Actual information is coming out now.

They were not customers.
They were asked politely to make a purchase or leave.
They refused to leave and tried to use the customers only rest room after being told they could not without making a purchase, then sat down in defiance of the manager, taking a table in the busy business and disturbing the staff.

This had nothing to do with race and everything to do with false entitlement and eventually trespassing. It's a private business, not a public lounge. Don't leave when asked, get free bracelets.

Honestly, I really don't care what the beliefs of any church are.

If a church wants to take the stance that gays are evil and people with green eyes are demons... well, they're idiots, but as long as they don't do anything illegal, they're entitled to their stupid beliefs.

But religious beliefs shouldn't grant you any special privileges under the law. Basically, I believe you should be free to have whatever religion you want, as long as it's within the confines of the law that applies to everyone. No special exemptions.

So, no, a baker doesn't get to decide whether they can refuse service to a gay couple because of their religious beliefs. They can potentially refuse service if the LAW says they can refuse service to anyone for any reason, but religion shouldn't enter into it.

Why should a religious bigot get some special treatment that a regular bigot doesn't?

Now, after all that, the question of forcing businesses to provide service under the law is a tricky one as you and @newtboy have discussed. But generally, there are specific "protected classes" (not sure about the exact term), that you are not allowed discriminate on (i.e. gender, ethnicity, disability, religion, etc). I would be in favour of adding sexual orientation to that list.

So yes, you can refuse a nazi or a cop or a pedophile, but you can't refuse a native american lesbian in a wheelchair.

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).

Honestly, I down-voted this for the title alone. The video isn't that terrible, but it falls into this bullshit "generation" trap.

Here's some facts:
baby-boomers? not a thing
Gen x? not a thing
Millenials? also... not a thing

These are all lazy, bullshit shorthand ways of lumping massive groups of people together based on the date they were born and conveniently, the problem is almost always either:
- those lazy kids or
- old people who had it easy.
Funny how the people writing these videos/articles almost never seem to blame their own generation.

FFS, stop generalising large groups of people like this. If you do it based on race, people (rightly) call you a racist. So why is it ok to do it based on age?

Newsflash: some "millennials" are lazy/entitled/whatever. Why? Because they're PEOPLE.

I've worked with "boomers" and "gen x" people who wouldn't know a work ethic if it punched them in the face and I've worked with "millennials" who work their damn asses off, only to find out (as @MilkmanDan pointed out) that companies these days generally give zero fucks about their employees.

If it was my mother, I would take her car because my mother isn't a douchbag so I would know this was due to inability to drive, not entitlement and douchery. I see no third posibility here.

That lot sure doesn't look empty to me, just not full.

"It's exactly what he said, they're both unacceptable, and he's trying to define the spectrum. "
But the spectrum already exists. It's already enshrined in law for a start. I don't need Maher to lecture me about it.

"Yes, if some dude broke my leg, yes I would appreciate that they didn't murder me. "
Of course. You'd probably still report them to the police for assault though?

"Please admit, it's at least imprecise to have a one-size-fits-all justice system. "
I have. Several times.

"If and when people are being sentenced to death and/or extreme prison terms, yeah, let's talk about proportionate response."

"The sentence for these crimes is different and that's correct."

"If Aziz Ansari ends up sharing a cell with Harvey Weinstein, I will 100% stand up and say "hang the fuck on, those two are NOT equivalent". "

"Believe it or not, I've been in a sexual encounter where I've been forced to ..."
What happened to you wasn't rape, agreed, but it wasn't far off. If the roles were reversed and you had sneakily taken off a condom, in some jurisdictions that WOULD be rape.

"I don't think it's crazy to not want her to lose her job, and not want to file criminal charges against her, --- and this is key --- because even though something happened that was non consensual, I don't consider what happened rape, and I would NEVER equate what happened to me to what happened to all of Weinstein's victims because they fall on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Neither one was okay, and one is worse than the other."

Why does it matter that it wasn't rape? It was still a violation of trust and one that could have had lifelong consequences for you.

If she did that to you, who's to say she won't do it again to someone else?

Again, I go back to the assault metaphor. Even if an assailant doesn't murder you, they're still a violent aggressor and a potential danger to others.

Or even at a lower degree still, if someone treats you badly or swindles you, are you not entitled to warn others?

If what happened to you happened to me, I would warn anyone I knew about that kind of behaviour.

I did not "blindly support the bankrupting idiot baby"
I supported the best candidate. Did Hillary really bring to the table a clear agenda superior to Trumps? She really did not have a platform. So was there really a choice?


I do not say nor believe we are in dire straits as yo say. Slipping morality for sure .

I never admitted that he is unqualified. He is doing a good job considering such division of both parties and animosity for Republican since he is not a party insider.

Hollywood agenda-- most Americans don't really want nor desire the stuff that is being pushed out.
Americans want quality story lines not slutting whoring worshiping shows just to fill time slots.


Do you have kids?
I do, 11 and 13 I can not watch some 60% of shows because they are inappropriate -- I'm not saying go back to Leave it to Beaver shit but do we really need sexualized content of some form on darn near every show?

Most shows incorporate some kind of violence, sexual innuendo, murder etc. Do we as a society need this day in day out?



You argue that Trump lies... and your upset? Is he is the only politician to lie. When hasn't a POTUS lied? There are 2 profession that are allow to lie. Politicians and cops.

As for the rest of biased commentary I just leave it for what is
and are entitled to.

In all seriousness though, here's my thoughts on the matter: I believe the n-word is used by most black people ironically. It's an attempt to reclaim power over the word that was used for so long--including today--to oppress them.

The thing is, there is precedent for this ironic use. Many in the gay community use the word "bitch" in an affection and jesting way to other members, but it takes on a completely different tone when a heterosexual person--even one who has a large circle of gay friends--tries to use it in a similar manner towards a gay person.

