I'm 'offended' by the word 'offensive'. There is no easier, quicker way to prove you're too lazy or stupid to actually discuss and analyze a difficult subject matter than saying 'You can't do that, it's offensive!'
Joking about controversial or simply horrible things may not be emotionally safe for everyone involved but you can not watch Luis CK and expect he won't bring up stuff like rape. That's some risky stuff, sure. It's very easy to become cruel or sadistic with this but if you look not just at the intent but also the perspective of the comedian, it'll become clear that it is surprisingly empathic. Not only does Luis show empathy for the perpetrator but also goes further and analyzes the motives.
Comedy is a tool to analyze and understand subject matters. It takes intelligence and brutal honesty to make jokes as successfully as Luis does, especially when discussing issues like pedophilia.
That's why I laugh about CK's rape jokes but get angry when a guy stands on a stage and just says 'Wouldn't it be funny if somebody raped you?' to a female heckler. One explores a topic and tries to understand it, the other is just being a cruel asshole.
There's a reason laughter isn't a common sound in churches. Good humor often deconstructs what we tend to understand as unqestioned, common knowledge. It reduces kings to mere humans, prophets to popular madmen and gods to fairytale characters. 'Offensive' is the word you use when you're not pious enough to shout 'blasphemy'.

Oh, I am blunt, alright. A lot of people dont like that, because actually they feel attacked since they see those people I criticize in themselves or how they support them with their passiveness. Plus I am very good at figuring out people, analyzing them. Thats what I dont keep silent about either.
It was not an ad hominem attack, because I offered facts (which got ignored with an excuse of ad hominem), and I actually tried to explain why they react how they react.
I havent seen anyone deny anything I said about them. And thats the point. I dont care if hes pissed off now. If hes open and objective he will think about what I said, even check those facts for himself and maybe one day will think that I was right all along. Or not, and hes a lost case, and in that case me being friendly towards his ignorance wouldnt have changed anything. I learned that friendliness (PC) only plays into the hands of these people. I know these people because I was like them once and had friends like them, was part of their "society". It buys them time, it makes them look less despicable than they actually are, it makes people ignore whats really going on. I am sick of sugar coating, newspeak. This has brought us to where we are. Its nothing more than lies. Read 1984 for some insight on how horrible this PC and newspeak already is. Smart people predicted all this. But nobody ever listened to them.

You know, I wasnt much different than these guys here once. I didnt want to believe all this stuff, or only partly. I tried to put it out of my mind with excuses like "stupid conspiracy theorists" or "these are just rare exceptions" or "nobody could have ever predicted it" and used mainstream media sources to make myself feel better if someone told me the harsh reality which I didnt want to accept, and yet knew deep in me that he was right.
I learned from those discussions. They werent pretty, but in the end those guys were absolutely 100% right, even though back then I hated them with a passion for telling me that straight to my face with no friendliness at all, because they saw that I supported this shit.
I didnt lose that passion, but I learned a lot from that.
I am disgusted by my former self when I now think back, how I supported this absolute human scum, how I let them use me as a tool, with their PC ways, lies, corruption and shiny things that are just gold coated turds.

I dont owe anyone an apology, who talks absolute bullshit, lies.
I owed those people an apology for what I said when I was like him. When I spewed out massive ignorance towards them, only to protect myself. And I actually apologized to them later, in the cases where I could still find them.

But yeah, its a waste of time. I said what I wanted to say. Trying to discredit everything or parts of what I said just because I wasnt politically correct, making myself a target for these irrelevant rhetorics (actually excuses) is the problem we have. "OMG he called me a bad thing! He must be a bad person! Nothing he says can be true! OMG! YAY! I CAN JUSTIFY IGNORING HIM NOW!" Do you even see the hypocrisy in that, calling my "attacks" ad hominem? Its funny, the term Whataboutism follows pretty much the same logic "OMG, he exposed my hypocrisy, so what do I do now! Oh right I am sure there is some rhetorical crap I can throw at him to discredit him! No... damn... Well then I simply invent it and call it... Whataboutism!! Yeah!" Thats how it was born. Not even I was that way back then. I thought about what those people said, even if they got really mad at me and called me MUCH worse things than I called people here. I never cared about how they said it. I cared about what they said, even though I didnt realize it back then.
So yeah. Accept it or dont. If facts cant penetrate ignorance, nothing can. Sugar coating it wont change a thing. Ignorant people are ignorant. And now I sounded like MJ in South Park. "Thats ignorant".

