Pretty desperate to tie this in any way to feminism, you have to REALLY want it.

Either way the sort of celebratory way this video shows violence is pathetic. There are no 'winners' here.

What absolute fucking bullshit!

I'm so sick of this child like interpretation of the constitution.

Oh slippery slope... same document used to give people the RIGHT to own other humans...

Oh slipper slope... the RIGHT to vote is clearly intended for white men and land owners only.

etc... etc... seems like we're up to like 27 HEINOUS infringements on YOUR rights by now.!

Its absolutely utterly fucking ridiculous. The entire country is held hostage from even discussing the issue. The government isn't even allowed to collect data.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/us/gun-violence-graphics/

We are the ONLY ones doing this at anywhere even close to this rate. And we can't even discuss potential solutions rationally without it being turned into some paranoid hypothetical tyrannical enslavement scenario.

Its fucking pathetic. So yeah... your right lets not even make a fucking attempt at solving our issues.

*promote

I'm glad we didn't make the same mistake the kind countries of Europe did, and instead we have a vetting process to help ensure that only genuine refugees are coming in. I'm not saying the approach is necessarily the best one, but what can you do when so many economic migrants are clogging the system (on purpose) for people in genuine need of help. (I'm a refugee myself btw).

If it was up to me I'd add some additional tests to ensure that these people are fit for a modern society too, you know, to make sure my daughter/wife/mother/sister etc can go outside on their own, unlike some cities in Europe now.

But then again if it was up to me, neither of the 3 major political parties would be in charge since they're all useless. Liberals are just a mouth piece for big business (literally, that's why they were formed). And they all also look like the bad guys from any 80s and 90s kids cartoon. The Labour party is well meaning, but ultimately as lame, pathetic and gut-less as their "leader", they simply don't stand for anything and all of their policies boil down the lowest common denominator. The Greens driven by emotion not facts, and now they don't even seem to care about the environment very much.

There needs to be some kind of progressive party that is capable of driving humanity forward into the future, instead of weighing it down with traditions of the past. The whole system needs a huge reform.

None of those sound like support to me.

The first comment doesn't really state anything either way, other than he doesn't want to be associated with the circus of Trump.

The second still isn't an endorsement.
He says Trump isn't qualified to be President: patently obvious.
He says he thinks Trump can change that situation (people being scared of him): probably true, but again not an endorsement.
He predicts Trump will win in a landslide: it's certainly possible, but again, not an endorsement.

He says Trump doesn't scare him: This is the closest to an endorsement.

Basically, I agree with most of that statement (Trump doesn't scare me, but the thought of a Trump presidency is fucking terrifying).

That doesn't mean I support Trump, and no, it's not out of some fear of a social backlash, it's because I think he's a fucking pathetic excuse for what might charitably be called a human being.

Is it possible Adams supports Trump? Of course, but there isn't really sufficient evidence to make that claim.

It would take super-human effort to one-up Brent Spiner's failed attempt to cast Data as TNG's 'Spock' in Nemesis, with that pathetic carbon-copy Wrath of Khan script.

Well, I'll agree with him to this extent:

Parties need to be concerned with choosing candidates that are at least a baseline level of acceptable to the whole range of their usual voters.

Republicans have a big problem with that, because the biggest single segment of their base (at least 40%, probably more) wants Trump, and will be (pretty legitimately) upset / mutinous if the party tries to foist someone else on them. The rest of the party might hate Trump, but they have utterly failed to present an alternative that appeals to a bigger segment of their base than Trump's 40+%.

On the other side of the coin, the Democrats have issues with this also. Not as severe, but Hillary has a really high proportion of haters / mistrust even among registered Democrats.

Assuming Trump and Hillary are the final candidates, I hope that however it turns out there is a huge amount of blowback to *both* parties in terms of drastically higher numbers of people voting for 3rd party "also rans", write ins, or people otherwise clearly voicing their displeasure. Both parties have to do better than this pathetic set of choices.

If you think the outrage expressed here is floundering and forced, you should imagine how we feel about your impotent, condescending reaction to our outrage. Please double check all harnesses and straps for safety before you parachute down from your own high horse. A horse so high your dismount could be sponsored by red bull.

What's funny is that you think being annoyed by Dreadlock Hitler is pathetic, but you're annoyed because the target looks like someone you don't like and listens to music you don't enjoy. I guess that's just fine, but we should all grow up!

This is precisely why a large part of me actually wants Trump to win.

We're way too complacent. There has been a slow, steady, gradual decline that has lulled us into apathy -- even though the state of politics and "democracy" in the US (and arguably globally as a result) is absolutely pathetic and appalling at this point.

It is looking more and more likely that the general election will be Trump vs Clinton.

First of all, that alone demonstrates just how fucked we are. Our final two choices are likely to be the two people with the highest negative opinion numbers out of all the candidates. The cream didn't rise to the top, and instead the two biggest turds managed to avoid being flushed. South Park seems oddly prophetic; we have really ended up with turd sandwich vs. giant douche. I just can't tell which is which.

