Your video, Casually Explained: Donald Trump, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

The friend zone casually explained:

Just because you like someone doesn't mean they're required to like you back and someone not constantly considering how you want to fuck them doesn't mean you're being slighted.

How is "the friend zone" even still a thing? Jesus.

Absolutely not a straw man when the statement it contradicts was "The idea that some lives matter less is the root of all that's wrong with the world.”
At what point do you decide (for yourself, the only one you get to decide for) 'sentience' exists? Shrimp? Crabs? If so, then logically also mosquitos, gnats, and ticks.
Also, why have YOU decided so capriciously that 'sentience' is the measure of a life's worth? What, if anything, do you base that decision on? Perhaps a sense of biological superiority?

BUT you insist others adopt YOUR definitions of non violence, oppression, exploitation, others, property.

Again, you insist that "every human believes" something you believe. That's absolutely not true of ANYTHING, and totally wrong about this topic...clearly. It clearly doesn't 'when it concerns humans' or we wouldn't be murdering and torturing each other as we are.

We clearly disagree that animal consumption is the MAIN issue globally....just as we clearly disagree that it's even a possibility for humanity to switch to a purely vegetarian diet...pasture land is not the same as farmable land.

There are certainly ecological issues with meat production on the scale and in the manner we do it today...there was no such issue when the population being fed was 1/10 what it is today....no one burned massive portions of the rainforests to raise cattle 150 years ago, they didn't need to.

When I see a video like this that highlights people being kind to animalS (the dog AND the bird) it's disturbing that people are so disconnected with normalcy that they see a connection with murder and torture....or that they see murder and torture where it doesn't exist, and disturbing that they feel the need to shit on the happy video comments with a 'but you're all murdering bastards...feel bad and capitulate'.

Yeah, again, I don't click random links, and I don't get science from the internet, no need to read any vegan propaganda. Thanks

Ask 10 people on the street if they think it's OK to humanely raise animals for consumption, 9.95 of them will say "yes".
Now you are equating intentional harm with unintentional harm, equating intentional frivolous casual injuring and killing for pleasure with occasional unintentional injuring and killing for an essential purpose.

Part 1 Casually Explained: Evolution

Sadly I'm going to have to call 'fake'.

First, "project blue beam" is a conspiracy theory idea that claims things like the planes that flew into the twin towers were really holograms, or that there's an alien invasion program creating odd holographic images to confuse humans, or aliens are using holograms to present us with a false messiah/Jesus/Gawd/4 horsemen of the apocalypse. Uh...yeah.
Second, I notice that only a single person in the background audience has a reaction that might be attributed to seeing a whale jump at you, the rest just clap casually.
Third, there are many clear artifacts at the whale's edge where they photoshopped it in.

I wish holograms were at this level today, and they should be, but they aren't. Projecting white into a bright 3D space doesn't work without smoke or mist to project on, and even then it's only really visible when the surroundings are darker.

It's good to see him again.
He has such a casual style you feel like you hanging out with him.

Further down on the Onion...

Here is a step-by-step guide to how U.S. Supreme Court justices are selected:

Step 1: Supreme Court vacancy opens after a sitting justice dies, retires, or is promoted to the Galactic Circuit
Step 2: President wistfully crosses out own name from list of potential candidates
Step 3: Official presidential nominee slowly lowered by rope into Senate Judiciary Committee pit
Step 4: Nominee charged one-time $30 background check fee
Step 5: Candidate asked whether they see themselves in exact same place 35 years from now
Step 6: Judiciary Committee members ask nominee whether they capable of writing a dissent that could be described as “blistering”
Step 7: Candidate attests they have no opinion whatsoever on issue of abortion, don’t know what it is, and frankly have never heard such a word uttered before
Step 8: Senate takes nominee out to drinks to see how they act in casual, informal setting
Step 9: Nominee stands as their predecessor’s robe is draped over them to see if government can save a few bucks on not ordering a new one
Step 10: Following months of direct questioning, witness testimony, and poring over the nominee’s qualifications and judicial history, the Senate votes on whether they like the president or not
Step 11: If confirmed, justice takes oath of office and is assigned a bench buddy to help them through their first few opinions
Step 12: If candidate not confirmed, process repeats indefinitely until other party holds White House or country is awash in the hot, crimson blood of neighbor killing neighbor, whichever comes first

To be fair, that is a Hugh Jass rare-earth (neodymium) magnet, that costs $40 more than the safe (quick search example- $173 vs. safe $134), and not likely that a casual thief would have it on hand. Good for a locksmith to invest in though.

I would like to see them test progressively smaller magnets, to see what the smallest is that would still do the trick.

Oh god, downfall videos were MADE for this. It makes me uncomfortable how much I laughed at the casual antisemitism

@Sayja
i can agree that that this is not a zero sum situation.

but i have to disagree that this video,or even the other video i posted has anything to do with 'mens rights".

and i have to take you to task for your specious claim that 'there seem to be a lot of men on the internet that feel threatened by feminism".

while i cannot speak for anybody other than myself,i can quite confidently state that i personally,do not feel threatened by feminism,but i find this "intersective third wave feminism" to be a form of feminism that,until recently i have been wholly unaware of ,to be out of touch and nothing that resembles the feminism i grew up with.

and i think that distinctions differentiating the two forms of feminism extremely important.

equality,fairness and justice are noble ideals to fight for and classic feminism did just that.it took amazing courage for those women to stand up and fight for issues regarding women.
see:suffragist movement of the 1800's.

or the bra-burners of the 60's fighting for their sexual rights and rejecting traditional social norms.that they owned their bodies and therefore.their future.