I meant not to be particularly argumentative, only contradictory. However, I feel that I have been forced into the position to return fire with fire, as it seems you lack the capability and or willingness to discuss something without attacking me, spewing meaningless information, circumventing reason, and drawing up arse about face codswallap for your conclusions.(Look mommy, I can curse to!!!!!!!)

Firstly, I should like to address your attacks against me...

Fox bubble? My god, were I to force myself to absorb and process information from such a low level of news broadcasting, I would reel in shock from the incursion into my sanity. Luckily, however, I live in the UK, and had to research Fox on Google to even understand the reference.

Now, to business.

The investigation.... a Red Herring?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3299310/Benghazi-probe-Hillary-Clinton-facing-months-FBI-investigation-emails.html

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2015/10/27/How-FBI-Could-Derail-Hillary-Clinton-s-Presidential-Run

http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/22/fbi-director-im-following-very-closely-the-investigation-into-hillary-clintons-emails-video/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3275919/Investigation-Hillary-s-email-server-focuses-Espionage-Act-10-years-jail-FBI-agent-says-prosecuted-jus
t-failing-tell-Obama.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-probe-of-clinton-e-mail-expands-to-second-data-company/2015/10/06/3d94ba46-6c48-11e5-b31c-d80d62b53e28_sto
ry.html

Research, see? Useful. For finding stuff like....INFORMATION.

Socialism:

http://fee.org/freeman/why-socialism-failed/

https://mises.org/library/greece-illustrates-150-years-socialist-failure-europe

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/01/greek-disaster-is-all-about-socialism.html

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/02/25/5-ways-socialism-destroys-societies-n1800086/page/full

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-socialism-collapsed-eastern-europe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Bit of light reading, don't worry, I am getting to a point...


"Mischaracterization of Obama's record" ??????

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2015/06/25/six-problems-with-the-aca-that-arent-going-away/

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/06/07/problems-with-obamacare-that-could-prove-difficult.aspx

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/09/so-long-as-you-ignore-the-problems-obamacare-is-perfect/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/obamacare-problems/

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-poll-disapprove-isis/2015/08/21/id/671190/

http://theweek.com/articles/589272/obamas-isis-failure

http://www.martinoauthor.com/list-obama-failures/

https://www.gop.com/obamas-biggest-failures/

Next, get a First Class Honours Masters Degree in Psychology from the University of Cambridge, and then spent five years of your life convincing rich people to give your bank their money(My job, by the way), carefully analyze anything Obama says about anything important, then come tell me my observations are "ridiculous" and "beyond contradicting".

As for Trump? Sure, all political candidates are devils in disguise. However, why don't you try to turn a mere million into a multi billion dollar empire and say you cant do anything for the economy?

You know how you get rid of 11 million people?

1. Dont let anymore in...

2. Ship the rest out with the Federal resources you already have...

3. Smile, because you just saved your bloody country:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/14/americas-heroin-epidemic-fueled-by-flood-of-illegal-immigrants/

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/04/isis-camp-a-few-miles-from-texas-mexican-authorities-confirm/

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/20678-report-with-cartel-help-isis-crossing-border-from-mexico

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/25/mexican-cartel-sicarios-crossed-texas-kidnapped-u-s-citizen/

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414969/mexican-drug-cartels-caused-border-crisis

http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=379605&CategoryId=10718

How do you make Mexico build a wall?

1. Stop official trade with Mexico until they give up and build it.

Wow... That was easy...

As for making China ignore our debt... Basically impossible, but that's who's fault?

Obama got you blinkered people into $18 Trillion dollars of debt with his hysterically shoddy plans, I can't believe no-one is smart enough to realize that simple and plain a truth.

No way on Earth his plans would even be tried? He is the Republican frontrunner... By popular poll.

You tried Obama's plans, and his bloody approval rating is (http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx). Its about time you Americans experienced some success in the world, don't you think?

Sod it all, I am tired, I could say more, but I await your response. May I request that you refrain from using vulgar language in response to an amicable post? As you can see by the content of my article here, I can be a ripe-mouthed cur, but is it truly necessary?

