search results matching tag: cosby

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (83)     Sift Talk (2)     Blogs (11)     Comments (192)   

Jim Jefferies Freedom in America (FreeDumb) 2016

Jim Jefferies Freedom in America (FreeDumb) 2016

CNN -- Bernie Sanders Interview with Jake Tapper (6/5/2016)

bobknight33 says...

Bernie or bust.


25 things I trust more than Hillary Clinton:
• Mexican tap water
• A wolverine with a ‘pet me’ sign
• A mixed drink served by Bill Cosby
• A straight shave from Jodi Arias
• An elevator ride with Ray Rice
• Browns going to the Super Bowl
• Brian Williams memory
• Pete Carroll coaching decisions
• Loch Ness monster sightings
• Pinocchio
• The Boy that cried Wolf
• A snapping turtle in a mud bath
• A Nigerian inheritance email
• A pilot alone in the cockpit
• A factory packed parachute
• A test fart in bed with the flu
• Tying Anthony Weiner’s shoes
• Harry Reid’s exercise equipment
• A kiss from Judas
• An Afghan wearing a backpack
• A Dana White apology
• Keeping my healthcare plan
• A North Korean trial
• A BIC pen that won’t leak
• A tuna fish sandwich left on a city bus

New Rule – For the Love of Bud

RedSky says...

@Jinx
@enoch
@VoodooV

Fair point on acceptance, I guess seeing people on TV smoke it and continue to be productive members of society has its benefits in dispelling the fear around it. Not the best comparison but kind of like how the Cosby Show, Eddie Murphy in 48 Hrs helped bridge racial tolerance in the 80s by exposing whites to black people on TV and in movies.

Totally with you guys on the hypocrisy of policy, and the libertarian argument.

I don't know how much pharmaceuticals actually care about pot legalization. I mean at this point the likes of Pfizer don't do that much actual research. They buy up other drug companies (Allergan is the recent big example) as well as benefiting from government funded basic research.

If anything what they've become specialized in is getting the drugs approved and adhering to regulation (which they probably helped draft and make complicated to keep their advantage). So if anything they should be well placed to be the first to sell pot based drugs in scale when they get fully legalized.

Prisons and law enforcement is a different issue, they do lose out a lot.

canadian man faces jail for disagreeing with a feminist

newtboy says...

OK, I honestly don't know if this is the 'upload a pic of your choice to punch' type of thing either, but I do think that exists, which means this isn't worse than that, if it's not that.
I do agree, she's not rich, and so not as protected. I don't agree that, necessarily, those playing the game have any intent to harm.
I also disagree that NO one has malice towards Bieber, I'm certain there are hundreds of people out there that would love to punch him in real life...and have said so online. I agree, she's seen it worse though.
I can't say which game would have more genuine ill intent, but really, I think more people would actually hit Bieber than kill Bin Laden...maybe I'm wrong and there are more people out there willing to kill rather than punch, but I kind of hope not.
I can guarantee if Bieber gets punched, without SERIOUS injury, tens of thousands of people will cheer! Me with them. he's getting better, but for a while there he really needed a good smack to the face.
It's possible there may be MORE people wishing actual harm against Sarkeesian, but not really likely, since as you admit, her celebrity is a black hole compared to Bieber's star, so exponentially more people know Bieber.
Yes, a game that ONLY allows you to punch blacks would be, by definition, racist. One that allows you to punch Cosby likely exists...and he's also received numerous, serious death threats, and doesn't have major security (but maybe more than her, I don't know). I would say it's also OK to pretend to punch Cosby...or anyone you feel like PRETENDING to punch...as long as it stops there.
Part of living in a free society is a bit of risk. Some face more than others, it's not fair, it's just reality. As my parents told me daily...no one ever said life is fair.

EDIT: Also, no one is forcing Sarkeesian to view the game. It only constitutes harassment if they somehow subject her to it, right? If people surrounded her on the street with Ipads and 'punched' her face in front of her, yeah, but it simply existing....well, I think that doesn't rise to the level of action by far. If I find out someone is playing that game with a picture of a newt....fine...just don't go punching any real newts or we'll have problems. Otherwise, go to it and get it out of your system. ;-)

ChaosEngine said:

We're not talking about a random "beat up this picture" game, or at least, that's not the impression I got (if it IS user-generated, then I retract my statements re Spurr). We're talking about a game specifically about beating up Sarkeesian.

First, it's the old comedy motto... "punch up, not down". Sarkeesian has received multiple, unbelievably vile threats against her. More to the point, those threats are credible. She's not a famous celebrity with an army of bodyguards to protect her. There's a very real chance that someone could just assault her on the street, far more so than Bieber.

Second, the people that want to punch Bieber are doing so because he's annoying. There's really very little malice behind it in almost all cases.

You can't reasonably argue that's the same for Sarkeesian. There is a genuine and widely documented movement of people on the web who have expressed serious hatred of her.

Let me put it this way, if I compared a "Punch Bieber" and a "Shoot Bin Laden" in the head game, which would you say has more genuine ill intent behind it?

