--Compilations? those bug me.
--Clickbait
--Cant watch a Young Turks all the way through. Too painful.
--The social experiment ones always seem...rigged and meant to force a point of some kind.
--Agree solidly with the "pain is funny"; uh no, pain hurts.

I didn't have an answer until I saw these comments above.

Definitely Young Turks. They need to talk less and get some voice/diction lessons.

Truth distorters. Hate that with a passion.

Anything with pain as humor. I have too much empathy and end up distressed. The ones with the nutsack shots? People falling on their necks? I don't think I have ever gotten to the end of one of those compilations -- I start watching because some "fail" videos are funny without serious harm being involved. But the compilations mostly seem to toss in something that makes me quickly shut 'er down.

And of course -- sexist/racist "jokes". Louis CK has a potty mouth of the nth degree -- doesn't bother me. I love him, because he tells the truth. The man has told a funny rape joke! Who thought that was even possible before he figured out how to do. Sexist/racist crap is lies and ugliness.

I'm sure there is more. That is without thinking about it too hard and stealing from the first posters.

1. Young Turks: why not spend 3 hours to make a point that can be made in 5 minutes!

2. vloggers who/edit way too much
and their cuts/are all
over
the
place

3. That "how to be spiritual guy" (JP Sears, I think he's called?). Yes, it was funny once, but jesus, get a new gag.

4. "fail" videos where morons too fucking lazy to try anything make fun of people who are actually attempting to do cool stuff. There's a difference between stupidity and failure.

4. people editing lightsabers over every goddamn sword fight scene. We get it, you've learned After Effects, now go do something original.

edit: and buzzfeed. Fuck buzzfed

I'll go first. No particular order. Also i'm sure ill be editing this with more annoying personalities/video styles as i can recall them.

1.Young Turks (The over the top outrage)
2.The Slow Mo guys (get to the point, you're NOT funny)
3.Bill Maher (his general personality)
<edit>
4."Social Experiment" videos
5."Prank" videos

Young Turks take on this.
Inspector General Issues Scathing Report On Hillary's Emails

I didn't watch this, since I find The Young Turks unbearable to listen to.

Did they include the information that the sweater was a joke? I can't find the clip now, but she made one talking about how the sweater was a joke between co-workers, that they do stuff all the time to rib each other.

When I first saw the clip, I had a similar reaction -- a cocktail dress for a morning show? Like wearing a formal gown to a sock hop. Weird.

But no reason to lose one's shit and send emails. Jeesh.

This isn't what I saw a couple of days ago, but it shows the support and disgust of her co-workers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcjJ5SORGR4

This, my friends, is the downside to the internet. Instantaneous outrage has an outlet. Tempest in a teacup. Hell. Tempest in a teaspoon.

No, it's not a quote, it's a paraphrase. I never said Bernie had anything to do with it, I'm just saying by even showing THAT particular photo of the troll, they (the young turks, not Bernie) are doing what THEY claim Fox News et al would do, but it's OK for them to do because they're saying it's not what they're claiming.

I'm not calling them out on anything but the hypocrisy of showing the photo. If it doesn't mean a connection to Hillary, why the fuck show it other than to imply a connection or at least give that image to people's minds.

Wow, that taught me two things that I'd somehow completely missed - 1) Cenk is apparently still incredibly evasive about the Armenian genocide, at least as of his Reddit AMA of 2 years ago, and 2) the origin of the name the Young Turks. I'd always completely and only assumed that it meant 'headstrong newcomers' - I didn't know shit about the Jön Türkler movement. Thanks!

Your video, The Young Turks meets with Bernie Sanders (Full Interview), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 14 Badge!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'polls, Sanders, Clinton, election' to 'polls, Sanders, Clinton, election, tyt, the young turks, cenk uygur' - edited by messenger

I think it's a matter of degree. Prior to WW1 (Or to say, around the turn of that century), the Jewish faithed presence was quite small. Roughly ~90% of the population was non-Jewish faithed. There was very little conflict prior to WW2, because prior to that, the immigrants purchased their land from the locals. As per the nature of humanity, the only conflict-free methods for transfer of property are : inheritance, trade/sale, or gift.

The League of Nations was inconsequential. As a result of WW1 Britain captured the territory of Palestine from its previous occupiers (Turks, by one title or another, dating back to the Roman empire), and by right of conquest could do as it pleases with it.

I refer to religious insularity, not genetic.
Yes, they are quite accepting of anyone with Jewish faith. Almost the entire Jewish faithed population in Israel, regarding this last century, is either immigrant, or born of said immigrants. The Jewish faithed population rose from around ~600k to ~7 million between 1947 and today. Even taking into account the rule of thumb 'population doubles every ~40 years', that would leave the population roughly 85% immigrant or children thereof.

Which in turn elucidates many of the issues at hand in modern times. Land prices are extreme, with more people than there is room for, so expanding for living room is a necessity. Hence colonial expansion into greater Palestine is inevitable. Further, the dramatic division in income equality puts a lot of social pressure on the government, which the government can further alleviate by expansion. A, because it can relocate those that can't afford to live in more expensive areas, and gives those people a place to busy themselves taking care of, and B, because the inevitable tensions that come from displacing the previous residents causes the government to serve as a protector from those unfortunates that were offended, which serves as a good distraction from other problems that the government isn't doing well to fix. Essentially, the same formula that nations have followed throughout history (Heck, Australia can thank its current existence for similar policies in Britain).