The cop was justified... Did it go too far- yep but the student caused this to happen.


Looks justified when intellectually competent persons analyze this.


Ignorant people ( well lest face it we are talking about the left) will see something different and the Black lives matter with Al Sharpton will be showing up soon. This will spur on the Anti cop / Cop killing is good propaganda causing a more downward spiral of society.



Justified !

Just like the cop that justifiably killed Michael Brown of Ferguson this cop will also loose job as a sacrificial lamb for the Left.

Perhaps she has another deck of cards ready to be selected from, quickly chooses the 4 of clubs (somehow), and then pushes that card into the visible deck through a hidden hole or as she's extracting them from the package?

After writing all that I went back and can't see anywhere she would have been able to pull another card from. She is holding the deck awfully tightly with what looks like a very specific grip, but not being a magic-doer I wouldn't be able to analyze what that means.

More like, why piano tuning methods need to be brought into the modern level of technology. Slap a spectrum analyzer on it, and tune each string absolutely.

What?
So, are you, like, suggesting Sarkeesian asked for it? What? Was her skirt too short and her top too slutty?
The woman did her job, analyzing entertainment products and their relationship to women, and got death- and rapethreats. That's exactly what Lewinsky talks about minus the shaming aspect. Yes, her talk is about shaming but that's only the spread on the shit-sandwich she got and is reviewing now.
It's about shitty people being themselves online, about modern mob behaviour. Both women suffered from that and both got their share of misogyny and abuse. What they did to get it isn't the issue, it's what's done to them. They may not sit in the same boat but Sarkeesian is certainly sitting in the 15 years more advanced version of it.

Yeah, the Mr. Plinkett stuff was always the least favourite bit of mine in their reviews. They're good, no, awesome!, at analyzing movies but kinda crap at making comedy.
Stick to your strengths, I say.

And yes, @ant, their Star Wars reviews rock!

Yes, I was wondering when you would trot out Hooker's paper and the 'CDC whistleblower" bit. You see, in the lack of clear scientific fact, conspiracy theorists tend to grab whatever they can to prove that they are right. I'll dissect your attempt right now.

First, Hooker's paper was covering the data involving African-American children with supposed predilection towards autism. The sample size was small, the math was ludicrous, and he incorrectly analyzed a cohort study. Because of the NUMEROUS failures to appropriately conduct a true scientific study, his paper was retracted. So, when exposed to the light, his theory was decidedly lacking in content and was canned.

http://retractionwatch.com/2014/08/27/journal-takes-down-autism-vaccine-paper-pending-investigation/

This incompetent study was the result, allegedly, of discussions between Hooker and a senior psychologist at the CDC named William Thompson. Hooker then teamed up with Andrew Wakefield to cherry pick bits to make it sound as though Thompson were confessing to some horrible crime of data manipulation to hide this “bombshell” result reported by Wakefield. Thus was born the “CDC whistleblower".

In February 2010, the General Medical Council in the U.K. recommended that Wakefield be stripped of his license to practice medicine in the U.K. because of scientific misconduct related to his infamous 1998 case series published in The Lancet, even going so far as to refer to him as irresponsible and dishonest, and in May 2010 he was. He is a now doing everything he can to prove his theories, like possibly illegal recording of conversations, so that he can regain some credibility. The guy is a hack.

Thompson has admitted to being prone to anxiety disorders, being delusional, and has shown that he is more scared of being 'the bad guy' then doing his job. His career is pretty much finished at the CDC, because he has shown that he will waffle if confronted by angry people who can't understand science. I feel sorry for him, but he has issues.

So, now we can address your link. A congressman, not a scientist, has received information from people who have been laughed out of the scientific community for multiple reasons. He sees buzzwords and decides to get ahead of the bandwagon, calling for further investigation and research. I can, of course, show you knee-jerk reactions by multiple members of congress similar to this, like Ted Cruz calling for immediate investigation into Planned Parenthood over the recent videos. You know, the ones that were chopped and spliced together to make it sound like PP was selling aborted babies? Do you see a pattern with the chop and splice for sensationalism? I hope you do.

In other words, you don't have any scientific facts. Like all anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorists, you rely on a few items that seem to tie together to form a true fact, but they don't. When confronted with this, you will say that it's all big pharma and money trails, etc. Do you not see the fallacy in that logic? It's like saying that the the earth was created 9000 years ago...because RELIGION!

