was it brave for him to drive his motorcycle over a cliff at 65?

was it a heroic act for that kid to help the old guy down the escalator? personally I thought that one was borderline racist

Sorry, but crawling out for help is not "brave".

Bravery is putting yourself at risk to help other people. Putting yourself through pain in order to survive is mere survival instinct. Most times, bravery is the opposite of survival instinct. People who run up to burning cars to help the occupants out are brave. Soldiers who storm machine gun nests are brave.

That word has been so watered down by the contemporary American need for "heroes" it's becoming meaningless.

she looks so young; very brave combined with young and possibly naive

I think by "altimate" what @bobknight33 really meant to say is "alt-right" - AKA the bullshit propaganda he sees on Alex Jones etc.

I like how, massive scandal, obstruction of justice, possible treason, like god-damnit, it's possible that people at the highest levels committed outright TREASON and Bob's worried about semantics. Where was your sense of moderation for Obama, Bob? You were ready to hang him for enjoying spicy mustard (I know, that's so much more un-American than selling your soul and country to the Russians so they can bail-out your bankrupt ass like Trump, right?

So, I'll stop asking if you're getting tired of winning. Joke's growing old. Instead, I'll ask. Do you think this is winning? Do you think America is winning under Trump? Do you think Trump is winning? Do you think Trump makes your life better and Obama made your life worse?

I'm just curious to gauge the level of your delusion here, but I'd genuinely love to hear your answers. Not that I think you're brave enough to admit the truth, but it would be nice to get it from you at least once.

People aren't allergic to cat hair itself, the reaction comes from their saliva. Cat allergies can be reduced a lot if you are brave enough to bathe kitteh regularly.

I agree that NoScript tends to make it a hassle to get basic functionality out of the vast majority of the web. You have to play around with allowing scripts from some domains and not others, on pretty much every page you visit.

...Which is pretty scary, if you think about it. Are all of those cross-site scripts beneficial or even necessary from a user standpoint? Hell no. Users stand to gain nothing from all that crap running. From our perspective, they just increase load times and data usage, often compounded with auto-reloading. We should have control over that stuff in all circumstances, but it becomes absolutely critical in mobile internet where we generally don't have as much processing power AND the vast majority of people have data usage caps.

Basically what I'm saying is, the admitted fact that NoScript tends to make the web unusable is a symptom of a deeper problem with how the web is constructed these days.

If you like the idea of NoScript, but generally find it too high-maintenance, you might want to try Privacy Badger. It requires somewhat less user input with regards to which trackers/scripts get blocked, instead going with defaults based on "trustworthiness" as measured by algorithms from the EFF. Those defaults can be tweaked if you desire, also.

I usually run a Firefox (or Pale Moon) client that is extremely locked down. UBlock Origin, NoScript, Privacy Badger, Self-Destructing Cookies, sometimes Ghostery, etc. I use that as my default browser, and take the time to fine-tune the controls in NoScript, element hiding in uBlock, etc. for sites that I visit regularly.

But frequently, I'll find a link to some article that I want to read and notice that the page content won't load at all since it requires some nonsensical script. In those cases, if I don't want to take the time to fiddle with NoScript etc. permissions, I copy the URL and fire up Chrome in incognito mode, with only uBlock Origin.

Probably not worth the hassle for most people, but I guess I'm kicking and screaming my way into this brave new world.

1. You don't speak for all trans/POC/gays etc, so you can only describe your personal experience. There are a number of documented trans people who agree with Peterson and don't want the state strong arming people in to mouthing the words...

2. Peterson does not promote transphobia, he resists being forced to speak certain words. They are not synonymous. If the fuckwits yelling their heads off spent the time to listen, they'd understand that.

3. Peterson was fine with the idiots at the event chucking a trantrum because it showed them up to be the intolerant idiots, not him. He was calm and reasonable, and if they had listened to him then put questions to him, they may have advanced whatever cause they claim to represent. Instead they came across as a pack of morons. /shrug

4. You talk about drawing lines around things, lines that should not be crossed, but without people daring to propose going outside those lines, gay rights would not be a thing... You see? It takes a brave person to step outside the lines and propose something that may be offensive to some. Same with women rights, transgender folk etc.