even the proud women of the 70's 80's and 90's who brought to light the casual nature of our society in regards to womens sexuality and heightened rape awareness.

what i find most disturbing,and i am struggling to understand (and maybe you can help me in that regard) is how the feminist movement which has taken courage and determination,addressing real and actual womens issues,has been perverted into this weird,perpetual victimhood decrying the "oppressive patriarchy".

because this new feminism is threatening and is garnering actual real life consequences.
see: stephanie guthrie vs greg elliot
see:the duke lacrosse players

cases where you don't actually have to BE harassed,you just have to "FEEL" as if you are being harassed.

or where you can accuse three boys of rape,get the coach fired and ruin three boys lives,and when it is revealed to all be a fabrication?

the accuser walks away with zero consequences.

so i find it delicious irony when some will defend these "third wave' feminists and state EMPHATICALLY,that words have consequences and that these men SHOULD pay a price for their words.

yet the accusers rarely,if ever,pay for THEIR words.no consequences for THEIR misrepresentation.they just falsely accused.which had real world consequences.

hypocrisy much?

and where was this "oppressive patriarchy" swooping in to protect these men?

can you explain how that is morally,or intellectually consistent?
because it appears to me to be pretty damn hypocritical.

so this woman disagrees with the current trend of feminism.
that is her right and she explains why she disagrees.
does this mean she deserves the death threats and threats of physical violence from these feminists?

so if you could explain to me this "third wave feminism" i would really appreciate it my friend,because i dont get it and it is a real break from the philosophical feminism that have grown accustomed.

Agree with @spawnflagger -- that casual interview was great! Although maybe the #1 highlight for me was the "hardest hitting" question about what sport politics is most similar to. I wonder what Obama would identify as one of the times when he hit the hole and saw things open up downfield...

original embed was really poor, lots of buffering, so I watched on Crackle app instead.

Was nice to see president "interviewed" in a casual way. Was also nice that he got to drive the 'vette, even if only on the grounds (normally secret service doesn't allow president to drive anything anywhere).

It's worth noting though that in Europe the word Gypsy, or variants of Zigane / Zigeuner, is a racial slur and used in modern times in actual, horrifying violence against minorities. I mean to the point where it's used by the same people who paint swastikas on walls before they raze tent villages.

http://www.newstatesman.com/human-rights/2014/04/why-europe-failing-protect-its-roma-population-hate-crimes

In the US this is obviously not a thing, and it still doesn't make sense to me to start writing G*p*y (I just see 'guppy' when I read that) but there is a history of racism against the Romani going back centuries, as well as a modern culture of extreme marginalization and exclusion.

I don't want Europeans to go around casually using the N-word and thinking that that's only a disgusting term when it's used in the US, so I guess I wouldn't want Americans going around casually saying Gypsy either, if it can be avoided?

@Jinx

I am a bit confused. Earlier you used the word "conned" to describe the game, now you say it's not a hoax.

Aside from that, you certainly have voiced legitimate concerns. I'm also sick and tired of the usual pre-order business model. I decided that after playing the utter mess that was the Halo: Master Chief Collection for Xbox that I would never pre-order a game again. It's one thing to buy a game on day one, but yeah, in the usual sense, pre-orders need to die.

Thing is though...this is a kickstarter, thus the rules are different, by it's very nature, you HAVE to sell promises and pre-orders, or at the very least, contribution promises/swag/perks/etc. It's an alternative to going to a publisher and begging them for money to make the game and risk having the publisher exert creative control over the game/product/etc and whatever other compromises a publisher might force a developer to make. How many games have been utter shite because the publisher meddled and forced a game out before it was ready. Too many.

With kickstarters, it's the other way around. Backers demand that a game not be released before it's ready, but now the hype train has to start chugging along WAY earlier than a publisher-backed game in order to generate interest, because now the publishers are the backers and this is happening long before a game even gets to an alpha stage.

There is a risk with any kickstarter. If it was anyone other than Chris Roberts, I doubt I would have backed it. I backed the Shadowrun games mainly because it was being run by the guy who created the game originally and that turned out to be successful...twice. I'll be going for the hat-trick with the Battletech game they're working on now. Chris Roberts and Jordan Weisman both have solid reputations and have demonstrated they can make solid games. If it was Derek Smart or someone relatively unknown, I doubt I would have backed.

I find it interesting how the detractors are coming from various levels. Some of the detractors seem to be against kickstarters in general. Some seem to be against SC specifically and I think others are simply against it just because they want to see something ambitious crash and burn....and then there's Derek Smart who seems to have a personal, unhinged, vendetta against Chris Roberts.

Regardless of how successful SC will or won't be. SC is still a niche game by the very fact that it's a space sim. Even if it is a complete and total success, it's going to be a very complex game with a crazy amount of information to absorb and it will be difficult to be good at it. It is not for the casual gamer. So it will never reach mass appeal or become a widely recognized franchise like, say, Halo or Call of Duty. I think that is part of the appeal. A couple decades ago, publishers as a whole gave space sims the middle finger, but now thanks to crowdfunding, space sims are making a comeback.

Roberts has clearly tapped into something or people wouldn't be giving him money. He originally only asked for 2 million dollars, so even he didn't think it was going to be this big. (Europe is going absolutely bonkers for Space Citizen, they're way more into SC than we are in America)

Sure, that sucks more than usual, but again padlocks aren't for locking up valuable things. They prevent opportunistic casual theft. They're one step above luggage locks--only better than a nylon zip-tie because they can be reused.

If you use this with the intention of keeping out the class of people who might know this trick or bring tools along for their burgling, (like say a $20 bolt cutter that will do for most any padlock) you're doing it wrong.