Btw, if you want to place your trust in politicians trying to be scientists, I leave you with this gem from former congressman Paul Broun.

"You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I've found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don't believe that the earth's but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says."

@robdot

You're either trollin' or just real thick.

Yes, the simulation could in start an arbitrary place.
Yes, the devs could pre-programmed our knowledge of historical events.

That's besides the point, you're missing the point.

One philosophical tool we humans use to analyze the world is called - Occam's Razor.

Meaning, hypotheses that are overly complex should be simplified to their bare minimum in order to draw the best conclusions.

You COULD make a simulation with pre-programmed historical events.. and procedurally generated galaxies..

but that's even complex than simply setting up a few simple rules and variables.. and letting that simulation play out.

THE EVEN MORE GLARINGLY POINT THAT YOU KEEP GLOSSING OVER is..

It's much more likely that any civilization advance enough to create such simulations...

Would probably be extinct or too busy living in utopia to do so.

AGAIN, a point the author of the video concede MANY times.

So OF COURSE you'd never critically-analyze yourself and admit to being a racist prick at times.. @lantern53

You're a disingenuous liar, who lies to yourself everyday..

"Don't worry, self.. We're still a good person"

"Ignore those naysayers, self.. That arrest was mostly lawful so it's okay to lie about it"

"Psh don't be silly, self.. Those black teens MUST have been doing something criminal.. why else would the police be harassing them?"



And the cycle of cognitively-dissonant, racist cuntbags continues..

Can't wait for THIS bullshit explanation of how you're..

"totally-not-a-liar"

..despite the comment where you openly gloat about doing so..


*grabs even more popcorn*

That was a rhetoric question.

Your brain literally refused to see that..

The grass is ON FIRE on the other side of the fence, Lantern.

And you just to looove to telling the internet, videosift in particular, about how you can totally help put out that fire..

..with MORE FIRE!

So, no..

By no means do I EVER think you'd sit down with a person of color - not even your son-in-law - and sincerely discuss the repugnant shit you say here.

You're too much of a coward - like most bigots - to analyze your worldview and adjust it appropriately.

Just like all conservative-minded folks. You're scared.

You just want everything to be exactly like Happy Days, again.
You just want Baseball, Apple Pie, & the 'Murican Dream to live again!

Silly nostalgic old dog, you.

I can almost sympathize. /s

Moral of the story:
Analyzing movies ruins them.

@newtboy With contentious topics like this, the conversation is barely "adult".

It's nitpicky and tangential because everyone thinks they alone are adding some great insight to the discussion.

@Babymech hopped on the "Anita doesn't owe anyone anything" cart.

@Trancecoach was closer to base but then got all "you see, it's really the blacks that are the problem"

@ChaosEngine choose the "well youtube comments are generally insulting & abusive.. therefore it's okay to block valid criticism too!"

Great, what does that have to do with the message of the speaker.
Or my point of "hey, why are you completely avoiding the overall message of the speaker"

Furthermore, what's the difference between Baby's condescending tone and my outright insults?

Both are belittling & incongruent with "adult" behavior/conversation.

Ultimately, he too is trying to swat down argument/opinion that doesn't mesh with his.

Regardless of my brash way of speaking, my points are still valid.

I do my research. I don't talk about topics I'm ignorant on.
And as I said, I was once a fan of Anita Sarkeesian and her videos.

Then I ran into her bullshit.

There's tons of evidence on youtube that points out Sarkeesian's hypocrisy.

So if you're uninformed, why not take it upon yourself.. to educate yourself.

You folks are barely any better then lantern or bobknight with your knee-jerky devils' advocate defense of a pseudo-intellectual prestige-hound who is unscrupulous in the way she pursues her agenda.

Next you're gonna tell me that somehow Bill Cosby isn't a date-rapist.

"Well you know, it was only 25-30 women with identical experiences/anecdotes. ..MJ is still definitely a pederast tho."

My point here is:

You all frame this video with your personal opinion BEFORE analyzing the entirety of it's message & context.

