Uhh, Johnny Cash would knock you out for suggesting such a thing-Country music has devolved from quaint cliche to flavor-of-the-weak artless poop maybe??

Hipsters trying too hard to look like they're not trying is almost cliche at this point.

Very high-quality rendering and lighting. Otherwise that was quite terrible from my perspective. Full of cliches. Their character artist needs to go the fuck to school. The anatomy on the protagonist is completely fucked in the most amateur of ways.

I have been rigorously studying this video for the past 8 weeks and my findings are as such:

"This mad stupid* yo."

IN CONCLUSION! This guy's a slime douche to the max and this video, while seemingly appearing accurate enough to some on the grounds of the basest, most low hanging fruit-esque generalizing sweep of cliched male-female interactions one might come across in various U.S. coastal cities, this run-on sentence is actually a quicksand trap of words and why are you still reading it? Care to guess how many Artax's I've caught and consumed with a sentence like the one above?

Just one. Artax, baby jesus de christo rest his equine spirit, was a one of a kind! One of a kind.

How does garbagio like this make it to top 5? I mean, come on!


*Stupid bad, not stupid cool.

I can't say I agree with Simon, but I certainly don't agrfee with Ebert, Siskel, or (sorry) bluecliff. Star Wars was pretty crappy when it first came out, in every way but special effects, and none of the subsequent episodes got any better. A trite, cliched story combined with wooden acting and moronic, stilted dialog don't make for a good time, in my opinion.

The shameless flipflopping and revisionist history Lucas presented over the years since then pretty well sealed my distaste. First, it had nothing to do with Campbell's Hero's Journey (my guess is that he had no idea who Campbell was at that time), then later, when Campbell became such a fad, well of -course- it was inspired by the Hero's Journey all along. Even Hollywood types should be able to provide a better fake sincerity than Lucas.

Do people really prefer to have video presented like this, with the jittery flash-cuts that were a fucking cliche 20-30 years ago? It has this desperate "please-don't-change-the-channel" feel to it that always makes me change the channel.

It's full of cliches, but I don't care! Looks awesome

Ugh. He segues from the tired old friend-zone cliché to the friend-zone somehow being a part of the feminist idea of rape culture. He then goes on to assume de facto blame for a crime (i.e., he looks in the mirror and sees a monster) that neither happened nor would've had anything to do with him in the first place even if it had happened.

All because he was a guy who made the horrible mistake of wanting to have sex with girls.

I agree that sex shouldn't be "owed," but... having known plenty of guys like this, they're just looking for more ways to game the system. They snivel and they prostrate themselves and they only ever say the things they imagine women would like them to say and they never say anything that they imagine a woman wouldn't want them to say, and they do all this because they want women to throw them a bone. They imagine that if they do everything right, if they follow every rule in the book and never ask any questions and never take issue with anything the women around them say, they will finally become worthy of sex.

What inevitably happens is that only the most insecure (and usually crazy, too) of their female friends will bother with the guy while the rest of them find guys who don't spend their time crawling at their feet and calling themselves evil disgusting rape culture-supporting perverts just because they think it's what they're supposed to do.

There's nothing heroic about what this guy said. If anything, it's tragic that he should feel that he almost raped a girl when all he did was feel betrayed because she wouldn't sleep with him, but would sleep with her next boyfriend. As if he's somehow sick and evil just because he has emotions.

Christ that was awful. An collection of tired cliches.

I hadn't even noticed that the loathing of this band had become so ubiquitous as to become cliché.

I'm pretty happy about it, though.

Really, I'm just so tired of all these retro-fetishist, nature-romanticist hipsters with their beards and their work boots and their flannel shirts, treating masculinity as an accessory because they honestly just don't know any better. They're all just perpetual adolescents who for the life of them cannot seem to figure out what it means to become an adult. So they try to find shortcuts.

Dylan was pretentious, but he was also a genius lyricist. Seriously, no bandwagon here, and I don't know if I'd call him the greatest songwriter of all time, but... he was good. Dylan was also highly political, and could be fairly incisive, while these confused little boys, all these hipster douchebags who seem to think that honesty can be bought at a thrift store, only ever sing about flowers and trees and broken hearts.

And they're all the same. Always. As a group, they are so homogenous that it becomes offensive to me.

Actually it's pretty easy to disarm someone within 3 feet of you -- the closer they are the better. (Bruce Lee popularized the idea but it's a concept that's been around for a long time.) We did it the other way though so as to break the trigger finger and keep the gun to the outside.
No need for a water pistol -- I would do this experiment.
I would get in front of a student, hands at my side. I WOULD TELL him: "I'm going to smack you in the forehead with my open hand. All you have to do is stop me. Ready?"
Within 3 feet you will always tag them EVEN WHEN THEY KNOW IT'S COMING. The human brain cannot perceive motion and react to it fast enough. Go ahead and try it for yourself...
The Hollywood cliche where one guy has a gun to the other guy's forehead makes me laugh. Dude could easily pluck that gun from him.
Now if the gunman is any further than 3 feet from you... then you ARE in trouble.

Why isn't refusing a breathalyzer the same as exercising your right to remain silent? How is this medical procedure different from any other, and how can any medical procedure be forced upon someone like this? Oh, wait... Georgia...