-scheherazade

Some bits it glosses over :

Puppet dictatorship is basically a description of every US and Soviet backed b-list nation on earth back then. The fact that it's a puppet state shouldn't be used to imply anything.
For example, the U.S.S.R. had modernization programs for its satellite states, building power plants, roads, hospitals, universities, etc, in an attempt to fast forward development and catch up with the west asap. They also did this while spouting secular rhetoric.
In a general attempt to undermine soviet efforts (*both sides tried to contain each other's influence world wide), the U.S. looked for any groups within the U.S.S.R. satellite nations that would be an 'in' for U.S. power/influence. For Afghanistan, this was the people most offended by the U.S.S.R.'s [secular] agenda, and most likely to make good on foreign anti-soviet backing - the religious Jihadists. Everyone knew very well what it would mean for the local people if Jihadists took over Afghanistan - but at the time, the soviets were considered a bigger problem than Jihadists (possibility of nuclear annihilation), so better to have Jihadists in power than soviets.

Also, Assad's release of prisoners was officially part of an amnesty for political prisoners - something the people and foreign groups were asking for.
Saying that Assad tolerated AQ or Isis is misleading. These groups gained power during the Arab spring, when a large portion of the civilian population wanted a new government, but lacked the military power to force change. Militants stepped into the situation by /graciously/ offering their military strength, in exchange for economic/resource/political support to help make it happen. After a short while, these groups coopted the entire effort against Assad. Once they were established, they simply put the people under their boot, effectively replacing Assad with something even worse within the regions they held. Assad lacked/lacks the military power and support to expel the militant groups, so they fight to a stalemate. But a stalemate is by no means tolerance.
One similarity that Syria has to Afghanistan, is that the anti-government kernel within the population that birthed the revolt, did so for anti-secular reasons. In Syria's case, it was in large part people from the region that had earlier attempted an Islamist uprising during Assad's father's reign (which was put down by the government, culminating in the 'hama massacre', leaving some intense anti-government sentiment in the region).
In any case, the available choices for power in Syria are 'political dictatorship' or 'religious dictatorship'. Whoever wins, regular people lose. It's not as if regular people have the arms necessary to force anyone to listen to them. Anyone with any brains or initiative knows that their best option is neither, so they leave (hence all the refugees).

The video also omits the ambiguous alliances in the region. Early on, you had the UAE, Saudis, and Turks supporting ISIS - because an enemy of your enemy is your friend. It wasn't until ISIS started to encroach on them that they tempered their support. Turkey remains ambiguous, by some accounts being the gateway/laundromat for ISIS oil sales... because ISIS is a solution to the 'Kurdish problem' for Turkey.
If you watch some of the VICE documentaries, you can see interviews where locals on the Turkish border say that militants and arms cross form Turkey into Syria to join ISIS every night.
Then you have countries like Iran and Syria fighting ISIS, but by official accounts these countries are the west's enemy. Recently, French leadership (after the Paris bombings) has stated that they are done playing politics, and just want to get rid of ISIS in the most practical manner possible, and are willing to work with Russia and Assad to do it.

It's worth noting that ISIS' main enemy/target is 'non Sunni Islam'. U.S./Europe tend to only mention ISIS attacks on their persons/places, and it leaves western people thinking that ISIS is against the west - but in fact the west is merely an afterthought for ISIS. For every one attack on a western asset/person, there are countless attacks on Shia, etc.

-scheherazade

I don't believe the Russian account for a second.

The Turks complained several times in recent weeks of Russian aircraft invading their airspace and I never heard a Russian attempt at denial. Now one's been shot down and the Russians claim it was nowhere near Turkish airspace? B.S.

The Turks have nothing to gain from stirring this pot, but the Russians have a ton to gain, as they're using it as an excuse to bring AA batteries into the area now, weapons which can only be useful against NATO forces, because the rebels have no air force.

The Russian pilot claims he never got any warning, but every other pilot operating in the region from all nationalities heard it clearly.

Putin's been running a campaign against the moderate rebels (the only clear alternative the West would accept over Assad) and has shown no interest in targeting ISIS positions. It's pretty easy to see every action he's taken in the area is to prop up Assad at the expense of everyone else (except ISIS, who reap the benefits).

That's the sort of thing I'll be dealing with for most of next week...

Can you feel my excitement?

Maybe I should just run through the halls screaming "dey turk err jurbs!"

LOL!!!
So you believe the Israel sponsored site is feeding you the whole truth, huh? They simply don't show you the non-Jewish flag the original inhabitants used and pretend the area was essentially uninhabited before they came along. The entire area was under dispute and barely held together by British might, but inhabited by the people now called Palestinians who had been promised autonomy for fighting the Turks in WW1 (Before WW1 it was held by the Turks). The Jews were nearly 100% immigrants, not natives.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/palestine_1918_to_1948.htm