I get that, because it's a pot-stirrer.
But seriously, if you just think it out:

A - Gamergate is first world problem bullshit
B - It has garnered unwarranted hype and a counter-cult of white-knight SJW supporters.
C - It's being conflated with an ACTUAL very serious set of issues.
Online Harassment. Slut shaming. The depiction & plight of genders in pop culture. etc.
D - Actual victims & movements, ON BOTH SIDES, are being undermined by this frenzy.

Juxtapose that with the brutal home invasion & sexual assault..

Then ask yourself if the nitpicky personal opinion you're about to express maintains the situation & context.

Otherwise, you end up expressing terrible mindless thoughts like @Babymech.
in effect - "regardless of her peer's brutal rape.. she has no right to expect an outspoken proponent of women's rights.. to respond to her.. or call attention to the most disparaged & vulnerable/easily victimized members of society, female sex workers"

This is why the videosift community can barely be taken seriously.

It's like 4chan flamewars for boring old people.

..now everyone is on my case for [aggressively] pointing this out.



PHO PHO PHO PHO PHO Bun cha gio, mmm.

The one thing that I don't like about the One Ring explanation:

It turns you invisible, unless you are the one person for whom it was actually designed (Sauron).

To me, it seems like the rings of power and especially the one ring should grant a more consistent actual power than that. The three elven rings made by Celebrimbor outside the influence of the one are much better examples.

Narya is the "ring of fire", and in the timeline of LoTR it is held by Gandalf. Which makes sense, because he does a lot of fire-related stuff with his magic. Nenya is the "ring of water" held by Galadriel, and Vilya the "ring of air" held by Elrond. These are used less consistently in the books (or movies), but one movie example is the flood that helped save Frodo and get him to Rivendell. In the movie, the flood is shown as being made of water with horse shapes surging through it, which suggest the magical influence of both Nenya and Vilya (water and air) working together. Anyway, those 3 rings have a consistent and fairly well established list of powers associated with their "elemental" attachments, fire, water, and air.

But the one ring lacks that consistency. It is supposed to help Sauron with his urge to dominate, but it doesn't really explain how that works. It doesn't make him invisible; only others who wear it. Also, it helps him to control or at least influence the wearers of the other rings. That is probably the best, most established power of the one ring, but it is also a bit shaky because wearers other than Sauron don't get those abilities. It seems to make other wearers just more susceptible to corruption, greed, and lust for power.

To me, I think it would be more interesting if the one ring actually granted a more specific power, unique to the psychological state of the wearer. The consistently presented thing about the one ring is that it corrupts, and nothing corrupts more than power. So basically, I think that the one ring should be analyzing whoever wears it, and granting them a unique power that is specifically designed to provide them with their greatest source of temptation to abuse that power.

The invisibility power actually makes a lot of sense for hobbits. As presented in the video here, they generally aren't very ambitious. BUT, hobbits are established as being stealthy beings by default, so granting them invisibility is a good source of temptation to turn that stealthiness into more nefarious purpose. So, I don't mind that the three main hobbit (or hobbit-like) wearers (Gollum/Smeagol, Bilbo, Frodo) all consistently get the invisibility power out of the ring.

Human wearers like Isildur would have less consistent powers granted by the rings, because they have more diverse motivations than hobbits. Just as an example, I'd think that Isildur would be motivated by martial prowess and leadership after watching his father killed by Sauron and the human/elven armies decimated at the end of the second age. So, the ring could perceive that about him and grant him physical power and charisma to lead -- both of which would be very easily turned to corruption. Invisibility just doesn't logically provide the same level of temptation for someone like Isildur.

Finally we come to Sauron himself. He is already an exception to the "ring grants invisibility" concept. But for him, the ring should (and arguably does) represent power and control. Sauron had to put on a false face and play the role of deceiver to get Celebrimbor and the other elves to accept him and create the other rings. Having to stoop to that rather than simply crushing them made him despise that sort of approach; after creating the one ring he cast that aside and became all about sheer power and domination, rather than trickery and deception. So, I see the ring's powers granted to Sauron himself as being sort of a conversion of those cunning/deceptive abilities into might, self preservation, and overwhelming mental dominance that allows him to control his orc armies.


Sorry for the length of that -- I have just always felt that the established powers of the one ring would be a bit more interesting if they led to corruption through real power granted to the wearers, rather than "it makes them invisible, but not Sauron, and in general corrupts them, just because".