I'll echo the video again and say you only have to read the qur'an. If you think, for example, 'unbelievers deserve to be tortured forever in the afterlife' is a belief that could be held by a good person, then I just don't know how to find common ground.

People are deceived into defending muslims because they don't like the kind of people they see attacking them. Obviously we don't like Donald Trump, obviously we don't like bible-thumping pastors and their qur'an burning parties, and islam doesn't have to be a race for racists to hate muslims.

None of that bigotry goes any way whatsoever toward excusing actual islamic doctrine. If you examine it objectively and without apology you will find you despise it.

Fear isn't a reasonable reaction to individual muslims, at least not if you meet them in a non-islamic country, but hate certainly is. I don't typically say of people I hate that I'm interested in peaceful coexistence or protecting them from radicalisation.

Isn't it so much more fun to actually exchange information and points of view, rather than getting snotty? I love it.

Maybe we are talking a bit at cross purposes. (Like, that has never happened before on teh intertubes, right?)

I try not to "re-edit" or "re-imagine" videos. I'm sure I do it -- I often do things that I later complain that other people do. This comment goes back more to your first response to me, however it applies to this comment, too. The idea that the video would be better if it this'd, or that'd, or it fails to do this other thing that it wasn't even trying to do. The concept of being conscious of "the bigger picture" is what I am addressing here.

However, isn't it just YOUR vision of what the bigger picture is that you say is missing? Because for me, I see a bigger picture being addressed quite nicely -- the vision that the video maker set out to address.

I wonder if the nebulous nature of your instinctive dislike to this video is indeed EXACTLY what the video maker was setting out to illuminate? Or rather, decided to be not obsequious to? Like women have been taught to be obsequious for eons?

I notice that you are sure that your difficult-to-describe instinctive reactions are "correct." What if it is actually your own internalized and unexamined sexism? I know you say thunderfoot bugs you, too. I also know that all my impassioned information about how women across cultures and time are expected to "tone it down" wasn't addressed in your response to me.

That is the elephant in the room here, as far as I am concerned. Sure, "condescension" is gender neutral. The whole video, though, is about sexism and the unconscious ways that it leaks out. I don't see you addressing that in your response -- except maybe, MAYBE, it is this nebulous and difficult thing you are struggling to understand and maybe, MAYBE, it needs to be examined and understood.

So maybe look at your feelings through that prism?

I say this as someone who has their own internalized sexism (towards men and women both) that I am constantly trying to identify and own and uproot. Racism, too. I so want to be the person who, like Stephen Colbert of old, who doesn't see race. And yet I do and I am mortified by it and I try to push through that lizard brain instinct and the training of my youth.

Something to think about maybe?

Or not. Maybe it just is as simple as you don't like the humor in the video, and I do. There are differences in taste, after all.

I suspect, though, that it is much more complex than that -- as you said, "maybe I'm going into it with the notion that I'm going to be offended anyway."

It's not fully a joke.
I honestly think people not willing to examine their beliefs in the face of new contradictory evidence need to be removed from those actually willing to learn in order for us to evolve as a species/civilization...but that evolution is probably over now. I don't actually advocate killing, sterilizing, or even removing them, I do advocate teaching them, by force if necessary, or removing some privileges. Lucky for everyone (including me) I'm not in charge.
I do wish there was a way to identify them and bar them from teaching, voting, or governing, or any other activity where their solidified beliefs might tend to negatively impact others, but they are not easily identified.
I think it's a mental disorder to believe something so strongly that you can't even try to consider new information or even consider that your belief is possibly wrong. I would like to see that disorder eradicated in my lifetime. I'm willing to change my opinion if presented with incontrovertible evidence that I'm wrong, though. ;-)
I'm not angry with ignorance, ignorance is forgivable and curable...I'm angry with ignorance masquerading as certitude, which is what people who say truthfully that nothing could ever change their mind (about any topic) are displaying.

As for your above example of torture, what if you were shown incontrovertible proof that it's not only effective, but is (somehow, this is hypothetical) MORAL, and is suddenly found to be acceptable to 99.999% of society due to this new evidence? Would you at least CONSIDER that your position might be wrong? If so, you can stay in society and you don't have to be fixed. ;-)

To be clear, the situation appears to be as follows:

The police get a call about a person that may be mental wielding a gun.

Multiple police arrive on scene, where they find a black male and hispanic male.

The hispanic male is clutching something.

