Freaking educational. Everything I've always wanted to know about Japan's history.

What a wonderful way to condense a country's entire history into a nutshell while informing you a ton and boring you not at all.

History for ADD.

@Dumdeedum
seriously dude?
who is butthurt?
who is anti-PC?
i am sure there are some racist bigots who bemoan the good ol' days when they could just ridicule,berate and condemn whole groups of people but those people are becoming a sliver of a minority.

this video is not addressing normal regular folk who view PC simply as not being a dick and showing a bit of respect.

this video is addressing that band of fuckwits who are trying to shut down free speech by attacking the language and shutting down the conversation by abusing court systems and government to get YOU..to shut the fuck up.

so i am sorry that this video which is addressing complex and nuanced human interactions was not packaged in a condensed,easy to digest format,because we all know the younger generations predilection for perpetual A.D.D means that anything over 5 minutes has them scurrying for their Iphones.

god forbid anyone takes the time to actually examine the issues,which may *gasp* take longer than 5 minutes to unpack.

special little snowflakes need to have their information spoon fed to them,because "thinking" is hard and "examining" all points can be tedious.can't have that now..can we?

and you're "fine" with that?

I got an Engineering degree (well, Computer Science, so kinda "Engineering lite") from a traditional 4-year (state) university. And I think it was not a complete waste of my time, but a 50-75% waste.

What I expected / wanted to get out of my degree was a foundation of knowledge and training in order to get a job in my chosen area of specialization (computer programming). My degree gave me that, sorta, but in an incredibly inefficient way. I took a bunch of classes that were in NO WAY relevant. Even classes in my major were very hit or miss; I had ONE class that was centered around working with a team and producing a software project over the course of a year / two semesters that stands out as the only class I think was 100% worthwhile.

Overall, the 4.5 years worth of classes that I took could easily have been condensed into "just the relevant stuff" and fit into a 2 year curriculum. Universities say that they want to produce "well rounded citizens", but they actually want to produce well rounded University coffers.

It IS true that a degree can be a significant barrier to entry for a lot of jobs, so in that sense getting a degree can be "worth it". But I tend to think that in the vast majority of cases that is just employers playing things safe and traditional rather than being a truly necessary requirement for the jobs they want to fill.


High School is the perfect time to "broaden horizons" and expose people to a little bit of everything. I'm all for University-level education trending in a vocational/technical direction like this with much more emphasis on specialization, and where not all degrees/programs require a cookie-cutter 4 years to complete. If you pick the wrong specialization and "waste" 1-2 years learning something that you don't end up actually wanting to do for employment, you could still take a mulligan and start over learning something else in less time than it would take to get a single degree from a 4 year University. More non-traditional students, more specialization, more focus. I wish these guys well and hope that they make some waves.

Or Voltairian. Why can't we use that word anymore?

I fancy a good satirical polemic, especially in regards to flippant condensers of classic literature, who hide behind simplistic animations aflutter of Lovercraftian connotations. Such balderdash! Give me a Byronic hero any day, over the snide Youtubian objectivist...

My sister is deaf. I know enough ASL to know this woman is truly exceptionally skilled. Not only is it accurate but also beautifully interpreted. Those of you who know more than one language know that it is never possible to directly translate almost anything. In the case of english to ASL, expressions that we may use a dozen words for are condensed into perhaps half as many signs or even less in some cases. For this song, conveying Eminem's eloquent phrasing is ASL takes an impressive amount of artistic skill beyond just having the vocabulary. Massive props.

@poolcleaner

Hi poolcleaner,

Thank you for sharing where you're coming from with me, I appreciate it. My story is a lot different than yours. I grew up in a home without any religion and God was not discussed, for or against. By default, I was agnostic towards the idea. I did not believe in anything supernatural; I probably would have fit in here fairly well for the most part. I was extremely liberal on many different topics and that seems to be the norm, here.

What changed is that I started to have supernatural experiences and things started happening to me which you couldn't explain away by mere chance. On that basis I started to explore the possibilities, fell into the new age for awhile, and then God reached down one day and pulled out a Christian out of that mess. That's the super short condensed version of what happened.

Even when I became a Christian, I still held to all of the secular views that I did before. It's only when I started to investigate the scientific evidence for these things that I changed my mind. I would still believe those things to this day if it wasn't for the evidence and where it pointed. I will get back to you on this; I'd like some time to come up with some good information for you. God bless!

So, as a practical matter... how do you approach a stranger on the street when you're interested in them?
Or is it simply that people 'out and about' are categorically off limits to approach?

I get that this looks bad - when you condense a day's worth of calls into a few minutes. But she prolly passed 100k people in that day just walking around.

(There were 3k kids in my high school, it didn't look like a lot when you see them all together at a rally. It isn't hard to imagine walking past 30 high schools worth of people on busy streets like NY has in a 1 day period).

All this video makes me think is that Indian women are onto something with that forehead dot business. Marking yourself as available/unavailable would not only spare yourself the pointless calling, but would also not waste the men's time on approaching women that have no interest in being approached.

