The news in Aus this morning was ridiculous...

Every paper had this on the front, and the picture showed the sharks tail as if it were a dorsal fin (ie. looking far bigger than it was) to sensationalise an already fairly exciting story...

eg. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/great-white-attacked-mick-fanning-says-andrew-fox-shark-expert/story-e6frg6n6-1227449428848

(read on for comments, speculated that it was a juvenile great white, probably 3m in length)

True, but somehow I think that if someone were to try and live on only this type of food, you could see a difference between them, and someone who ate food that was "outside" (IE: Sun, etc.).

It's not only the sting of the slap, it's the raw concussive force of a large surface area (ie. nape to ass) meeting strong surface tension. The best way to land is to break the surface tension with the smallest area possible (ie. fingertips, toes etc) allowing the body to slide in to the water.

"People choose to be polygamous" means people what polygamy? A-they are born that way? B-it just happens? Or C-Hrm, lets see...they must LEARN it. You specifically compared it with being born gay versus choosing (ie., learning something and then choosing it.) Whether this was intentional or not is...irrelevant...

Second, most of the stuff was meant to be irrelevant to the content but also explaining why I hate moral connotations from judgmental assholes. You twist that as though I related it to the video or used it directly against your argument--which I did not. If you didn't understand this, I am not sure how to spell out something so obvious, especially to someone as well-learned as you Chaos. Even if you didn't twist it, your constant poking at it was irrelevant to the argument, and makes your argument seem very petty.

Furthermore, the definition of monogamy is crafted in the best possible light for those "practicing it." They can sugar coat the shit all they want, but it's still shit. Basically they took the most convenient definition they could find and applied it. Remember, I said, "You could argue that boning, fucking, sucking, dating people until you decide it is convenient to settle down is monogamy, and that's fine." Keyword, "that's fine." So yeah, I agreed in a way that the common definition accepted by others is as you said--don't correct bullshit that didn't need correcting.

Lastly, Rome was an example of how history affects perception. Nothing paranoid about that. I think its bullshit, but it happens. It would be like saying that people hate persecution of Jews because of Nazis. In fact Israel can abuse Palestinians these days exactly because of the past. @newtboy was damn right about child rape and didn't need to use sarcasm. Yeah, Rome/Greece had some good and bad, absolutely. But all in all they were hated as a greedy, mass-murdering peoples who brought hell to their vanquished.

I sincerely apologize for my ignorance, and thank you for setting the record straight. (really)

My incorrect understanding of that (education about the war in Germany) came from about 40% being presented with bad information (or interpreting information incorrectly), and 60% drawing the wrong conclusions based on the censorship of Nazi imagery there.

Before commenting, I did quick web research to support the information I had heard about the censorship side of things there. When that basically confirmed what I thought, I neglected to do the same due diligence with regards to how the war is taught in schools.

...Pretty shitty on my part, especially considering that my opener in my previous comment was that it would be "interesting" to compare how education handles history in both countries, and then apparently I wasn't actually interested enough to actually fact-check.

So again, I apologize.

With regards to the issues in the Daily Show video, ie. the Confederate flag, I think it is probably reasonable to say that in my opinion it would be a good idea to remove the flag from use for Government / State purposes. The way Germany handles Nazi imagery goes beyond that. I'm not sure that I would agree with that extent of what amounts to censorship in handling it, but that is just my opinion.

So I guess in summary, it really *is* interesting to consider both countries approaches to handling uncomfortable bits of our past. I just should have actually done it properly when I said it the first time.

I have noticed it, but most of the time it is tied to economics. IE taxes, jobs, fees, etc they feel they are being burdened with. The racial component is there, but it is just a part of overall disdain for the poor. They don't like paying taxes, perceive that 'others' are not paying their fair share and tie it to a racial comment. Yet, most of the people I hear complaining live an outstanding lifestyle with an abundance of free time and money.

That said - the speaker in this video confuses me. While his explanation of 'White Fragility' makes sense he doesn't tie it to Treyvon, Ferguson, Charleston, in a very convincing way.

What I keep seeing in the media and online is a constant battle about details and phrases. 'Thug', 'Terrorist', 'Racist', and confederate flags. They want to talk ad nauseam about these things instead of the overarching long term effects of economic disenfranchisement, gun control, and a broken criminal justice system that is difficult for both the police and the general public (e.g. drug prohibition and criminalization).

Online I see people figuratively shouting at each other and "picking sides". Some people have nothing but disdain for the police and some have nothing but disdain for minorities and poor people.

Instead we need to have disdain for bad ideas, policies, and actions.

President Obama's speech was very insightful. He recognizes the multiple obstacles to reducing violence and the limited political will to really effect change.

I found this article interesting:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071634/

What he actually said was that the joke relies on him not holding the belief, ie not accepting this as either fact or a valid perception of reality... which seems disingenuous; insomuch as the joke works, it's only because Eastwood's intended audience believes that Caitlyn Jenner's identity is an act. There's nothing else to the joke.

You obviously want to express some kind of solidarity with Eastwood's intended audience and be in charge of Caitlyn Jenner's sexual identity, so I guess the joke resonates better with you?

If you want a vest like that you should google for "zimmermannsweste" (german for carpenters vest).

It is obvious he is not socially bright---like my literally, mildly schizophrenic mother-in-law. She says weird shit that scares/angers judgmental people. "If you want to find a perfect person you have to shoot me first because I am not perfect!" Wait, what? "It's okay Lawdeedaw (fake name here) no one's perfect." What the fuck? I said we were out of cereal? How the fuck is that any relation to what you just said? Then she talks about how her brother, sisters, cousins were murdered, her kids taken away by the evil state (true story) and that her father raping her was fine because he wasn't as bad as her mother who said mean stuff to her. IN FRONT OF MY KIDS... (She stopped after a nice conversation about this problem...)

How do you know he is not similar? It is obvious that he has some problem that is not related to his environment--ie., how he was raised, his position of power, etc. It seems in a non-judgmental way this guy was always like this, or in another way to say, he was born this way. Of course I do not know 100%...

Hi Lucky, Something strange here. I'm not able to see the video on this submission ... http://videosift.com/video/Ingrid-Michaelson-covers-Radioheads-Creep-on-the-Nerdist I can see everything else (vote tally, description, comments etc). Attached screenshot as example I've checked I've got the latest flash version, and have tried in Firefox v38.0.1 and IE v11.0.9600.17801 on my Win 7 box and Chrome on my S4 Android device. Any ideas? Thanks

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - findthumb requested by eric3579.


The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 8:03 - length declared by eric3579.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - findthumb requested by eric3579.


The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 2:52 - length declared by eric3579.

For some reason it's completely blank for me in Firefox and Chrome. Only works in IE.

Norwegian cops dont carry guns, Swedish carry, but I think the bar that they have for actually DRAWING the gun is extremely high. I dont know the statistics in either country, so it is an uninformed and anecdotal impression I get, that US cops seems to draw weapons almost as a default reflex in any situation they deem to be potentially dangerous.

There was a video on here a couple of days ago, where the cop was praised for not shooting the suspect, well that suspect seemed to be unarmed (crazy, and suspected murderer, sure, but still unarmed) What about alternative methods, ie: Talking calmly, trying to defuse the situation etc. before drawing? (Maybe that did happen before the video starts, but it doesnt seem that way)