The extremely lucid and reasonable sounding black male identifies himself as a caregiver for the hispanic male, clarifies that the hispanic male is autistic, and that the item the hispanic male is carrying is a toy truck.

The black male does all of this, as well as trying to de-escalate the situation, while laying prone on his back with his hands in the air.

The police move in, at some point the black male is shot in the leg.

The police have full control of the situation, both parties are handcuffed.

Medical aid is not provided to the black male for more than 15 minutes. Not even an attempt by an officer to staunch the blood flow.

When the black male asks the officer why he was shot, the officer supposedly responds, "I don't know."

Now, let's examine this closely.

A gunshot wound to the leg could easily have nicked the femoral artery. I doubt the officers were trained to identify this. You can bleed out from seconds to minutes after your femoral artery gets damaged. A reasonable person might take off their shirt and compress the wound or use a belt as a tourniquet.

Before we consider that, really, we should look at one factor. If you choose to be a fireman, a policeman, or be in any other dangerous job, you need to be prepared to face actual danger. Being so scared that you might somehow, maybe, possibly get hurt that you proceed to jumpscare shoot someone who is fucking prone, is not being willing to face danger. It means someone joined the force to be 'better' than the rest of us plebes and not to face an iota of danger.

Also, if it was a white male, laying on his back and doing the same thing, do we expect him to be shot? The likely answer is no. I can't even believe that this was a likely shooting situation. At first, I suspected it might have been one shot that was accidentally discharged. That, while not acceptable, would have been plausible due to nerves. Three shots means three separate trigger pulls, that speaks to intent to shoot.

Luckily this man is going to live. He will likely sue and get a good chunk of money. If he had died, blood would have likely ran in the streets in Florida because one cop got scared that he 'might' be in danger. As far as that cop? He might lose his job briefly. Cop unions will do their best to get him back his job and will likely succeed. Let's be real about the possible ramifications of him going before a grand jury though. Even if he does, he will walk because the prosecutor will throw the case.

Jesus christ, I'm 7 minutes in and he still hasn't made anything approaching a critique of "ideological feminism", whatever that's supposed to be.

Get to the fucking point.

right... finally. over 10 minutes in and we get to the first claim.
"what we're denying is that there's a rape culture"

Well, you can deny it all you want, but you're going to want to back that up with facts.. oh no, what's that? Let's just move straight on to the next point.

FFS, he is LITERALLY doing the exact same thing that his fucking stupidly long intro talked about. If you make a claim, that claim should be examined.

Can someone tell me if this gets any better? 'cos right now, I can't be bothered watching the rest of this unless there's a marked improvement in the quality of his "argument".

Is it really such a good idea to respond to this shit by giving the murderer that kind of attention? I can't help feeling that if the only time the media attempts to get inside the head of a black man is when said black man kills a bunch of cops, then you're probably asking for more shootings. I think you give the victims attention - you do your best to show them as human beings whose life was ended by a senseless act of malice. I mean, there was a whole fucking protest dedicated to explaining the reasons for that malice, maybe start by examining why _they_ were out on the streets that night.

*Warning I've only gone and done yet another wall of text again! This may or may not get read by anyone on here (good god I wouldn't blame anyone for skipping it), but at the very least it's formed the backbone to a video script so it's not a complete waste of my time! (he tells himself)*

This is as much @bareboards2 as yourself, but he already made it clear he wasn't willing to engage on the issue, so you're getting it instead MWAHAHAHHAHA! *coughs*

I don't wish this to come across as over condescending (though I'm sure it will none the less as I'm in one of those moods). But pretty much every (successful) comedy premise operates on the same underlying principle of irony. i.e. there is an expectation or understanding, which is deliberately subverted, and what results is comedy.

In this case, amongst other things we have the understood premises that:
A. rape is a bad, often horrific thing.
B. that there is an established social taboo about praising such behaviour.
C. that there is a section of society inherently opposed to making light of things of which they do not approve (or in a way in which they do not approve)
D. most words and phrases have an expected association and meaning.

What Jim Jefferies (an accomplished and well respected comedies amongst his peers) has done here, is take these commonly understood premises and subverted the audiences normal expectations in order to evoke a sense of irony, from which the audience derives humour and amusement.

A simple joke might take a single such premise and perform a single inversion of our expectation. e.g. my dog has no nose, how does he smell?....terrible!

By subverting our assumed meaning (that the missing nose refers to the dogs implied lack of olfactory senses), the joke creates basic irony by substituting this expected meaning for that of the odour of the dog itself.

