I took ayahuasca with a brazillian religion called Santo Diame... in the US, we would call them a cult. And cult-like it was! I've smoked DMT many times and I fully encourage "explorers" to start small and smoke it instead of ingesting ayahuasca. It's all very difficult to figure out scientifically, but one of the interesting aspects of ayahuasca to me, was that you could close your eyes and be in another dimension, open them up and basically feel drunk and know everything was OK, get up and walk around.

However, the visions that I had were absolutely violent, with archetypes of the day of the dead and greek mythology emerging while people puked and cried while I was attached to their sound and energies, brains exploding, the power of life telling me it was going to get me, I could fight it all I wanted (I just smiled the whole time), but it was going to get me - and then it let me slide, eventually. DMT has a known effect, that is of "ego-death" or "near death experience"... and I definitely fought it off, having experienced it before. It was a deranged, somewhat fun, somewhat enlightening, traumatic experience that I would recommend to no one. And I can see that it's definitely not a lone man/woman mission as in to dose yourself with this stuff because it's definitely more intense than LSD or mushrooms and the mixture, though simple - would require a bit of practicing and knowledge about it.

I just find smoking DMT to be way better, shorter and much safer, but also WAY more intense and awesome. But, it's certainly not for everyone, it's like unlocking the unknown/impossible laws of the Universe, it's impossible to understand but you understand it while you are there as it is communicated to you; might be just in your brain but somehow nature provided this (bizarre/impossible) experience for you to be able to have.... ---- do not understand

Yeah, exactly. There were tons of streams on Twitch of NMS before release. I should have said this in my statement, but before I thought it was just going to be an indie space exploration survival game - but it became clear from the streams - that this game consisted of a lot of grinding and was pretty repetitive. I wasn't sure if I would actually enjoy that, which is why I didn't pay for it First thing I noticed was the nerfed surface travel, you can't even crash and second thing I noticed was the retarded inventory system, third - mine, mine, mine, grind and not much variation. It WREAKS of consolitis (framerate at 30, on PC, attention to detail Sean, come on?!), but to their credit, playing the game with a controller is quite nice, so much better than the shitty PC controls they implemented. I still like it and am enjoying the surprising relaxation of the grind/exploration, so I will pay for it when it's $30 and is heavily patched & modded. $60.00 is absolutely ridiculous for this game, but hopefully they take that extra $30 they ripped off from people and put in some major work.

Overwatch is another game that I was pissed at having paid $60.00 for. But, since it's a Blizzard game I always know they will make it worth my while in the long-run and it's steadily been true of Overwatch. Blizzard really know how to support their games unlike any other developer. I enjoy OW much more now that the competitive mode came out, a new hero (a little underwhelming but still cool) added and pretty soon an awesome looking new map. The lucio-ball thing is cool that they added in, but don't care much for it. Still hate the loot, though....

People love sandbox survival and they love space exploration and they fell in love with the idea of what this game could be. The magazines talked about it like evangelical christians talk about the rapture - this is the end of gaming as we know it and it's going to change everything! And the internet fandom descended with prepubescent fury on anyone that dared suggest the emperor was, in fact, nekkid.

This long video about NMS covers it extremely well, but i'll cut a long story short. There was something veeery slightly disingenuous about the moratoriums placed on reviews, lack of pre-release review versions, and significant backtracking and retconning of promises made by lead designer(? - but definite spokesperson) Sean Murray. The clean cut, well spoken, awkwardly charming Sean Murray. Who I think understood as the release date got closer that a lot of people were not going to be happy with him, because in his interviews he started to look more and more like De Niro playing Russian roulette in The Deer Hunter.

Extra things that immediately pissed me off before i refunded it:
- Menu stuff can appear offscreen if you open it by the edges in 2016
- Can't alt tab in full screen
- Run in borderless window to solve it, performance hit
- i7 6700k, Maximus viii Hero mobo and a GTX 1080 but yes, performance hit and general poor performance anyway
- Can't bind actions to thumb buttons in 2016
- Mouse sensitivity goes from 0 to 100. Changing my sensitivity from 100 to 0 didn't even half the turning speed in game, I had to alt tab to manually change the DPI in razer synapse, which is where i discovered i couldn't alt-tab.

