't the problem. Assuming she shouldn't be in that position if she can't defend herself from a fellow soldier is quite literary blaming the victim. Getting rid of women in the military won't solve the problem, it will only cover it up further as serial rapists can continue to rape women from other nations or, as is mentioned in the video, right here in America after they return home.

Finally, I'm sick of the terms "Hipster, Feminist and PC" all have been distorted beyond being valuable to anyone save when we are preaching to our respective choirs.

Feel free to call me names or downvote. I'll survive.

>> ^spoco2:

>> ^TheSluiceGate:
GAHHH!!!! SOOOO MUCH LIVE AUTOTUNE!!!! MY FUCKING EARS!!!!

I didn't pick up anything, what's the tell-tale sound of it that you can hear? Or is it just one of those things that you can't really describe but just 'know' when you hear?
I hate to think that I'm being swindled by it not really being 'them' singing.


I was about to denounce TheSluiceGate for being a hater, but I think around 3:50 there's some vocal sliding around that sounds suspiciously autotuned. But, I will say that even with autotune it doesn't sound unlike the original, to me.

To their credit, those are notes not many men, who have gone through puberty, can hit.

I read about this...what makes this special (in a terrible, terrible way) occurs around 1:10. Otherwise its just some mediocre dancing and the backs of some very confused people's heads...

...a glutton for punishment, I listened to the whole thing.

An interesting discussion, but one point that they seemed to skim and not fully engage was this idea of belief and knowledge. Zizek is fine with insisting that belief is not an absolute thing, nor does that make religion any less potent. But, I think he cuts modern atheist arguments off at the knees before giving them the same respect as he does Christian apologists.

Maybe its because of the venue, but this discussion is more concerned about why and how things are believed, not what is more likely to be true. One thing they do talk about a little is the way belief (the kind associated with religion) is something we, as humans, are hardwired to engage in. It almost seemed like they dismiss atheist arguments with this reasoning, in that because our minds work like this by default, religions must be in some way "true."

I'll give it an upvote for being interesting even if it made me want to argue, not a bad thing.

Yeah, I don't see how you can interpret what Cenk is saying to be "blaming" Republicans. He says, around 5 min mark "There is hope, but ain't it the Democratic Party ..." Seems knee jerk to me, to assume Cenk is supporting the Dems, recently he's been coming down pretty hard on them.

Also, look at the video posted yesterday (I think) where he praises McCain for being one of the only politicians who he thinks is right on campaign finance reform, over Obama. He even goes as far as to say, since he (Cenk) thinks campaign finance reform is the most important issue that touches everything else, it almost would have made sense to vote for McCain over Obama if McCain could actually succeed in passing some sort of reform...lot of conditions in that statement, but I think it's a valid point, in a hindsighty sort of way.