This is of course a terrible joke, because it is as simple as a joke could be. It has only one layer of irony and lacks any sense of novelty which, might tip such a terrible joke into working for any other than the very young or simple minded.

We could of course attempt to boost this joke by adding more levels of irony contextually. e.g. a very serious or complex comedian Like say Stuart Lee, could perhaps deliver this joke in a routine and get a laugh by being completely incongruous with his style and past material.

And herein we see the building blocks from which any sophisticated professional comedy routine is built. By layering several different strands or ironic subversion, a good comedian can begin to make a routine more complex and often more than just the sum of its parts to boot.

In this case, Jim is taking the four main premises listed above, layering them and trying to find the sweetest spot of subverted expectation for each. (something which usually takes a great deal of skill and experience at this level)

He mentions the fact that his jokes incite outrage in a certain section of society because this helps to strengthen one of the strands of irony with which he is playing. The fact that he also does so in a boastful tone is itself a subversion, it is understood by the audience that he does not/should not be proud of being merely offensive and as such we have yet another strand of irony thrown into the mix.

You know how better music tends to have more and/or more complex musical things happening at once? It is the same with comedy. The more ironic threads a comedian can juggle around coherently, the more sophisticated and adept their routines could be considered to be.

Naturally as with music there's no accounting for taste as you say. Some people simply can't get past a style or associations of a given musician or song (or painting or whatever).

But dammit Jim is really one of the greats right now. Like him or lump him, the dude is pretty (deceptively) masterful at his craft.

There are at least 4-5 major threads of irony built into this bit and countless other smaller ones besides. He dances around and weaves between them like some sort of comedy ballerina. Every beat has been finely tuned over months of gig's (and years of previous material) to strike the strongest harmonies between these strands and probe for the strongest sense of dissonance in the audience. Not to mention, tone of voice, stance, timing etc.

I think Ahmed is basically terrible too, but it is because the jokes lack much semblance of complexity or nuance. Jeff Dunham's material in general feels extremely simple and seems like it uses shock as a mere crutch, rather than something deeper and more intelligent.

Taste is taste, but I feel one can to a reasonable extent criticise things like the films of Michael Bay, or the music of Justin Beiber for being objectively shallow by breaking down their material into its constituent parts (or lack thereof).

Likewise one could take the music of Wagner and while not enjoying the sound of it, still examine the complexity of it's composition and the clear superiority of skill Wagner had over most of this peers.

I guess what all this boils down to is, Jim seems to me to be clearly very very good at what he does (as he ought after all these years). Reducing his act to mere controversy feels a lot like accusing Black Sabbath of just making noise and using satanic imagery to get attention (or insert other less out of date example here).

The jokes were never at the expense of victims, they are at the expense of our expectations. He makes his own true feelings on the matter abundantly clear towards the end of the section.

As as he says himself his job is to say funny things, not to be a social activist.

I take no issue with you not liking it, but I do take issue with the suggestion that it is somehow two dimensional, or for that matter using controversy cheaply.

Offensive initial premises are some of the most ironically rich in comedy. It's like deliberately choosing the brightest paints when trying to create a striking painting. Why would you avoid the strongest materials because some people (not in your audience) find the contrast too striking?

Eh, much love anyway. This was more an exercise in intellectual masturbation than anything else. Not that I didn't mean all of it sincerely.

Well actually that's fair. He might not be espousing his own opinion. He might not even have an opinion. But he also might have a scientific mind and have examined some research, if not his own screenwriting.

@transmorpher
ha! right on man.

let me start that there really is no argument between us,just a disagreement by degrees is all.

you do not have to refute my claim that "veganism is carried out for the feeling of superiority."

because i never made that claim.
my criticism was specific and focused on a single person @ahimsa,who,if you read his commentary,is most certainly taking a morally superior stance.

if you compare how you were interacting and how ahimsa was interacting.the differences are quite stark.

you were quite open and honest on how you eventually reached veganism.(bravo my friend),but i didnt really see you berate or belittle someone for still eating meat,or being a non-vegan.

oh...you certainly argued your points and exposed weak and facile arguments.you offered new ways of looking at the situation,but you really didn't judge a person for not following your ways of thinking/being/doing.

basically you took responsibility for your choices.shared your reasons for those choices and have allowed people to make THEIR own choices.

how can you not respect that?
which is why i wanted to trade partners.
tongue in cheek of course..that was my way of giving you props and respect.