When someone did shoot Bin Laden, everyone cheered. If someone seriously assaulted Bieber, even people who are annoyed by him would say that's going too far.

OTOH, if someone seriously assaulted Sarkeesian, there is a sizeable group of people who be delighted by that.

We don't make judgements in a vacuum. We must take what we know of the context surrounding something to decide whether we like it or not.

A game about punching Bill Cosby in the face? We can reasonably assume it's motivated by sexual assault allegations.
Now take the same game, and instead of Bill Cosby, you can choose any black celebrity. Again, you can make a reasonable assumption, except this time we could say it's racially motivated.

Possibly I'm misinterpreting his intentions, but if so, he's not really attempting to correct the public perception of them.

canadian man faces jail for disagreeing with a feminist

ChaosEngine says...

We're not talking about a random "beat up this picture" game, or at least, that's not the impression I got (if it IS user-generated, then I retract my statements re Spurr). We're talking about a game specifically about beating up Sarkeesian.

First, it's the old comedy motto... "punch up, not down". Sarkeesian has received multiple, unbelievably vile threats against her. More to the point, those threats are credible. She's not a famous celebrity with an army of bodyguards to protect her. There's a very real chance that someone could just assault her on the street, far more so than Bieber.

Second, the people that want to punch Bieber are doing so because he's annoying. There's really very little malice behind it in almost all cases.

You can't reasonably argue that's the same for Sarkeesian. There is a genuine and widely documented movement of people on the web who have expressed serious hatred of her.

Let me put it this way, if I compared a "Punch Bieber" and a "Shoot Bin Laden" in the head game, which would you say has more genuine ill intent behind it?

When someone did shoot Bin Laden, everyone cheered. If someone seriously assaulted Bieber, even people who are annoyed by him would say that's going too far.

OTOH, if someone seriously assaulted Sarkeesian, there is a sizeable group of people who be delighted by that.

We don't make judgements in a vacuum. We must take what we know of the context surrounding something to decide whether we like it or not.

A game about punching Bill Cosby in the face? We can reasonably assume it's motivated by sexual assault allegations.
Now take the same game, and instead of Bill Cosby, you can choose any black celebrity. Again, you can make a reasonable assumption, except this time we could say it's racially motivated.

Possibly I'm misinterpreting his intentions, but if so, he's not really attempting to correct the public perception of them.

newtboy said:

I pretty much agreed with you...except for this part.
Sarkeesian is another polarizing public figure, so how is making a game where you punch HER picture different from, say, Bieber (who also receives death threats from random people, BTW)...or any random picture you might upload into the 'game'? The only difference I see is the level of success at being a public figure.
Maybe I'm just an idiot, but I don't get what you mean. Please explain.

Garfunkel and Oates - "The Loophole"

Joyless joy ride

Whoopi Goldberg Defends 10 Surprising Things

MilkmanDan says...

...And one more thing that I think is interesting:

In many cases, even if it is 100% proven that somebody did some very bad things, I don't personally think that should (necessarily) negate our respect for the good things they did.

Michael Jackson may have been a serial pedo, which is pretty damning in general. BUT, *that* doesn't make his music bad, or make people who like his music bad.

Cosby almost certainly did drug and have sex with a whole bunch of women, without their consent. That is a very shitty thing to do. But it doesn't make his impact on comedy any less real. It doesn't make The Cosby Show a shitty TV program, that I/we should feel ashamed of having enjoyed.

OJ Simpson almost certainly got away with murder. I think that makes him a scumbag, but I can accept that many people think/thought of him as "OJ Simpson, running back, actor, announcer, etc." rather than "OJ Simpson, murderer". And even though I personally dislike the notion that he got away with killing people, I can watch video of him playing football and appreciate his undeniable talent, or watch him in The Naked Gun and still chuckle.


Sports figures like Barry Bonds and Lance Armstrong are a different story, at least for me personally. Even though doping or using steroids isn't even remotely comparable to the objective badness of pedophilia, rape, or murder ... those two guys were respected specifically for their sports accomplishments, which they "cheated" to obtain. For me personally at least, that completely invalidates those accomplishments, which were pretty much the only reasons to look up to them. In the meantime, I might think that OJ is a terrible human being, but at least I can still respect what he did on the football field.

Maybe that is a weird distinction to make, but it makes sense to me, anyway.

Whoopi Goldberg Defends 10 Surprising Things

MilkmanDan says...

Cosby was (still is, even) a personal hero or idol to a whole lot of people. I think we're all tempted to put the blinders on and be *very* reluctant to accept any accusations of wrongdoing against people that we look up to like that.

Michael Jackson, OJ Simpson, Lance Armstrong, Barry Bonds ... all got a hefty dose of benefit of the doubt from their fans way past the time that more clearheaded people started thinking "there might be something going on there".

I don't think that makes Whoopi a stupid or shitty person. Just a fallible person that *wants* to believe the best about people that she has respect for.

GenjiKilpatrick said:

Right. The point is:
She's still a shitty people for defending terrible, indefensible actions up until there was absolutely no denying it..