All this for £40? Overwatch cost £30.

They made a lot of money off this, but I'm afraid for me they did it through unfair means. If you check out the quotes from Murray and what the game actually is, there's a huge disparity and the backtracking as release date approached was the final evidence.

Funny video and the bad harmonica version of the Jurassic Park theme is hilarious however.... the game is actually really damn fun!
It's really a true space sim without much of a story line. A rough comparison can be made to Minecraft (before single player story came out) only many MANY orders of magnitude larger. Or really any great sandbox game out there without much story.
If you like space, sci-fi, exploring, and discovering, then this game is for you. One of my only wishes for this game is for a true multiplayer component, but for now it's Zen and the Art of Space Exploration. Soundtrack by 65daysofstatic is incredible, and only barely surpassed (for me) by the Eve Online ambient soundtracks.

I get it, hating on the game is super popular right now. I'm no fanboi, I certainly didn't pre-order the game (I only pre-order from a select few developers, those I know will put out great products, like CD Project Red). I'm quite enjoying the game. It's not the type of game you play on rails or with a strong linear narrative or that holds your hand through the experience. I'm on PC and have had not a single issue or crash. I have to put graphics at medium when they should be maxed out, but that shows the age of the engine and that it isn't as streamlined or polished as it could be.

Also the game 'does' have a story, it's just rather basic and while I'm not sure the game is worth $60 (I got it for $45 and think it's worth that) I look forward to future content and the fact that they've said 'no paid DLC' makes me happy as well.

When people ask me if I recommend the game, I tell them first that it's worth waiting for a price drop or the issues with AMD and top-end nVidia to be worked out. I use the analogy that it's like Early Access Starbound. Fun, with an open universe to explore, some interesting races and things to find and crafting but not a whole lot going on in it or directed content to experience. That's No Man's Sky, at $20-30 it's a great Early Access title. I'm glad that it sold very well as that will fund future development and hopefully we'll see new content and fan requested stuff soon.

And for the record I've seen equal numbers awesome wildlife as I've seen crazy shit like in this video lol. The craziest was on this cold, radiated world that was none-the-less flush with exotic life. There were these 1m tall blobs of jelly with elephant ears and like mice faces that bounced around like a bouncy ball all over the place. Hilarious!

Lambast it all you want but it's clearly still popular. Mid-day on a wednesday and it's #3 on steam with 70k users atm. And it's not like it wasn't super easy to find out what the gameplay was like in those 3 days it was on PS4 before PC. So anyone who still bought and is bitching about it is being hypocritical.

Nice Guys was a great movie!

*quality exploration of violence

I heard them before but did not know the name of the band. Good chit. On the music sharing, I totally agree. It has been my main reason I explore this site. At first it was the documentaries and some political stuffs. Thanks to "Throw Away Your Television"

I really want to catch this band live one day https://youtu.be/QoNbGR96fl0. I want to be the bass player's groupie.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/No-Mans-Sky-explore-trailer

No Man's Sky - explore trailer has been added as a related post - related requested by ChaosEngine.

I fear you have misunderstood what I was getting at.

He talks for full minute about the ironic idea of the victims hypothetically having a sense of cognitive dissonance about the experience (done from his perspective).

Timestamp: 3:40ish to 4:50ish

I don't for a moment think he is suggesting they actually did, but the juxtaposition of that can be funny for the reasons I already outlined.
i.e. it is a common phenomenon in other areas of our experience, with people we idolise. By associating it with an experience in which we presume most people wouldn't or didn't feel that way, we have more strings of that irony thrown into the comedy orchestra.

Cosby is famous and loved and his fans presumably find him funny. There is therefore humour in the ridiculous idea that there might be some starstruck joy in being violated by said idol.

I think the bit worked perfectly if one can detach oneself from ideological prejudices.

As I already said, Louis's bits about paedophilia don't appear to be doing anything different here and thus far you have failed to explain how they actually differ, other than using the unqualified term "truthful".

Louis talks about their desires and relates them in a way universal to the human condition. This is precisely what much of Jim routine is clearly doing. "think about the thing you really love to do, well that's how Bill feels about rape" (paraphrased).