ahimsa,on the other hand,didnt even respect those he engaged with enough to even use his own words,and instead indulged in presumption,laziness and pretentious twattery.(god,i love that phrase.thank you britain!)

ahimsa approached veganism much the same way a newly born again person approaches talking about their new love for jesus,by proselytizing.

being a man of faith i can understand and relate to someone experiencing a profoundly life changing event,manifested by a serious epiphany and the desire to share that new understanding with everyone you meet.confident in an absolute certitude of righteousness.

but it can be so aggravating to be on the receiving end of such self righteousness,because there has been little time of actual examination and reflection.the newness and novelty cloud all other considerations and ANY rebuttal or deviation is seen as an affront,a sacrilege and blasphemy and therefore should be dismissed...entirely.

i suspect that ahimsa is young and his/her veganism is fairly new and fresh.this would explain the religious quality of his/her arguments.

YOU..on the other hand,have approached from a far more even handed and open way.choosing instead to use humor and wit to make your arguments while not judging those you disagree,allowing for a real dialogue which can lead to understanding.

so good on you mate.

i specifically like the fact you lay out your journey and the reasons why ,but you do not admonish those for not following the same path.which is the correct way to engage.

and what i REALLY dig,is that your argument is basically "this is how i came to where i am,and i am betting that you will to...eventually".

because,at it's heart,you are 100% correct.there really IS no reason to eat meat.

a person who eats meat really has only ONE reason and that is simply "because i want to".now there are cultural and racial reasons,long standing heritage and dishes passed down over generations,and you acknowledge that,because it really is important and is underlying reason why so many still eat meat(and because we want to).

but i suspect that your final argument is more correct than incorrect.meat will eventually go away and be replaced by something better and more healthy.

but that takes time.possibly a generation or two.maybe three.
you recognize this,while ahimsa does not.

i also suspect you may be heading on your way to old fartdom.

anyways,thanks for the dance mate.
you seem a righteous dude.

People talk about how much dollar value media exposure he got for free, but I think it's more the lack of criticism by networks afraid of losing access to him. That and being afraid of alienating the viewers who support him.

Instead you get the usual news equivocation of opposing views as equally valid and the treating of his policy ideas as serious proposals no matter how loony.

Similar to the Daily Show under Stewart, polit-satire shows like Colbert are able to get away with more direct criticism because it's under the umbrella of 'it's comedy, so everything is fair game' so I wouldn't equate him with more general TV news coverage.

Plenty of written coverage has been very good (Economist, Vox, hell even Fox had some good criticism):

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/05/03/any-republican-who-thinks-its-better-to-elect-trump-than-hillary-needs-their-head-examined.html

But obviously that has a much narrower reach or effect on publicity.

What an idiot.
"Just give me your plan of how you're going to do it and leave it there. Don't tell me what can't be done and what laws have to be passed" "Voters want simple answers."
Complex issues have complex solutions. Any actual plan MUST examine the limits of what can and can't be done, and what laws must be changed to implement it, or it's just hot air and not a plan.
Is Sanders a Democrat?!? OMG, you've GOT to be kidding me. CLINTON said that?!? Ohhhh....another new low.

Should I?

/ducks

In all seriousness though, no, I don't really have an answer to your question. What I like about Sanders is that he seems to call 'em like he sees 'em, instead of pandering to what he thinks will get him the most votes like most politicians (cough Hillary cough). So, I guess the best way to find an answer would be to examine what he says (and how he has voted) about constitutional issues.

I suppose that if I had to guess the most likely "constitutional right" that his opponents would call him out for NOT wholeheartedly supporting would probably be the 2nd amendment. He has said (and voted) that he is in favor of an assault weapons ban on guns that are "only designed to kill people". And that he wants "common sense gun control legislation" enacted.

Fox News would probably say that means that he is radically opposed to some of our constitutionally guaranteed rights and protections. You can decide for yourself whether you agree or not.


I should note that aside from my first line here "answering a question with a question", I'm not trying to be snarky in my reply here and wasn't trying to be in my first reply to you either. I just wasn't clear from the context of your original post if you were asking a question or if you "had an agenda". Now I get it. I think.

This is why she's characterizing the bringing up her record as an "artful smear". She must make examining her record an 'attack' in order to deflect scrutiny by attacking the 'attacker' instead of addressing the point.....because IF you examine her record it's clear that she's just another politician willing to be bought off on any issue by the party with the deepest pockets.