5. You have the right to be offended. You do not have the right to not be offended.

6. Mobs strongarming people in to silence has far more to do with Nazi ideology than resisting being forced to speak certain words. It's okay to punch Nazi's right?? \= )

self *promote what I think is an important piece of this story.
If there was nothing to hide, why do they keep lying under oath about their repeated pre-election contact with Russian diplomats?

I keep wondering, how is there any question for anyone about Trump and Russia colluding? He did it in public, specifically and clearly asking Putin directly to hack the DNC and Clinton's emails and release them, which Russia then did in short order, in a nationally broadcast speech. There is absolutely no way around it, he asked for Russian intervention in the election publicly during the campaign, and he got exactly what he asked them for.....then the right elected him. WTF?!?

The terrifying part to me is, now that Sessions is AG, he and others could direct the feds to destroy the evidence of the collusion, or have it classified so we'll never hear about it without some brave soul willing to risk a treason charge themselves, and as someone under investigation for Russian collusion himself, he is the person heading the investigation into the Russian involvement. He should be at least put on leave if not removed immediately to preclude him from using his power to stymie and destroy the case against himself and his cronies.
A special prosecutor is needed badly, ASAP, since every member of the Trump team seems to be firmly involved in this treason, and they've clearly shown a willingness to lie about it under oath to congress. Without the recordings of what they actually said, which exist, they can and already have made up any ridiculous BS lies they like and their base will accept it as fact....even after irrefutable proof that they're lying is produced, they'll just call it "fake news" because they don't like the source or information.

Carter is the only president from my lifetime that I would break bread with. By far the most honest, thoughtful, moral, brave, and humane of all I've seen. All that have come after him are completely lacking in all of those traits. (Cue Bob's knee jerk rant about how he's the worst ever and a coward).

*doublepromote

@vil Perhaps. It is also a standard exercise in acting classes.

Instead of the teacher calling things out, it is the participants who say something true about themselves. It is to teach students to be honest, and brave, and to see that they are not freaks. Much like this video. (Although how do you know this isn't real, this "ad"? People could have volunteered to do this. Although the single bisexual didn't ring true to me -- either folks were lying or it is indeed scripted.)

Anyway, in the acting exercise, instead of boxes on the floor, it is just people standing around. Someone calls out something true about themselves, and people who have done that join them, those who haven't move away and cluster together, so you end up with two groups. Constantly moving, constantly changing, the power shifting, the emotions shifting. It is great fun and can be scary as hell as you decide how honest you want to be. How honest you CAN be.

Two favorite memories of this exercise in classes I took:

1. A guy calls out -- "everyone who has ever peed in a sink". Every guy in the class joins him -- and one woman. We all about lost it.

2. Here in PT, small town, had a class with about 25 people in it. One brave man, Jim P, I'll never forget -- he had the bravery to call out -- "everyone who has ever had a restraining order placed against them." And everyone moved away from him and he stood there alone. Only time I have ever seen that happen, someone standing alone.

@bcglorf
i have no issue with disagreement.
i have read many of hedges books,and to see his evolution over the years really should not surprise anyone.

we all have an evolution of sorts when we continue to investigate,and challenge our own preconceptions.the intelligent man or woman,will accept this new information,and change their conclusions accordingly.the hyper-partisan and/or rigid fundamentalist,will dismiss this new information because it conflicts with their dearly held preconceptions.

some people struggle with a changing landscape,and prefer to reside in their own comfort zones.

i like hedges because he challenges and criticizes power,but he also tends to speak in apocalyptic verbiage.

i also respect hedges because he does back up his opinions with actual sources.now we can disagree with his conclusions,but how he came to those conclusions,he is quite clear.