NM

Leave it to a FOX affiliate to spin it in the way they did. And interviews with cops... just piss me off. So predictable, so many cliché and standard PR responses. "Our safefty", "safety of the suspect", "it's ok because a JUDGE approves it". Cops either need to start refusing to do shit like this en masse and lose their jobs, or risk the inevitable Purge.

Can't quite believe so many think these exceptions to the 4th was all fine and dandy. Ok, the consitution isnt some sacred truth handed down from God himself but surely this bit is more relevant today than when it was written? America so busy spreadin "freedom" and "democracy" maybe they got none left no more?

Its cliched and all but, you do this and the terrorists win yo.

The problem with this is how Americans continue to mistake the office of the president as this all powerful dictator position.

The office of the president is not a kingship, it is not totalitarian. It is one branch of three and it's not even the most powerful branch. Congress is the most powerful branch.

So whenever we have these scandals (left or right) the focus is always on the president even though they may or may not have anything to do with it. I'm not saying they're blameless, but they're certainly not the ringleader. There may be no ringleader. Whenever we have this scandal, there's always this mistaken notion that it was some grand conspiracy with very specific aims and goals and I don't think that is typically the case. I think most of these scandals are simply born out of laziness or negligence or simply just protecting one's ass. Government is a big machine (even in the right wing fantasy of small gov't, it will always be big) and it's more likely it's some unintentional screwup than some pre-meditated maneuver.

IMO, this is most evident during Bush's administration. The guy is obviously not that bright. There was something else going on behind the scenes pulling the strings. Even though Obama certainly is far more intelligent, it still doesn't change a thing that there is a bigger machinery at work and one person alone doesn't steer the boat.

And no I'm not talking about some cliche'd Iluminati-style group. You've just got a large go'vt mechanism that wields a lot of power and it's run by fallible people which is a far simpler plausible explanation.

The only way it's going to be better is if people demand it. But we don't even have half the nation voting. So you have a better than 50 percent chance that any time you hear someone complaining about the gov't...they probably didn't vote.

This idea is old. We used to have kings and dictators, but eventually people demanded something different so they came up with councils and parliaments and congresses, etc that wielded the real power, but they kept the kings and queens as a distraction, as a symbol even though they lost the bulk of their power.

Again, I'm not saying the office of the president is blameless, i'm just trying to inject some perspective.

A few questions...
ANYBODY who doesn't give 110% to their career will not reach the highest levels of that career?
Are you saying that Georgew W. gave 110% to become President? Well, if that what he delivered is what it takes to get the job, it's a shame I can't run for office. I wouldn't even have to put on pants to come across as less idiotic as he did.
Are you really buying into this "Just give everything and you'll get there" myth? 'Cause that's not how the real world works for everyone. Have you ever been denied a deserved promotion? That is not that uncommon, especially for women. Look, giving your best is usually necessary but not always required. Luck, a lack of scruple, intolerance of others, manipulative skills and connections can really propel your career even if you don't work hard enough to deserve it. Just think of the cliché of the woman who sleeps her way on top. She doesn't even have to give 110% there, men are easy to please.

And regarding you biological theories, yes, men are stronger but how strong do you have to be to sit in an office? How much strength does it take to type on a keyboard? I'd say the jobs these female breadwinners we're talking about have are usually not involving tasks of great physical strength.
And why is it automatically the women job to take care of the children?
I mean, we're talking 2 parent families here since single women have no other choice than going to work unless you want to suggest poverty or child labour as viable alternatives.
In todays first world society it shouldn't be such a stretch to consider men as caregivers of the family's offspring. What makes the stronger sex so unsuitable to play that part? Because we're emotional cripples, unable to bond with the little ones like people with real breasts? Because society could point at us and laugh about our mangina? What is it a woman does a man can't do?
Oh I get it, that's just how biology wants it, right? We have to listen to mother nature, it's the smart thing to do. Well, that's at least what I told the cops after I left my house naked. You know, pants don't grow on trees and shirts don't run through the woods, evading capture by predators. It's not natural, not what mother wants. Let's not do this. Right?
We decided to shape the world as we see fit a long time ago. We can't change all behavioural routines in our heads but we are not powerless either. Why stick to role models that are ancient when we can make new ones with more benefits? Humans can't fly; didn't stop them from building planes. This is a question of nurture not nature.

What troubles me the the most, though, is your apparent belief that households with both parents working do it by choice. That is certainly not always the case, especially not in lower income families in America. To avoid that both parents would be forced to work, you need to have minimum incomes that are high enough to feed an entire family. How much is the minimum wage in america and how well can one person provide for a family with it? Would you like to raise 2 kids with only that much money?

Another thing is your idea that "women should gravitate to careers that will give the maximum flexibility so that they can spend all the needed time with their children". What kind of career is that? What jobs allow you to have "maximum flexibility" in terms or worktime? Drug dealing? E-Mail spamming? Porn?
I'm sure such jobs exist but I'd say they're very, very rare. Not a viable solution.

You call it "guidelines not rules" but maybe these guidelines are as antiquitated as ducking under the table when the bomb drops. We live in a brave new world, we need to do better than this. We shouldn't leave potential untapped because grampa doesn't like it. This is the 21st century, let's act like it.

There is nothing that makes women less qualified to bring home the bucks. "Think of the children" is simply a lazy argument against it and only shows the real problems of this debate: sexism and a lack of social security.