@Imagoamin

whoa whoa whoa...
did you think i was calling YOU a bed-wetter?
like as in actually using the pronoun "you" to direct my fictional interaction as representing an actual person,in this case YOU?

well,that certainly explains the tone of your reply.

if this is the case then i humbly and sincerely apologize.i was not referring to you at all,but rather a hypothetical and totally fictional interaction between a cry-baby and myself.

which you actually just made my point about humor,and in this case sarcastic humor.an over the top referencing of a certain hyper-sensitive group,in order to make my point about bad ideas,bad philosophy and poor judgment.

the sarcasm should have been obvious.
but alas...it appears it was not,and has been misconstrued as a personal attack.

moving on to your suey park rebuttal.
while the response to her initial call for justice can easily be seen as vile and grotesque (because it is) how does that take away from her inanity? her blatant disregard for nuance and context? or that she simply lacks the basic intelligence to discern satire from actual racist remarks?

it does not.

i think that most people would agree that the vile,disgusting and dehumanizing responses that suey park was subjected to,are to be condemned and yes...ridiculed..for the stupid and trollish behavior they represent.

you do not reply to stupid with even more stupid.

i dont really understand your defense of language,or better put,the imposing of certain words being stricken from the language altogether because some people find them offensive.

language is a fluid animal,and it is ever-changing.words and terms are dropped from the vocabulary or they morph into something altogether new.i have no skin in on the game in that regard.that is how language progresses,and yes,certain words can be offensive in certain contexts.so we should avoid using them,if only to be a decent human being.

my issue is with the FORCED attempts to re-integrate new words.to control what people say and attempt to bring real world consequences upon them,and then turn around and call it "justice".that is not justice! that is censorship!

maybe this will help a bit.
i view words and language as such:words are the means to express thoughts,feelings and imaginings.when we consider the complexity of our thoughts,feelings and imaginings then it becomes quite apparent that words will NEVER suffice to truly,and accurately,express those very human creations.

words will always be inadequate.

so when some people get it in their head that certain words are just too offensive to even utter.this narrows the field of expression that is already inadequate.(i am not talking about BLATANT,and archaic terms that are not only offensive,but are no longer relevant,and in existence still to simply disparage,insult or dehumanize).

now maybe some words no longer serve a valid purpose or are truly offensive and need to be re-examined,but the only way to reach that conclusion as a people..we must actually TALK to one another,and it is in this free market of ideas where bad ideas go to die.

but we have to able to conversate for that to happen.don't you agree?

now i am not going to bother addressing the rest of your comment,because your tone was just a reaction to where you presumed i was coming from.

and you did presume.

you seem like a decent sort,so i will just chalk your final response up to finding my comment offensive and replied in kind.

just know i wasnt heated,nor enraged.
and i certainly wasnt calling you a bed-wetter.
though the extreme end of social justice warriors are STILL humorless cunts.

i have been watching interviews where prominent comics are refusing to do gigs at universities due to the fact that the PC culture has become so saturated that they can't even do their bits,and it becomes a horror show.

young,educated people who mistake their own little bubble-world and attempt to project their sense of morality onto others by demanding changes in language and attitude by way of shrill harpy speak,is totally missing the point of humor.

comedy is the examination and critique of certain truths we may hold sacred,and expose the absurdity.a good comedian can do this fairly well,a great comedian does so with a finesse that is epic.

see:george carlin.lenny bruce,bill hicks,patrice o'neal,bill burr,louis ck.doug stanhope

so i have to disagree with you @Imagoamin.
comedians who thrive on being edgy are not thriving just for the simple fact of being edgy or controversial.they thrive because they are adept at exposing the absurdity of life in such a way that makes us all laugh.....at ourselves.

they experience pushback constantly in the form of heckling and jeering,and do so on a nightly basis and do not get upset that people get offended by their material.that is the very boundary they are pushing!

self examination,criticism and the ability to accept that maybe those things we held so dear are,in fact,absurd and in need of ridicule.the great comedians all give us a great,totally effective self-cleansing pill.they call it "the get the fuck over yourself" pill.

but the overly sensitive PC culture that is festering in our current higher education institutions is creating a new breed of human that lacks basic self-awareness and,on the whole,a gaggle of humorless cunts.

humor is a concept beyond their ken.they dont get it and instead of relaxing a bit,they prefer to get their panties in a knot over.....words.so they all get together and tweet and facebook,in order to share their outrage and make their little signs and march in front of a chris rock show with absolutely zero sense of irony.

to them they are striking a blow for justice!

which is just absurd,and in desperate need of ridicule.