I can't see a distinction right now other than you appear to be much more emotionally sensitive to the rape thing. This is understandable, but I'm not seeing the lack of equivalence between the two comics here in terms of composition and implied meaning?

This whole bit felt deeply multi stranded and was tackling many disparate concepts at once. The gradation of rape was merely one of them and I think it's unfair to break it down to only one, or to deny the "truthfulness" hiding behind the sham.

Without that "truthfulness" the whole bit doesn't work, the assumption that the audience recognises the reality beneath the sham is unavoidable. Unless of course you think the audience and or Jim to be genuinely callous and misogynistic (which you've made clear you do not).

I guess my whole point is that the two bits are functionally almost identical. The only difference I can really see is a different style of delivery and subject matter.

I notice you appear to have dodged the comparisons to his war jokes?

Is there no moral equivalence there? If anything there is far less empathy and personal "truth" being explored. The "little cunt" just dies, Jim never attempts to humanise him or relate the kids experience in an ironic way.

By your logic that routine should be far more offensive surely? (especially when we consider that life and subsequent brutal death in a warzone is quite possibly a more horrible experience than most rapes, especially the kind being discussed here)

I guess that's where we differ.

I find it funny precisely because such things really happen.

In a world where no such cruelty exists, I think this kind of material would then become empty and pointless. Comedy thrives on the defiance of our misery.

I dare say it would get less of a laugh in Sweden for this very reason.

I'm clearly in the minority here, but then I suspect few people have developed the same sense of cynical detachment I have (working with the severely mentally I'll and dieing will do that to you).

The humour is definitely there, I guess you just need a suitably fucked up perspective to appreciate it.

Out of curiosity, did you find Jim's old bit about the child getting shot when he was in Iraq funny? I might suggest that is an even more cruel and fucked up situation than the subject matter being discussed here.

Would that only become funny when children are no longer victims of wars? Or is it funny precisely because of the incomprehensible cruelty and misfortune underlying it?

Perhaps you have an easier time detaching yourself from something that isn't as likely to happen to you? This seems reasonable, but I don't see how it precludes such material from being funny, only more challenging for one to engage with. (and thus more powerful if one can do so)

To bring in a thread from another reply "And this is the brilliance of Louis -- that he lays bare the humanity of even pedophiles. The truth of pedophiles."

In what sense is Jim not doing the same thing here? He is flippantly exploring Cosby's desire to victimise women, we all have desires and sometimes act on those impulses when we shouldn't.
Rape is an extreme example, but the thought process is ultimately the same thing writ large. "I want a thing I can't have, but I'm doing it anyway".
I might argue he is laying bare the universal human condition in just the same way, albeit with something closer to home for most people than paedophilia.

Presumably it's the other thread that's proving challenging, i.e. the masochistic idea of enjoying ones abuse? And again, there is something deeply fucked up at the heat of the human condition here. Deriving pleasure from victim hood, or having messed up priorities about fame and opportunity.
Stockholm syndrome, abused partners loving their spouses, groupies allowing themselves to be abused just to be near their idols.

We are really that fucked up as a species sometimes, cognitive dissonance is almost a way of life for most of us in our own little ways. It's clearly a deeply risque subject, but there is something dark at the core of the human condition there none the less.

The actual victims don't need to have the kind of mixed up priorities Jim is alluding to, we only have to recognise that we posses the capacity for that dissonance ourselves. (The joke being at the expense of our own inherent hypocrisies, not specific victims)

The only big difference I can really see is that child rape is much rarer than the kind being discussed here. (and thus I suppose easier for most to detach themselves from)

Is it really any less horrific? Surely if anything it is far more terrible for most victims and usually seems to cause more damage to their lives.

How does Louis's material on Child rape remain funny in a world where children are raped, yet Jim's material about women being raped only become funny in a world where they do not get raped?

Paedophiles have a culture too. They form groups, exchange materials, praise each others work etc. etc. Not to mention grooming rings and other such reprehensible things.

I understand that a particular subject can strike too close to home, but for me that was my failing to rise above my own fears and traumas. When I finally got to a place where I could laugh at my own victim hood, it was one of the most liberating experiences of my life. (Don't get me wrong, that shit never completely goes away)

Yes, it is good for the soul. I'm glad you believe that.

