Wait, so... Optimus Prime was also Monterey Jack? And the shitty villain from Strawberry Shortcake? I'm not entirely comfortable with this.

2001's Ocean's 11 had a bunch of racially and culturally diverse characters as well. Did you whine about it then too? Or were you not as edgy back then?

Are we supposed to just keep everything white and straight to "keep it real" and make you comfortable? MORE THAN ONE BLACK CHICK??? STOP THE MADNESS!

Warriors against SJW are more annoying that SJWs themselves. Talk about "snowflakes"...

(Also, I counted only one black chick... ???)

Comfort food?

I just love the passionate way historians talk. Especially when they're not talking about their specialist subject - like when Dr. Finkel is promoting the youtube channel.

No one in their right mind goes into careers like history, the sciences, or academia for the money (not that I'm accusing historians of being in their right mind), so the ones that get comfortable but keep working are inspiring.

Extreme squirrel-manning looks fun, but also a bit more suicidal than I'm comfortable with. I'd actually try that version though.

Thanks to asshats abusing their religious privileges, that's where we are today. Many places do require businesses offering a service to not discriminate based on personal preference.

If that Muslim baker makes Buddha cakes and Jesus cakes on request, yes....so he should limit his creativity across the board or not at all....or work in his mosque bakery.

If they make made to order pro choice cakes, yes, they should make made to order anti choice cakes.

If they make on request cakes for other notable figures, no....but I would expect Hitler to look pretty horrible.

Easy solution here, stop doing made to order cakes. Offer only what you're comfortable making, not requests, not personalized...have a catalog. Once you offer to make what the customer requests, you give up your right to be offended by it, for cash.

Edit: Keep in mind, this is often about being offended not by what they're asked to make, but who the customer is. Not rainbow wedding cakes with leather clad grooms and cocks everywhere, but fancy white cakes with flowers for a gay wedding.
Side note, Jews can't refuse service in their public establishments to any German, can they, and they have a much better reason to do so.

Your absolutely right that characterising an entire generation as the 'same' is flawed.

However, I also believe there is more to the whole 'entitled millenials' view than just the bias of 'those darned kids again'.

I think the lumping of generational groups is just a miswording and but reading of the problems facing society at different times. Baby-Boomers as a generation were just people, same as millenials, same as anyone else. The thing is, kids born between 1910 and 1930 grew up in a world at war. Baby boomers grew up in a post world war/cold war era. The societal problems that shaped those times and people still existed, so dismissing the problems as just perception or bias isn't necessarily a good idea.

I've been out of high school 20+ years, and the notion of participation ribbons for everyone was already starting then. The notion that losing or winning isn't important, even if you lost because you were lazy, or won because of years of hard work was already starting. The problem of basically denying hard parts of the real world has been building for 20 years, and the current generation has been buried even deeper in it.

For anyone born in Canada or the USA to cry that no amount of hard work, talent or anything else can help them get ahead and that the system must be changed to help them is insidious. When 80-90% of everyone born in Canada or the USA will never know real hunger, never face homelessness, never have a warlord burn and destroy everything they own, complaining about the inherent injustice of being born where you were as a Canadian or American is just wrong.

The ideology that has grown up in the western world over the last 20+ years has the stink of the rich, entitled world we've enjoyed here. We have a society so removed from hardship, that hardship is working 10 hours a day, 5 days a week to lead a life more comfortable than 90% of the world.

It's not millenials, it is however the society that millenials are growing up in(so all of us).

Well said. I'm fairly comfortably in "weasel" territory, and I don't bitch about it. Too much. Any more.

Actually, in all seriousness, while I am one of those cynical beaten-down types in terms of how much I care about corporate / management expectations, I do take pride in holding myself to rather higher standards than those external ones. That's a good thing, and it means that I can look myself in the mirror and honestly feel like I'm contributing something real, even if the machine that I'm in is apathetic, highly inefficient, and moderately pointless to begin with.

As (the great) Kurt Vonnegut said, "so it goes."