-scheherazade

@billpayer
i do not think it is fair to judge so harshly based on so little.@RedSky and @gwiz665 are far from dumb,quite the opposite.they are just expressing their opinions,which you are free to disagree but to dismiss them so readily removes the opportunity to discuss WHY you may disagree.(ok,you did but the tone was a tad..harsh)

i quite enjoy sparring with both of them.they bring perspective and a sharp insight to many discussions and im glad your post brought qwiz out of retirement.

i think @RedSky made an excellent point that the argument by harris lacked the inclusion of socio-economic factors (i would add historical context as well).while your disagreement with @gwiz665 is that he made the argument that jews do not proselytize,which while true,is a highly reductionist way to condense a religion.there are soo many factors which contribute to a religion,sacred texts being only one,single factor.

the real fight is absolutist thinking,a rigid adherence to doctrine and dogma that is the true enemy of humanity.be it for a religion or nationalism,both should be questioned and criticized.

which is exactly what we are doing here yes?

and just a side note,because i think you may not be aware:i am not an atheist

"You can't do it alone, you have to do it collectively..."

Remember the way they tried to eradicate any sense of collectivity from the cultures in the Southern Cone? How even group presentations in schools were outlawed as a danger to individual freedom?

Who are "they"? The Chicago Boys, of course.

Everything Giroux mentions can be read about in the truth commission reports from all those South American countries that had their culture upended in order to enforce the economic ideology as taught by Friedman in Chicago. Same thing, just imposed by external players and condensed into a rapid series of shocks.

Same ideology.

@Trancecoach holding a doctorate doesn't make you capable of understanding the scientific literature. If you held a bachelor's degree in one of the three sciences you'd stand a lot better chance of being able to understand the literature than someone who had a doctorate in say Art History. I would actually refer back to the Dunning Kruger effect and suggest that holding an unrelated qualification might lead you to overestimate your abilities.

And for someone who says that they *are* capable of understanding the scientific literature (and therefore the scientific method and approach), you dismiss "scientific consensus" as not being "scientific evidence". I don't understand what you mean here, but i think that's because you don't understand what scientific proof is.

I think it's a fundamental mistake that you're making. Scientists propose theories. Those theories that most accurately describe the situation and are most rigourously investigated are the ones that are accepted as being the case, and when things are found that are not correct, adjustments are made to the theory or other theories are proposed. There is never ever, ever.... EVER.. absolute evidence of anything in the way in which you request it, and that's your fundamental error, and stems from you not understanding the scientific method.

We have a lot of scientific consensus about gravity, but we do not have "scientific evidence" in the way you describe it. The evidence is ALL of the science that is done, ALL of the experiments ALL of the conclusions, positive and negative, and the consensus of the scientific community is reached and refined based on that research and ongoing research. There is no one document anywhere that constitutes "proof" that gravity is how we think it is. Not even all of the documents do that. They merely indicate to us what is most likely to be happening according to all of the knowledge and ingenuity that we've built up over the years.

I don't appreciate the scatter gun method you've used by posting all those links. You said in your latest post here that people try to confuse the issue by redirecting your request for "evidence" - the type that doesn't exist - towards other issues that you deem contentious. Yet you have almost drowned me in what appears to be about 15 different links to pages that seem to show singular examples of individuals that deny climate change. (Again, there are so many, and so many quotes, and no actual specification of what you are disagreeing with me about, that i can't rightly assess any of them.)

My point here is twofold - 1) don't try to be confusing like you accuse your opponents of, i.e. throwing as many links as possible to extend the argument to other points and 2) if that isn't what you were doing, could you perhaps condense your 15 links and selected quotes into a smaller point; that point being what it is about my previous posts you disagreed with?

Here are my points for you, simplified:
1) Scientific consensus does not mean "THIS IS HOW THINGS ARE" - it means that, on balance, according to everything we know and the opinions of those that are in the know, this is how we think things are until we know better.
2) There is no such thing as "scientific evidence" in the way you use the term; the only absolute proof is the one Descartes spoke about; the only thing you can know for sure is that your consciousness exists.
3) It is very easy to be misled by articles such as the one you linked from "the libertarian republic" website. This is also true of the last link you recommended for my research; you used that book to support your opposition to my assertion that human-caused climate change is not a matter of debate in the scientific community. Yet the same author was involved in the Copenhagen Consensus which lists as 6th most worthy of investigation (for the benefit and future of mankind), i quote; "R&D to Increase Yield Enhancements, to decrease hunger, fight biodiversity destruction, and lessen the effects of climate change"

I think that out of courtesy you should select one link which backs up whatever it is that you wish to refute, because it's not a good use of my time to have to go through each individual link, find out what you disagree with me about, and then spend time looking into it.

So, we disagree on one of the following:
1) The scientific consensus is that human-caused climate change is real, and that consensus represents the best of our current understanding as a species.
2) "Proof" in the sense you use it doesn't exist, the correct term is scientific evidence. The more evidence and the more convincing it is, the more firm the belief in a theory.
3) The article you linked from the libertarian website was unfairly representing its argument in relation to the paper it was referring to.