Actually, the first two comments were, paraphrasing here but, "Trump is horrible" and "Charlie Sheen is the voice of reason (and that's whack)".

Your interpretation is that I'm negative and mean. Pointing out truths or untruths, whilst often uncomfortable for many, is not negative or mean. It's not a new, an old, or any low at all. It is a neutral observation.

I've not posted more than one video because I don't see the need to. I only posted the first one to explore the mechanism involved in posting. I've got plenty of material posted by others to look at and comment on, and not nearly enough time in the day to do everything I'd like to do.

I'll tell you what I see as negative and mean. The constant degradation of other human beings because one doesn't agree with their politics. And that includes both Trump and Hillary.

The fact the gun lobby won't let the CDC do it's job and collect data on gun violence just shows how insane political right is.

Then the right is blaming ISIS... the idiot pledged allegiance to ISIS and Hezbollah, even though they are enemies of each other. He clearly just had an issue with gays, and was using faith as an excuse. Most of the mass shootings in the US aren't done by Muslims in an act of terrorism, they are done by crazy people who have unfiltered access to guns.

I'd be fine if we don't close the gun show loophole or don't ban people from buying assault weapons, for now, so long as we first at least let the CDC get back to doing its job and collect data on gun violence. Then explore it in a few years of data collection to see what measures would be helpful. The fact the right refuses to let that happen must tell you that they know what the data will show, that some loopholes need closed.

And yes, if you are on the federal no flight list (and I haven't seen that this shooter was on such a list, just investigated twice), then you should certainly be delayed in getting a gun. That should be a huge red flag. You should then be told why you were denied and then have a right to argue for the right to own a gun and/or get off the no flight list. It should be a clear process to make such an application, and shouldn't require a lawyer. But odds are that most people on the no fly list aren't there for search history, or library records, but most are on the no fly list undoubtedly for far better reasons.

I'll fight to retain the right for most Americans to own a gun. Both a hand gun for personal home defense, and hunting rifles and the like. However if you are in a situation that requires an AR-15 to defend yourself, you are way over your head.... and don't give me some bull shit about protecting yourself from the government, remember how well having even more powerful weapons and training did for the people in Waco. Where do people who argue that those should be sold without restriction want to draw the line (and to be clear, I'm not arguing against the right to own one necessarily, but I am against buying it without restrictions, for a smaller wait time than it would take to buy a handgun)? Do we let people buy a bazooka? A surface to air missile launcher? A nuclear bomb? Where do you draw the line on putting restrictions, or at least a wait time on weapons of mass harm?

I'm thinking you probably don't understand Star Trek. The TNG movies were no work of art, but they were still decent Star Trek movies. Now none of the Star Trek movies, not even the first 6 (with the exception of the Motion Picture, and arguably The Voyage Home) truly represent what Star Trek is with relation to their respective TV shows, as they choose to focus more on space action and conflict, but all of them stuck with the core premise that Gene Roddenberry laid out: To explore the human condition and show how mankind can better itself.
The TNG movies certainly could have done better, and while First Contact was pretty darn good (especially if you consider how it relates to the Borg "trilogy") I've come to see Generations and even Insurrection in a more forgiving light. Heck, as painful as it is to admit, even Nemesis had a lot of potential, judging by the scenes that were cut. (But that's being REALLY generous.)
However, none of the new movies come anywhere near what the old movies were. Yes, Star Trek 2009 was actually a better movie than several of the previous movies, but otherwise, all of them, even what I'm seeing in this new trailer, lack the vision laid down by Roddenberry. And also, it's very hard to appreciate a Star Trek movie that doesn't have its core points laid down in a TV show, as it really is best suited for the TV medium. Without that character and setting development, you can really only get by with nostalgia and action.

Now some of the fan works, on the other hand, seem to do their source material better justice. I avoided them for quite some time, but after hearing about some of the good ones, I've started to look into them and have been pleasantly surprised. They are certainly rough around the edges, but they do seem to stick to Roddenberry's vision a lot better. Heck, that Axanar thing looks pretty compelling, if they ever get to complete it.

wikipedia describes hacking as "exploring the details of programmable systems and stretching their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary", which I find to be a rather fitting definition. But it is true that the term "hacking" is mostly associated with computer crime.