Certainly we can't all be eagles, but those who've resigned themselves to being weasels should recognize their station and act accordingly, not pretend they fearlessly soar the skies of death deserving rewards and accolades from the comfort their burrow.
I get where you're coming from, but I disagree it's one or the other. Checking out and half assing it because success didn't come fast enough only ensures it will never arrive. Working hard and smart striving for greatness is the best way to achieve it, but of course it's still no guarantee.
And yes, the "system" could certainly use improvements too, but an individual can have far more positive impact on their own lives by working to improve themselves than they can on the system working to improve it. It's best to work on both whenever possible.

Back when she started them, perhaps, but it still seems odd to me for HER to perpetuate the separate and unequal methodology that had worked so hard against her....different times....and I'm weird.

Today, as the article mentioned, there's not really good reason besides "girl power-female empowerment", which I find as distasteful as the idea of male only "boy power" races, which don't exist as far as I see outside of Iran.
Conversely, if little girls might need girl only racing to feel comfortable, why can't little boys feel the same and so get boy only races? Being ridiculed by girls for being a slow or odd runner hurts boys the same as the reverse hurts girls, no?
Most marathon finishers are women, they've proven they can and will run with men anywhere, but still today often men can't run with them.

Why does no one ever seem to want the pendulum of inequality to stop in the middle?

Of course, there's a line.

If some dude patted my behind, I probably wouldn't take it as sexual.

It's about context. I am not generally in a situation where there is a power dynamic working against me.

If a mate jokingly patted my behind, I probably wouldn't care.
If my boss patted my behind, I'd certainly tell him that's not ok.

But if I felt it WAS creepy and especially if I felt whoever it was a) might do it again and b) was frequently in a position to do so to vulnerable people... yeah, I'd report it.

I wouldn't try to have them convicted of rape because that's not what they did.

I still want to know whose life is being "ruined" over "nothing".

Weinstein? Spacey? It's certainly not nothing and their lives are far from ruined. They're still incredibly wealthy people living (admittedly a little less now) comfortable lives. Are their reputations sullied? Yep, and deservedly so. They've certainly gotten off easier than their victims.

Aziz? Ok, that's a bit more nuanced.

First, is his life "ruined"? Eh, not really. His reputation has taken a hit, but plenty of people have actually come out in support of him.

Second, was what he did "nothing, or at most an innocent misunderstanding not corrected"? Well, it wasn't Weinstein-level harassment and it certainly wasn't rape. We can all agree on that. But was it "nothing"? Would you be ok with someone treating you like that? Do you really think what he did was acceptable behaviour?

He shouldn't go to jail for it, definitely. And there are far worse people out there... one of them is in the white house.

In all honesty, I think he's been unlucky to end up as the cautionary tale of how not to treat your date. Maybe "Grace" could have handled it better.

But on balance, if I have to choose between his actions and her actions, I think his are worse.

Your video, Lip Sync: Creature Comforts (Original Short), 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 4 Badge!

Have you ever ridden a 10+ speed or mountain bike for hours on end? Recumbent bikes are far more comfortable, and can facilitate greater pedal power because you have something to push against.
I couldn't figure out why there's no cockpit or fairing. That seems like a design flaw to me....or a planned upgrade at extra cost.

1) The resurrection is absolutely not historical. Jesus the man MIGHT be.

There is a lot of scholarly research that says it is historical, especially in the last 80 years or so. There are volumes upon volumes of work, and there are a lot of things that deserve an honest and indepth discussion.

Almost all skeptical scholars affirm that Jesus was a historical person and that His disciples had an experience which convinced them that He was raised from the dead. Many agree that a group of women discovered the empty tomb. The origin of Christianity is something which must be accounted for, historically. You can't just wave your hand over it and say its all nonsense.

2) I know Christianity is a joke religion invented for political control by Constantine. That is a verifiable, historical fact.

On what do you base that conclusion?

3) mythos cannot verify mythos. You say Satan created other religions (many before Chritianity existed) to trick them out of worshiping Yahweh....why isn't that likely true of Christianity?

Because of the person of Jesus Christ, who is verified to be the Messiah from many lines of evidence. Some of these would include the fulfillment of dozens of prophecies, His life and ministry, and His resurrection from the dead.

4) not true. Verified truth can be proven and defended against being twisted with fact and evidence, at least to those willing to examine actual evidence and not rely on only propaganda and myth. God (if he existed) should have more backbone, and a clear, unambiguous word/voice. ( Your position seems to be he's not willing to stand behind his word and prefers most people burn in hell for their God given inability to distinguish which is which.)
How is it different from politicians? They aren't empowered by all powerful, vengeful gods....clearly neither are clergy.