Please let me know. Remember - nothing is "beyond scepticism" in your words. I am sceptical about everything, including gravity, which i have an incredible amount of evidence for. However i am still sceptical about our understanding of it - i am always looking for differences. That doesn't mean that our understanding isn't the best one we have, and we should use it for our own advantage and safety.

I also note that you seem loathe to have a proper discussion with me. Our discussion could have been either about the scientific method or about the article you linked, but to throw all these links at me makes me feel you're unwilling or incapable of challenging your own opinion based on evidence. You don't even refer to the assessments of the article that i offered; you immediately discarded the article from your argument and linked me to other people that may or may not be misrepresenting the argument.

Yep, he needed a thermometer (because fat boy there probably sweats like that in 75 deg temperatures) and a timer/sundial (because he's an obvious liar too and can't be trusted).
I agree, this would have been good if it ended with the point being proven because he passed out from heat stroke/dehydration, as it sits it's just a stupid, bad joke being driven into the ground.
Judging from the shadows outside, it probably was about 15 min tops....also judging from the condensation on the window. It was certainly not anywhere near 3 hours. I doubt he needed to mist himself down, I bet he sweats like that at the air conditioned movie theater from the exertion of lifting his big gulp. What an ass.

Climate change-The hot-topic for a new age of ineffectuals...something for the insects to rally-around and discuss which produces nay but fodder for the same passive-aggressive types who are being seduced by their desire to trade practical action (whatever that could be) for polemic intercourse with themselves and others like them on the internet....

....people who are passionate to a fault and use forums like this to espouse their anger and frustration with tomes of keystrokes AT and not WITH others they deem unworthy, those ignorant and simpering few with opinions or observations dissimilar to theirs (and lower than 130 I.Q.'s....*cough), who know they are helpless to act to stop the high-speed train of planet-fucking (wage-slave-required and dutifully induced through the programming by adepts of semantic mind-fucking).This delusional empowerment, with all the invisible superpowers of new 'information' gives them the license and ability to do absolutely nothing to correct or marginally disrupt the pace of the so-labeled change while becomming better dicks in doing-so.

This fan-driven subject of climate change they use not only to deride those with any dissenting opinion and doubt regarding the mechanics and unfolding of what our big, blue marble is handing the creatures onnit, but also and most evidently obvious, to bolster their own superiority and self-satisfaction in their ability to process the distraction of disinformation/information/datum-ad-nauseum, and then condense it into how clever they can be in being complete assholes without breaking rules of accepted decorum so they can hear themselves bark, howl, and foment.

Smug, helpless, and irritatingly predictable in their helplessness to do anything more effectual than to add more used motor oil to the bonfire of their own vanity.

I would ask these irritating bugs what ARE you prepared to do to alter the course of the 'changes' in the 'terminal climate' described above? Recycle and drive a hybrid? Sacrifice anything but another trip to a polling-station? Oh I know, sit at your computer keyboard and grow more incensed while going-on with your business of spouting and shouting from a mountain of trash that you add-to daily by converting oxygen to more life-giving C02 and buying shit you don't need with paper you are forced to trade for 'bads and disservices??'

Thought so.

Fuck global warming in it's ass and let the planet shake and quiver with change as humans and/or their own slave-like actions continue to feed the earth-furnace. The bigger fish to fry and serve head-on have you by the short and curlies and we're all bio-fuel for future generations

Good, solid, clap of thunder causes the vapour to massively condense.

Anyone who's lived on the prairies during thunderstorm season has seen this. This just was caught on film.

I also live up here in the Sub-Arctic Rain Forest, and while I too have yet to see it happen locally, I can't tell you how many times I've had a sticky, humid but dry, hot day with monster thunderheads only to have a 10 minute deluge shortly after a decent, loud thunder clap.

It's like shaking a small tree after a rain.

I think it was to just condense the video...if you watch the unedited version on the daily show website the first thing is they have it split into two videos. The other edits are basically Jon mugging to the audience or him waiting for the audience to quiet down.

If there is a full unedited version I will switch it.

The reason this video had all comments and votes disabled is because the uploader knew people, males, would react the way you do. And worse.
Look, the purpose of the video is not to say all men are animals and hating on the peniscarrying part of the population, the purpose is to condense, concentrate, the experience of sexism. Yes, it goes to the extgreme of attempted rape (or whatever you want to call it) but just look at the reported number of rapes in your country and contemplate how much higher the numbers were if all rapes were reported.
Think about all the stuff that comes before the guy gets actually physically attacked. That's not necessarily what women experience in a single day, that's what women expirience in general.
Sexism is sometimes like racism, a rather subtle thing. Have you seen the 8 minute rant of Kanye West on Jimmy Kimmel? Watch it. The guy might be a douchebag but he has some interesting, noteworthy things to say there.
Hell, I'm sure I've been sexist without noticing myself but reactions like yours to such a video tend to illustrate the point made in it, most of us men are not really aware of what sexism means to a woman. The video gives you an idea. But maybe I'd rather talk to your wife instead.