Second, I notice that a LOT of people (including "establishment" Republicans) are scared shitless by the prospect of a Trump presidency. In a Trump vs Clinton election, they say that they would easily prefer to vote for Clinton -- perhaps couched with the "lesser of two evils" descriptor, but still vote for Clinton.

I agree with the idea that Clinton is the lesser of those two evils. But that, in combination with our current level of apathy, makes me MORE afraid of a Clinton presidency than a Trump one. Clinton is a slick, dirty politician. People think they are going to dodge the Trump bullet by voting for her, but she is the archetype of what got us into this situation. She tells people only what she thinks they want to hear, while doing exactly what her donors (megacorporations) want her to do whenever the camera isn't on. A Clinton presidency will keep the masses just placated enough to NOT boil over.

Meanwhile, Trump seems like enough of a perfect storm that he could actually screw things up bad enough to make the masses stand up and take notice. Maybe that kind of slap in the face is what we need.

Clinton presidency: "Fuck it."
Trump presidency: "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it anymore!"


In a hypothetical scenario where the general election was Trump vs Sanders, it would be much harder for me to be "pro" Trump. Because Sanders seems like maybe he's got the right mindset to change things for the better the *right* way. On the other hand, I kinda felt the same way about Obama. So, even in a Trump vs Sanders scenario, a big part of me would be "hoping" for Trump to win. Because *something* has got to snap us out of our apathy.

Uh... yeah... well... just like most other politicians who try to get your vote.
This is really getting pathetic.

Pathetic

I know right. What is the world coming to where a video description has a description of what is in video. COURTESY GONE MAD. *sigh* *seriously-sigh* *sighed-so-hard-I-coughed-up-a-lung*

I know this might be hard to understand, but it could be that the warning wasn't for you, just as the video isn't for some other people. Try not to get too upset about it, cos, you know, that'd be pretty pathetic.

...There are of course exceptions to the rule!

In general daily life, showing anger like that is seen as sort of pathetic and juvenile (they may be on to something there). That incident in particular was only lightly reported on in-country because of how shameful most people thought it was.


I think that modern Psychology tends to think that snapping as a result of suppressed emotion is overplayed in TV / movies in comparison to real life. But here in Thailand, when people do (rarely) pop off it seems like it does tend to get more extreme / heated than in the US. Maybe people figure that once they've crossed the line a little, they might as well go full throttle. I dunno.

The title here is bullshit. He doesn't face jail for "disagreeing" with a feminist. He's facing jail for online harassment of a feminist.

Whether the charge is warranted or not is another matter, but even in Canada, disagreeing with people is not a crime.

I tried to watch the video, but I couldn't get past the rampant MRA bullshit, so I went and researched the actual issue.

First, let's quit fucking pretending this is about equality.

Making a game about beating up Anita Sarkeesian is straight-up misogynistic assholery, and if you put said game out in a public forum, don't come crying when people publicise your fucking stupidity.

What Guthrie did was perfectly valid. If you make a public statement, be prepared to back it up. If I made a game about punching (for example) Donald Trump in the face, I would be perfectly happy for any prospective employer to see it. I would stand behind it as a parody/protest/whatever. So fuck Spurr, I have zero sympathy for him. If he doesn't want prospective employers finding out he's a misogynist asshole, he should have made an artistic statement to that effect in public.

Oh, and if you honestly can't understand the difference between a game of punching Sarkeesian or punching Thompson/Bin Laden/Bieber, you're either deluding yourself or you're an idiot.

Oh, and one more thing before I get accused of censorship. I am not in any way saying Spurr should not be able to make that game or it should be banned. I would vehemently defend his right to make and publish such a game, and my right to call him a complete fuckknuckle for doing so.

Now, as for Elliot, I've read several articles now, and all it's done is make depressed for the pathetic state of what is laughably called journalism in that none of them ACTUALLY CONTAINED THE FUCKING TWEETS!

I have no idea if what he said warranted a criminal charge or not, but on balance, his "harassment" doesn't appear to be of a threatening nature. I reserve the right to change my mind either way once I've actually read what he tweeted.

Releasing a teaser like this is insulting, and I don't mean that jokingly.

How can you release a few seconds a shitty-cam footage with any amount of aplomb at all? This is pathetic.

Oh, so now pathetic PC is coming into play too? Ever thought about that I too am a human, who cant just swallow all that shit without venting, especially when confronted with ignorance that caused all this shit in the first place? I mean WTF... people are dying, and you expect me to pretend like them that all is well? I am starting another war with words like those? If that is the case, we are beyond hope anyway, and I am glad I make people like those uncomfortable.

Oh my gawd, I vented my frustration a bit at the end. Damn me into oblivion for being... a war mongering, conflict seeking troll hypocrite... or something...
... in less than 1% of what I wrote!