I'm not sure why you think you are holding the keys of facts and evidence in your hand, first of all. Can your worldview account for these things? You would need to establish that before we can talk about what "verified truth" is. What is your worldview, by the way? I am assuming it is scientific materialism. Have you ever looked into whether it is correct or not?

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-scientific-materialism-almost-certainly-false/

5) ...you shall stone them to death.....thou shalt not kill. Not so clear.

I think that is easily explained. The laws you are looking at were civil laws which governed the nation of Israel. Consider that our society has a law against murder, yet we execute criminals. Same concept.

6) only those who believe are saved...so clearly the sin of disbelief is not erased and is worse than all others. If it's not automatic, he didn't die for MY sins or yours, he's trading being saved (from something he told you exists with zero evidence) for belief and obedience.

None of your sins would be erased if you reject Christ. You would be paying not only for unbelief, but for all of the other ones too. Unbelief is like any other sin execept that the consequence of the sin prevents you from receiving forgiveness. It is exactly like expecting your cancer to be cured without taking the cure.

Jesus died for the sins of the world, including mine and yours, but you cannot partake of the atonement unless you receive Him as Lord and Savior.

My evidence is not just what we are discussing. Jesus Christ is alive and He is with me every single day of my life. He comforts me in my distress. He encourages me when I feel stuck. He gives me strength to overcome things I otherwise couldn't. He gives me wisdom for every problem and situation. He gives me love for those I find difficult to love. He fills my heart with generosity when I want to be stringy. He helps me do the right thing when I am going to fall short. This is not abstract, but a living reality in my life that grows more and more. He has utterly changed me and made me into a completely different person just like He said He would.

7) things that only work if you believe are hokum or placebo, things that only exist if you believe enough are pure fantasy.

Without buying your system, I have no sin to repent so I should go straight to heaven and collect my $200.

That's kind of like saying you don't believe in the law so you think you won't be punished when you break it. You have to account for your sin whatever you believe you have any or not. Your conscience, however, tells you that you have done wrong things.

9) You have cancer and some guy tells you God sent a car (he just needs $50 for telling you about it), it's invisible, and will take you to the cure, but you must believe the car exists, and when you die sitting in the freezing street he says it's your fault for not believing enough in God's magic cars. Duh. I'll buy my own plane ticket and get myself there, not wait for ethereal magic cars.

Let's say that you got a sign that the car was legitimate, but you still stubbornly chose not to go. For instance, you had a dream that a green car with a florida license plate drove up to your house, and a middle age woman got out and came up to your door and told you she was sent by God to take you to the cancer cure, and then it really happened. Does that change anything for you?

Mostly the questions are for you, in hope you might see the contradiction and self reinforcing mythos, but your answers do offer insight to your (and other people's) intractable mindsets. Thanks

God had revealed Himself to me, personally, and verified the scripture in my as true. I know that He loves me, personally, and I know that He loves you too. My hearts desire is that you would know that love. That is my mindset, primarily.

So many dumb mistakes in the video...

The cop was definitely in the wrong shooting the guy and if he had waited just a half a second longer, his brain probably would have registered that the guy was complying and simply holding his wallet; i.e. not a threat. The cop was likely in a defensible position, behind the squad car, so taking that extra time before using lethal force was likely doable. But that is a lot of assumptions from my comfortable office chair.

Still, to just leave the guy laying on the ground after shooting him and then continuing to bark commands at him like he's still a threat...ugh. I've seen so many wrongful shooting videos where this happens, so it makes you wonder if it is a policy thing to minimize potential for a greater lawsuit (e.g. what if rolling the guy over to address his gunshot wound causes further damage, etc); perhaps it is to protect the officer from viral infection. Who knows, but it certainly seems callous and cold hearted.

With that said, the driver is a moron getting out of his vehicle like that. Wtf. You live in a country where your police officers are all too frequently shooting unarmed citizens by mistake and you decide to jump out of your car with your dark wallet? For what purpose? Turn off the car, turn on your cabin light, roll down the window, and wait for the officer to approach. Only reach for your wallet/permit when you're asked for your ID. Seems like common sense to me.