Japanese people don't care that the actress is not Japanese. The original creators don't care that the actress is not Japanese. Does no one else see the terrible irony that the people complaining loudest about Scarlett Johansson being cast in this role are mostly privileged white people?

I'd be curious if these same people complained about Tom Cruise being the lead in Edge of Tomorrow or Justin Chatwin playing Goku in the 2009 Dragonball movie. And I'd be more curious to hear what Asian box office star should have been cast in these roles to attract the audiences these movies needed to recoup their production costs.

Sure, Mr. and Ms. educated liberal-progressive might go to see these movies even if they are cast with relatively unknown Asian actors but would that be enough to justify production of the movie in the first place?

This movie is an ADAPTATION. Adaptations are not supposed to be literal translations of the source material. What would be the point in that? I don't think a lot of people who watched the Lord of the Rings films, for instance, could have stomached being bombarded for minutes at a time with bad poetry by Tom Bombadil.

They made the right decision on this film. In this case, people who know nothing about anime are going to show up for this movie just to watch Johansson kick ass. And if they like it a lot they are going to be interested in learning more about the original source material, in which case they'll obtain a lot more Japanese cultural knowledge than they would if some "Asian-looking" person had been cast in the role in the first place.

Whether this movie will actually be any good or not... it's really impossible to tell from this trailer.

I only listened to that last 3 minutes because of ^, and because i generaly can't stomach Bill.

I have a hard time buying into the idea that people can't tell them apart. You don't have to do much/any study to see that they are incredibly different. Just because you don't like either of them doesn't in any way say that you think they are equal. I hate them both for completely different reasons. And although i dislike them both I would rather one of them be president over the other. My vote however will not reflect who that is.

I have zero desire to be nit picky about these things. Im not talking about extremes or absolutes. More general guide lines. I was so much healthier when i was plant based. Life time of headaches gone. Daily stomach problems gone. Mental illness issues seemed better (depression). Although i think maybe just my willingness to make positive change could have been the reason for this. I also lost a ridiculous amount of weight as a side benefit and felt much better about myself.

Like i said im sure you can have all these things with meat and a bag of chips and a candy bar occasionally, but i personally can't. I'm very all or nothing. I suck that way.

k, I'm going Wednesday Addams on yall, so fair warning if you can't stomach the grotesque. It's just my sense of humor is very dark. This is one of the few times I'll do you a favor by breaking the fourth wall of my videosift persona. Mainly because I enjoyed this video and the concept is really neat; but, I can't help my brain from going where it goes in its logical conclusions. It's tldr so you'll skip it anyway. Doesn't matter to me, first and foremost, I post for me, not you -- though I acknowledge it is public and therefore for the public's consumption, it is so purely for reasons of science:

Is there a section at the Empathy Museum for empathizing with EMT drivers? Seeing dead and dying bodies in every conceivable way on a daily basis. How do you try on those shoes?

A friend of mine who was a technician for many years told me he witnessed dozens of different forms of decapitation and loads of ways a person can lose one or more or all of their limbs; or, how about this one -- a man who squatted over a plunger he had suctioned to the bottom of a tub because he was too much of a prude to buy a dildo, slipped in the tub while he was pleasuring himself anally...

It tore up through his bowels and punctured out of his abdomen. He was still alive but out cold from the shock while his bowels flooded his insides; dead not long after his wife had made the call.

Listening to an EMT driver discuss their years of experience is one of the best ways to empathize with the human condition.

Or here's another good one: Go work in a nursing home and learn what being old and dying is like.

But cool, I get to wear oversized women's shoes... wait, I already do that. Here, empathize with me: wear pumps and stockings for an hour, then chuck tailors and socks for two hours, then pumps, then chuck tailors, then pumps, then chuck tailors.

I'm gonna open myself a true empathy museum in collaboration with the Holocaust Museum. Could you imagine if the Holocaust Museum had you wear the shoes of dead Jews? Would anyone take that seriously? I seriously doubt it.

Aside from alternating between gender-based shoes, my empathy museum will also allow you to interact with people who have low functioning autism and have a discussion with a man who has severe brain damage because his dad was involved in organized crime and the price of not paying a debt on time was that his family got murdered before his very eyes. Lucky for him, only brain damage. Sole survivor. Let him regale you with tales of woes made entirely of spitting sounds and aimless staring.