on a side note:i cannot watch or read hedges for extended periods due to the fact that what he is pointing out is so damn depressing.

but he is incredibly consistent in regards to criticizing power.

which,in my opinion,is so very vital in these times,because we see the majority of corporate media revealing a reverence and fealty to corporate power.

chris hedges has earned my respect.
but i do not demand that everyone read or listen to him.

and speaking only for myself,i refuse to dismiss a viewpoint simply because it may be on a venue of questionable intent.
i read the american conservative,though this is a website funded by pat buchanon.i do so because the american conservative produces some damn fine content,with journalists who source their material.

i may disagree with their conclusions,but i cannot ignore the quality of their work.

this is the same reason why i no longer do work for crooks and liars and the young turks and good god..SLATE.does this mean that everything they produce is utter shit?

no..of course not,but they all have taken a book out of the FOX model, and became hyper-partisan,faux outrage machines.

now let us take this video,which so happens to be on RT.
what is it that hedges is saying that is WRONG? or false? or a lie?

i have no issue with disagreement,nor skepticism,but is anything he is saying really that controversial?
what is he saying that should be dismissed?
should his words simply be dismissed due to him being on RT?

if we refuse to accept the words,or conclusions from any public personality,simply because of the media that they happen to be on,then..in my opinion..we relegate ourselves to a handful of outlets,and it diminishes the conversation.

is it any wonder or surprise that those academics that are critical of power are NEVER seen on corporate media?
that those brave and courageous journalists and academics are forced to the fringes in order to get their messages out.

we can disagree with their messages and conclusions,but for us to even have the OPTION to disagree.they need a media outlet in order to even put the word out.

do you see what i am saying?

i am probably wording this wrong,and producing more confusion than clarity,but when the corporate media controls who and what gets to be discussed,debated and argued.then THEY are the ones who set the agenda.they are the ones who set the lines of discussion and the parameters of that discussion.

and people like hedges have not been invited to the table for decades.

it appears that any journalist,or academic that is critical of power are relegated to the fringes.

you will never see noam chomsky on FOX,or MSNBC,or CNN.

but you will see them on independent media.
such as democracy now,or the real news and yes...venues like RT and aljazeera english.

i probably totally messed my point up,but it is in there somewhere.
i am just gonna stop right here,because now i am just rambling.

I hate disagreeing with you, but I come at things differently. When I find an individual or new outlet is willing to wilfully obstruct and manipulate the truth, I stop trusting them and rarely waste my time with listening to it anymore. In the rare instance they have a story that seems important that isn't sourced anywhere else, or something otherwise unique I'll sometimes look, but always fact checking what is said. The amount of time that can be wasted on fact checking is why I largely dismiss strongly biased sources.

Fox and MSNBC are good examples, but RT puts them to shame.

Chris Hedges I was only familiar with in name, and not reputation. The fact he was speaking on RT was enough for me to dismiss him out of hand. The fact you seemed to think he was a lone credible individual got me to look further.

On looking further I'd encourage you to read Hedges own work form Nov 8, 2001:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/08/world/a-nation-challenged-the-school-defectors-cite-iraqi-training-for-terrorism.html

Despite the fact he's appeared earnest and genuine in the instances you've seen him, and despite him seemingly bravely standing against the American administration and it being an act of character to speak out against the war, the above article seems to reveal Chris Hedges true nature. He was a paid lackey of American propaganda to prop up the lead in to the Iraq war, but at some point afterwards Russia paid better and now he's singing the tune of the current highest bidder.

I wish I could say I'm surprised to find it, but an RT report or opinion piece on why Russia is innocent of something turns out to be being forwarded by somebody clearly willing to be completely two faced when the money is good.

The folks who seem the most hardened on the outside? It seems they are that way because of their brave unflinching souls.

A carapace is needed for daily interactions.

Nicely done, my friend.

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore,
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
A home and a Country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash’d out their foul footstep’s pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

How many poor frogs and mice and hamsters braved the throats and butts of man?!