The thing is that this kind of ironic language usage is self-deprecating. As a member of the black or gay community, you're using a derogatory term that could just as easily be applied to you by somebody else.

Self-deprecating humor of this kind doesn't work so well when you're not a member of the group. It just comes across as punching down, especially in the case of privileged group members like middle-class white kids who will likely never know what it is like to be an "other" in their country of citizenship no matter how much they may sympathize (although as "minority" groups continue to eclipse the Caucasian population maybe within my lifetime they might actually start to experience it).

I mean, how hard is it for non-black people to not call someone an n-word? Very few black people are okay with it. The whiny " b-b-but they use the word all the time" excuse just reeks of entitlement to me.

But what do I know. I'm just some dumb white kid living in a foreign country where I can be pulled over by cops because I look different from the rest of the population and jailed for not immediately providing ID (unlike Japanese people who are legally not required to carry ID at all).

Insurance, dude. Look it up.

And no, you shouldn’t be killed for punching someone. They’re entitled to defend themselves, but in a proportional response.

If you punch me, and I hit you back and you trip and crack your skull, well, that sucks for you, but I’m not in the wrong.

But if you punch me and I pull a gun and shoot you without warning, I’m guilty of man slaughter at the least.

I've always liked Clint; I felt bad when he flamed out at the Republican convention and the liberals piled on him; I suppose some of it was fair, but eveyone's entitled to a bad day.

Is anyone surprised that this guy has a large personal collection of slavery mementos?

He doesn't get that he's right...
.....church, one that doesn't get set on fire or shot up...white privilege.
Jobs where you get paid a decent wage for hard work....white privilege......
Police there to help you, not see you as the enemy...white privilege.


This was just another 20 minutes of a display of pure ignorance and racism....of course @bobknight33 thinks this is "truth" that disproves white privilege....but it's really a display of white ignorance and deep seated hatred.

That slave story was utter apologist bullshit. That did not happen, a slave throwing a fit doesn't get their way and aren't just allowed to keep their family, they get beaten to death. Just pure bullshit....like most of what he says.

Southern white farmers/ranchers are the biggest, most entitled welfare queens around, I speak from experience.

I'm a white man who lived in East Palo Alto for years, and I walked through it alone dozens of times after midnight. No one bothered me. I have seen black men accosted in white neighborhoods for being black repeatedly.

This was pure bigoted ignorance and lies, bob. Don't be proud of this idiot, be ashamed. It's not Christian to denounce and deride others who don't have the advantages you have, nor is it Christian to pretend you and your free ancestors with rights had it just as bad as slaves and blacks that couldn't even vote and weren't considered humans.

The only message of truth I see is the truth that many white southerners are insanely ignorant and completely devoid of empathy for others or rationality....but just try to take their farm subsidies for not growing corn and you'll hear about how they are the true downtrodden in society and the blacks are in control, all on welfare, and are the ones destroying the country.

Let me disabuse you of some of your assumptions...

I didn't do gamergate and I don't really give a fuck about feminism/anti-feminism as it pertains to how I treat women in the real world (that being egalitarian, everyone should be equal).

Now that that's out of the way, yeah, I am for fucking real. Whether it was a stunt or just a bunch of people turning up to a talk which they paid their money to get in to, it doesn't really matter. Sarkessian was the aggressor (unless you truly believe that threaten = criticise someone's ideas online then show up in person to let them have their say), using a position of power, backed up by a bunch of like minded people to abuse paying attendees who's only crime was sitting up the front and listening quietly, which they are entitled to do.

/shockfuckinghorror, never mind free speech, you can't even listen to people anymore without them wetting their pants in terror.

There is plenty of video footage of said event and you are more than welcome to point out to me exactly where in that footage any of the so called aggressors did anything actually aggressive. Aka, the point where my opinion of what went on is different to the reality. I don't need to convince people of the reality of the situation, I can just roll the footage.

She broke the code of conduct, and while other YT'ers were being ejected for being in public areas (a breach of the CoC), she was given an explicit pass by the Greens. Sargon and the rest of the so called aggressors were not ejected or banned from Vidcon which indicates to me that they did nothing wrong in the eyes of the organisers. The aggressors seemed to get along fine with other people they met that they ideologically disagree with, with no other incidents being recorded. Sark, on the other hand, also verbally abused Boogie2988, one of the nicest and most considerate people I've seen on YT, and someone who had gone out of his way not to offend her.

All this is a matter of record, not my opinion. So now comes the question of your integrity. Are you going to actually back up your claims with a little actual evidence, or are you just going to go back to calling names... ; P

And I think so. Who wins?

You're entitled to your opinion about the "joke". If I say it doesn't bother me it's because I'm telling the truth. If it bothered me, she'd know about it.

The problem with being funny (or talented in any way) nowadays is that you're going to get compared to the plethora of incredibly talented people on the internet. With this in mind I actually have a yard stick I'm comparing against. Maybe in yesteryear you could claim some person or another was funny (or talented) and it would be true in one's tiny circle, just like every ugly baby is pretty to their mother.

I'm happy to be percieved by others as pathetic - they're entitled to their opinions. But I'll happily keep calling people out as pathetic.

The social mores are clear in this case - it's rude to reply to a question with a question; and it would have been trivial to answer the question.

You're welcome to walk away. Don't worry, sooner or later I'll get bored of you as well.

An apt summary of his entire life.

Act like an entitled arse and then look down on everyone you fucked over to get there.

Thanks. I thought it was about time to make a push, what with Trump and all the low hanging fruit to be sifted. Now that I'm gold star does that mean I'm entitled to the French Breakfast Puffs?