Empathy's a crazy thing. Makes you want to crawl inside a hole sometimes. But if you emerge sane and ready to TRULY empathize by doing a goddamn thing about it -- and not just proclaim your civil rights and be angry at the injustices of the world and how unfair your lot or the lot of other pitiful humans are -- maybe you'll have what it takes to gain an iota of true humanity. That's what my empathy museum is all about.

Not that I'm against this form of chic empathy. I quite enjoy art installations.

Thanks for this thoughtful response.

I agree 100% with the idea of catching more flies with honey idea. Treating people with respect. All of that stuff is patently true to me.

However. Of course there is a "however."

I don't agree with the "clearly condescending" assessment. I did not find the delivery condescending in the least. I found it sarcastic and pissed off and appropriate to the topic.

This video is not meant to add to the debate or woo people to her side. It is flat out laying out the facts with a take no prisoners attitude.

That you think this is condescending and I guess poisonous is interesting to me.

Is this indeed sexism at work? Did you read Crushbug's comment? Do you understand that women are "policed" as to their tone of voice all the time? In fact, your mother's (true) advice that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar is actually the internalized oppression that we women struggle with all the time. Be sweet, be kind, be oblique. Manipulate your (male) partner into doing what you want by leading him to think it is his idea.

Just writing this out is making my stomach hurt. It is so poisonous, the suppression of free human expression that women are subjected to in so many cultures. (Think of young Japanese girls who cover their mouths coyly when they laugh.)

Having said all this, please don't think that I believe that men are the evil oppressors. Men have a different pressure put on them that distorts their psyches -- "be a man" is just as deadly as "be sweet".

I was just saying to a friend the other day -- I was wondering how it screws up little boys' heads when daddy leaves the house for a week long business trip, and tells his 4 year old son "You're the man of the house now. Take care of your mother." Good lord. He's a child! He needs her to take care of him!

Anyway. There is much that I agree with in your long and thoughtful response. I just don't think that these ideas are appropriately applied to this comedy video. As you sort of implied with your addendum.

Ughhhh that is just painful... There is no way i could stomach a longer version.

Sorry, but I feel bad for the guy.

Yes, he's way too smug about the whole thing, and the fact that he's vlogging makes it that much harder to sympathise, but if he's got an ethical objection to animal products I'm not surprised he's upset. If nothing else I'd say he feels sick to the stomach over it... imagine having a nice pork fillet only to find it's human meat.

I'm a solid carnivore myself, and a fan of People tor Eating Tasty Animals, but I still have to respect other people's choices. At least now he'll learn to ask more and more about the ingredients of what he eats.

Now back to my 'pork' stew.

My stomach hurts now. Yuck.

@transmorpher

It's a little difficult to 'debate' your comment, because the points that you address to me are numbered but don't reference to specific parts of my post. That's probably my fault as i was releasing frustration haphazardly and sarcastically, and that sarcasm wasn't aimed at you. All i can do is try and sum up whether i think we agree or disagree overall.

Essentially everything is a question of 'taste', even for you. There's no escaping our nature, most of us don't drink our own piss, many of us won't swallow our own blood, almost all of us have a flavour that we can't abide because we were fed it as a child. So yes, our decisions are defined by taste. But taste is decided by the food that is available to people, within reasonable distance of their house, at a price they find affordable according to the society around them, from a range of food that is decided by society around them. Your average person does not have the luxury to walk around a high street supermarket selecting the most humane and delicious foods. People get what they can afford, what they understand, what they can prepare and what is available. Our ancestors ate chicken because of necessity of their own kind, their children are exposed to chicken through no fault of their own, fast forward a few generations, and thus chicken becomes an affordable, accessible staple. Can we reach a compromise here? It may not be necessary for chickens to die to feed the human race, but it may be necessary for some people to eat chicken today because of their particular life.

I don't like the use of the phrase 'if i can do it, i know anyone can'. I think it's a mistake to deal in certainties, especially pertaining to lifestyles that you can't possibly know about without having lived them. Are you one of the many homeless people accepting chicken soup from a stranger because it's nourishing, cheap and easy for a stranger to buy, and keeps you warm on the streets? Are you a single mother with coeliac disease, a grumpy teenager and picky toddler who has 20 minutes to get to the supermarket and get something cooking? Or one of the millions using foodbanks in the UK (to our shame) now? I don't think you're willfully turning a blind eye to those people, i'm not tugging heart strings to do you a disservice. Maybe you're just fortunate you not only have the choice, but you have such choice that you can't imagine a life without it. I won't budge an inch on this one, you can't know what people have to do, and we have to accept life is not ideal.

And within that idealism and choice problem we can include illnesses that once again in IDEAL situations could survive without dead animals, nevertheless find it necessary to eat what they can identify and feel safe with.

Yes, those damn gluten hipsters drive me round the bend but only because they make people think that a LITTLE gluten is ok, it makes people take the problem less seriously (see Tumblr feminism... JOKE).

I agree that we must look at what action we can take now - and that is why i keep reminding you that we are not in an ideal world. If the veganism argument is to succeed then you must suggest a reasonable pathway to go from how we are now to whatever situation you would prefer. My "ideal farm" description was just me demonstrating the problem - that you need to show us your blueprint for how we start again without killing animals and feeding everyone we have.

And on that subject, your suggestions need to be backed by real research, otherwise you don't have any real plan. "It's fair to say there is very little risk" is a nice bit of illustrative language but it is not backed by any fact or figure and so i'm compelled to do my Penn and Teller impression and call bullshit. As of right now, the life expectancy of humans is better than it has ever been. It is up to you to prove that changing the diet of 7 billion people will result in neutrality or improvement of health and longevity. That proof must come in the form of large statistical analyses and thorough science. I don't want to sound like i'm being a dick, but any time you state something like that as a fact or with certainty, it needs to be backed up by something. I'm not nit picking and asking for common knowledge to have a citation, but things like this do:

-- 70% of farmland claim
-- 'fair to say very little risk' claim
-- meat gives you cancer claim - i accept it may have a carcinogenic effect but i'll remind you so does breathing, joss-sticks, broccoli, apples and water
-- 'the impact to the planet would be immense' claim - in what way, and what would be the downsides in terms of economy, productivity, health, animal welfare (where are all the animals going to be sent to retire as of day 1?)
-- etc. etc.

Oh, and a cow might get its protein from plants, but it walks around a field all day eating grass, chewing the cud and having sloppy shits with 4 stomachs and enzymes that i don't have................. I'm a bit puzzled by this one... I probably can't survive on what an alligator or a goldfish eats, but i can survive on parts of an alligator or fish. I can't eat enough krill in a day to keep me going, but i can let a whale do it for me...?

I have to strongly disagree with the suggestion that animals are killed and tortured for my "taste preferences" and "pleasure".

It gives me no pleasure that an animal has to die for me to eat. My pleasure in the consumption of that animal is a fleeting, automatic chemical reaction triggered in my body. In an evolutionary sense, i only receive this pleasure because it prolongs the survival of my species to feel it.

Most of these arguments reek of over simplification and ignorance to the reality of the society westerners live in.

In ideal conditions, i would eat meat from animals that i tended, who died of natural causes (mostly old age i assume) which i would personally butcher. In reality, it is not possible and even if it were possible for one person, it would not be possible for every person - we have limited space, limited resources, limits placed by law, limits on our time. As well as the cost of the land, I would have to hope enough animals died naturally to sell enough humane meat to pay taxes on the land and maintain my farming equipment, buy grain for the animals and so on. Or maybe i could grow my own grain and use primitive DIY tools, but then i'd probably need help for all the farming i'd have to do every day and now i'd need enough animals to die to feed three, so more land, more grain... Oops, it looks like this is getting complicated doesn't it. Shall we keep going until we reach a society of 70 odd million people, or should we consider that the problem is far more complicated than comments here would care to acknowledge?

Furthermore gluten is often the primary protein source for vegans, but i have a disease that requires me to avoid that protein in entirety. The smug, holier-than-thou field radiating from certain commenters here will i'm sure extend far enough to condescendingly say "ah, but you can be a vegan and avoid gluten, you poor, uneducated, smiling murderer!" Yes, and you could live your life without ever being touched by the sun's rays, or sail a small sailboat without ever getting wet, not even a droplet. And how can we know what effect gluten-free-veganism may have on public health when it is extended to a population of 7 billion? What a dangerous experiment to salivate over - reckless and potentially harmful in a way that a butcher could never hope to be.

It would be wonderful if the world was ideal. I wouldn't have this disease, and all people of the world could enjoy their own 10 acre farm and eat only those animals whose time had come. Unfortunately when i am abroad, away from home, the only source of protein that i can entirely trust might perhaps be a roast chicken. And i will eat it, the only true pleasure from which i take is that i will not spend the next three days doubled up in bed.

There are people worse off than me, but i don't know enough about their situation to use it as a point in this discussion. To people like me, the language used by some people here makes me think of someone dancing around at a diabetics convention shouting "I can't believe you losers have to use insulin! I hope you all realise that drug addicts use needles!"

I reject any notion that these people have a moral advantage over me. Have any of them ever heard of walking a mile in another man's shoes, or does their narrow mind only reach as far as "ME"?

By the way, plants are also alive. Or is this about sentient life? Shall we move on to abortion then, if non-sentient life is ok to end? Shall we have the philosophical discussion about degrees of sentience and types of sentience and whether we can even know if a plant has its own brand of sentience? If yes, let's try to at least do it without you being smug and in return without me being sarcastic.

Worrying about how people treat vegans? How about the language used to describe people who have no choice in the matter, lest that choice be never leave your own house and eat only this very small list of things which you may or may not find too disgusting to stomach? Am i to live in misery and squander my life so that a chicken could have an extra 2 years to run in circles? This issue is not fucking black and white despite the attempts to paint it so.

Just to point out, I didn't say that. I'm not taking a moral cue from how animals behave. I'm saying our species and precursors have a long history of eating meat and it turned out pretty good for us.

(aka - my ancestors are smiling down at me imperial, can you say the same?!)

For the record if i had to kill my own food, i would have no problem with that. I'd rather pay someone to do it for me - yes. But if i needed food and could get my hands on an animal, you better believe i'm sleeping on a full stomach that night.

But as for eating less bacon if you had to slaughter the pig - if you were a farmer, settler or nomad or something and you had pigs you'd probably eat lots of bacon. In society right now, it's pretty unrealistic to slaughter your own pig if you live in an average suburb. It makes more sense to buy bacon than slaughter a pig for most people right now, but there are situations when the opposite would be true and i don't think it would bother me (or you).

The problem is the GOP as constructed is already the minority party at least nationally. Since 1992, they've won the popular vote once in presidential races. Demographics favor voting blocs that track for Democrats. If the GOP splits into a moderate party and Tea Party, that is the effective end of the GOP, and the Tea Party would also be politically castrated. The people who built the Tea Party understood that the way to gain influence was as an insurrection within the GOP, not as a third party. For the Tea Party, it was a smart move. They've gained massive influence nationally compared to their numbers. But it is a cancer to the Republican Party that they've proven they're completely unable to control.

Every single problem or mistake you've listed is all due to one common thread - there are too many supporters of the GOP that are too radical. Why did McCain pick Palin? He was too moderate for the base, so he needed to up his conservative street creds, and he needed a minority splash to combat Obama being black. Combine those two, and you can't get Olympia Snow or Susan Collins, but you could get to either of them if you drop the "needs to be hard right conservative". Why did McCain move to the right in the first place? The base demanded it.

Why can't Obama do anything right according to no one in the GOP pretty much? Base is too rabid and demands it. Why did Romney shift to the right? Base.

You can blame the party for catering to the extreme too much, but the problem is the extreme makes up so much of what they have for support, they have no choice. Tea Party organizers astutely realized that, radicalized their supporters to threaten to not turn out for moderate candidates, and even to primary challenge even guys like Eric Cantor for compromising too much.

I mean this sincerely - the GOP party leadership is not at fault. Blame the original Tea Party organizers. Blame Tea Party candidates. Blame the media environment for increasingly favoring more radical candidates by creating partisan bubbles to carefully dissimenate information that suites partisan goals. Blame an electorate too stupid and/or apathetic to understand that neither conservative nor liberal ideology solves every problem (which is so painfully obvious that I can prove that in about 5 minutes), so you need to learn about each issue, and use those ideologies to form options, and then choose the one that's more likely to work, regardless of its ideological foundation. Yeah, that actually takes work and critical thinking, but you'll actually solve problems!

But that ain't happening, so it's time to sit back and watch the slow decline of the GOP as it eats itself alive, and Democrats will increasingly win because we'll keep being presented more with GOP candidates a majority of candidates can't stomach, and hope like heck the Democrats nominate at least someone semi-competent for office, because that's pretty much all we got.

I couldn't stomach voting for a single GOP nominee for president since George Bush, Sr. It's gotten worse because I couldn't stomach my choice for VA governor last year either. I had to choose between a batsh1t insane Cuccinelli or political sleeze in McAulliffe, and it was both the fastest choice to make for me, yet I was the least happy about having to make it for McAulliffe.

And just when I thought you couldn't get much lower from the GOP, they're on the doorstep of nominating Trump or Cruz for president of the entire country.

part 2
Saliva
CARNIVORE: No digestive enzymes
OMNIVORE: No digestive enzymes
HERBIVORE: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes
HUMAN: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes

Stomach Type
CARNIVORE: Simple
OMNIVORE: Simple
HERBIVORE: Simple or multiple chambers
HUMAN: Simple

Stomach Acidity
CARNIVORE: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
OMNIVORE: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
HERBIVORE: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach
HUMAN: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach

Stomach Capacity
CARNIVORE: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
OMNIVORE: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
HERBIVORE: Less than 30% of total volume of digestive tract
HUMAN: 21% to 27% of total volume of digestive tract

Length of Small Intestine
CARNIVORE: 3 to 6 times body length
OMNIVORE: 4 to 6 times body length
HERBIVORE: 10 to more than 12 times body length
HUMAN: 10 to 11 times body length

Colon
CARNIVORE: Simple, short and smooth
OMNIVORE: Simple, short and smooth
HERBIVORE: Long, complex; may be sacculated
HUMAN: Long, sacculated

Liver
CARNIVORE: Can detoxify vitamin A
OMNIVORE: Can detoxify vitamin A
HERBIVORE: Cannot detoxify vitamin A
HUMAN: Cannot detoxify vitamin A

Kidney
CARNIVORE: Extremely concentrated urine
OMNIVORE: Extremely concentrated urine
HERBIVORE: Moderately concentrated urine
HUMAN: Moderately concentrated urine

Nails
CARNIVORE: Sharp claws
OMNIVORE: Sharp claws
HERBIVORE: Flattened nails or blunt hooves
HUMAN: Flattened nails

whale.to/a/comp.html

You are once again mistaken....
Real verified stats are had to come by, but: "In the coral reef community there are many species of fish which fill this ecological role: roughly 25 percent of the fishes are herbivores or make plants a part of their diet/omnivores (Deloach, 1999)."
That's just fish, far more abundant than land animals by number or biomass, as a group are at least 75% carnivore (not omnivore).

"obligate carnivore" is not honest, scientific, or reasonable. That means 10% CAN'T eat plants, not that only 10% does. Most animals are neither pure vegetarian or carnivore. I know vegans have a history of ignoring omnivores as a category, because it erases their positions/arguments, but that doesn't mean it's not a major category, in fact it's THE major category.

Herbivores have digestive systems designed to break down cellulose. Humans have one stomach, not designed to break down cellulose, so if it's a choice between carnivore or herbivore, biologically we are carnivores, which makes removing the omnivore category just plain silly for vegans.

The party is split no matter who wins. Trump has and likely will get more votes than anyone, but if he wins, I have even Republican friends who out of a moral obligation feel forced to vote for Hillary Clinton. Let that sink in. These are people who claimed Obamacare was "a complete government takeover of the health care system" claiming people (which is pure bullshit), and they can't stomach the thought of a Trump presidency.

On the other hand, Trump supporters might riot if Trump doesn't get it.

I don't generally make drastic predictions about politics, but I think we are watching the destruction of a political party. I don't see a way forward for the GOP because the Tea Party movement is too big and energetic within the GOP to not dominate it, yet cannot accept their way is a losing way, they are perfectly content on burning the GOP to the ground in the process, and too stupid to understand that is what they are doing.