Like.. who the hell still "needs to reserve judgement" of a serial date-rapist with 50+ identical accusations against them..

even after it's revealed they've already admitted to drugging women in order to have sex with them?!

"Some of the guys aren't even remotely smiling" Amy rocks it

Asmo says...

You seem to be offended that Ulysses spoke up that he didn't find her funny, and have taken it to the nth degree (really, analogies re: anal fisting?), but a big part of Amy's speech/performance was the idea that she has always been a bit unique and saw no reason to change herself to conform to others ideas of what she should do or be.

So why do people who do not find her funny suddenly owe you an explanation as to why? Why is it even a point of analysis? If the hypothesis is that if you're not a feminist, you're more likely to not find her funny, is it not also possible that feminists are more likely to find her funny because they subjectively want her to be funny? Aka confirmation bias.

Amy doesn't seem to mind that some people don't find her funny, so I don't see why it seems to irk you so much.

ps. Tina Fey is hilarious in ways Schumer has never managed imo, as is Amy Poehler. Similarly, I find Eddie Murphy funny but never really got much of a laugh out of Richard Prior or Bill Cosby. That doesn't say anything about my values or attitudes towards women and black men, it's just a subjective opinion based on what they say or do.

bareboards2 said:

My question really is -- IF YOU ARE A FEMINIST, are you more likely to find Amy funny? IF YOU ARE AWARE OF THE BODY AND SEXUALITY ISSUES OF WOMEN, are you more likely to find Amy funny?

...

I'm just curious who "you" is and if it might have a bearing on whether or not Amy is funny to you.

Tina Fey thinks she is funny. Tina Fey is a feminist. All the people I know who like her are feminists.

Uwe Boll Takes His Ball and Goes Home

JustSaying jokingly says...

No no, the Hoff is america's problem, we just borrowed him for 80's awesomeness.
I'm talking Nazis of course. They're like Bill Cosby's sexual assault allegations, everybody knows about it and finds it terrible but nobody really cares because of Jello and our wacky antics.

*runs*

Norm Macdonald Gets All Choked Up On His Final Letterman

siftbot says...

Norm Macdonald doesn't like playing Scrabble with old people has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Norm Macdonald's Bill Cosby story has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Norm MacDonald on Hitler has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Norm MacDonald's Bob Uecker Story has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Norm MacDonald on Letterman (1-7-98) has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

WTF Cops?! - Two Racist Texts and a Lie

heropsycho says...

I'm not thinking in binary. There's gray area.

There's no debate about the fact that virtually everyone is somewhat racist. This isn't a debate about that.

I'm saying making any joke that is related to race isn't racist every single time, just as avoiding saying anything that could be construed as racist doesn't mean you're absolved of being a racist.

A joke that is actually racist is expressing an idea or feeling of one race's superiority over another directly or indirectly through humor.

Ironically making racial statements that I absolutely don't believe is NOT racist because I'm not expressing racial superiority. I'm pointing out the idiocy of racism and poking fun at racists.

About the random black person overhearing my joking, yeah, they'd be offended. Thank you for making my point. They'd be offended precisely because they heard those words out of context.

If you saw a grown man say this to a little girl sternly:

"...go cry me a river..."

You might be inclined to think he was acting like a jerk to her. But what if you had heard....

"It's a figure of speech. If you ever for example hear someone say 'go cry me a river', they don't actually mean one person's tears can be that much water."

It's the SAME THING. That man did nothing wrong, but you heard him say 'go cry me a river' to a little girl without context, it may look bad, when it's not.

Just because someone may get offended by hearing something out of context, it is not automatically something wrong with what that person said.

Even the dreaded N-word... Are you telling me that it was wrong and racist for Mark Twain to use it in The Adventures of Huckleberry Fin?

The one thing I would agree with you is that you also have to be mindful of context before saying the joke. Those racial jokes I make? I'm not going to say those in situations where there's a high likelihood that those statements could be overheard and misinterpreted. If I wanted to tell those to a black person, I'd make REALLY sure they knew I didn't actually believe the racial statement.

And you know what? Usually, it turns out fine. I've played that Louis CK thing for a black friend of mine, but I laid down the context first that it's Patrice O'Neal, etc. And they laughed hysterically at it.

Richard Pryor is considered by most comics as being a pioneer in using comedy to shed light and provide insights into racial tensions, etc., and actually is credited by many people far beyond just comedians to have helped further the cause of fighting against racism.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5048430

His use of the N-word wasn't racist. The use of the word was communicating that he was not Bill Cosby, not that there was anything wrong with Cosby's comedy, but it was to signal that he was talking more about reality, including the rough edges especially about racial topics, and there wasn't anything wrong with that either.

The kill somebody thing. You ever seen someone say something like, "My roommate AGAIN left all the lights on! I'm gonna kill him!"? My point there is you shouldn't call the cops because you think he's homicidal.

Nap Time On I-805

zor says...

Cop did a great job. Who knows what is going on, really, with her? Could be a Cosby girl for all we know.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon