No bob, like crt, this is a figment of a deranged delusional mind that knows they can sell it for massive profit, not a real thing anywhere but right wing propagandists notebooks.
Just another of the myriad of fantasy boogie men you’ve been sold to keep you outraged and unthinking. It works all too well on your ilk, you NEVER verify anything that gets you upset, because you absolutely love to be upset and mad at a target, whatever target. It’s made those selling the outrage mountains of cash too. Sadly, it’s made you a laughing stock that sounds like you wear a tin foil hat most of the time…..

The idea is just as serious as my title…the kid does NOT identify as a dog toy…just like kids are not identifying as cats. It’s just an insult, derision of the trans community as silly, not even a serious claim….but you buy it.

…..do you REALLY believe kids are “identifying as cats” at schools, and schools are accommodating them with litter boxes and letting them roam naked?! REALLY!?! YOU’RE DUMB ENOUGH TO BELIEVE THAT!?! Er mer gerd!

You are so unbelievably gullible. You will buy any insanity that insults your many, ever growing number of enemies. Remember, you believe people dead for over 10 years helped defraud the election against Trump….zombie dictators, or time traveling dictators, you choose….but they used Italian space lasers to change votes in the machines. You bought that, bob.

It is your side that invented this nonsense, bob, as derision of real issues you are intolerant of because you’re incapable of serious discussion of serious issues, your entire “side” is (and your side is the anti reality side, bob.)

Now-Ashley Babbitt

Interestingly, about 2 weeks ago one of my son's classmate's parents said pretty much this on the parents discussion group. The reaction was only mixed in that some parents have been doing this all along, and others thought it was a great idea and would start moving things that way.

The great thing about that is that it works class-by-class, mostly, and even if one kid does get a PS5 at least they're the outlier.

Personally, if I get my son something big for christmas, I want the credit for it, not some overfed figment 😁

Smacked down by truth? I wonder if all the trump associates who are currently in prison actually think it's "not real" and instead are just figments of democratic imaginations. Either way, I can call the prisons they're staying at and ask for them by name. I can visit the buildings that house them and see them behind bars.


Keep telling yourself it's the democrats who are disillusion, we'll keep putting people behind bars for breaking the law.

It gets weird once you find out there aren't any real kittens involved. They're all figments of the videographer's imagination.

i have watched a few of this guys videos,and while he has great energy,passion and a penchant for sly humor,but he tends to impose his understandings as somehow being more valid and accurate.

just take his example of the role of government.
he makes a valid point,and then solidifies his position by implying his view is set in this countries original documents.

which is fair,but only to a point...he literally ignores the federalist papers,which he actually references,and it was these 200+ papers and/or arguments that debated the actual role of the federal government vs the role of state government.

@MonkeySpank he is actually right.america is not a true direct democracy but rather a democratically elected representative republic.

after he makes some valid,if fairly biased points,he devolves into the gospel of capitalism and how it is a natural extension of our democratic republic.

really dude?
name ONE corporation that is democratic in any fashion?
you can't?
maybe that is due to the very obvious and plain fact that corporations are tyrannical by their very design.

this semi-educated man is just preaching the gospel of his religion:capitalism.

and referencing lenin like 20 times?
dude...read a fucking book on the history of the soviet union.

oh jesus..now he defending trickle down economics.....
sighs..how the zealots adore their doctrine of their holy texts,even if those texts are just figments of some economists wet dreams and has been proven to be an utter and glorious failure.

sanders is a democratic socialist,not like a denmark flavor but more of a FDR flavor.you know...the most popular president in this countries history and ushered in the most prosperous era in this countries history.

i could do a play by play on this man all day,and make him cry like a pretty little thailand ladyboy who cant afford his life-changing surgery into a actual woman.

well..he does have that douchebag hair.so he may already be looking for a surgeon.

yeah..im with @MonkeySpank,this dude just needs a good cock punch.

It's funny until you realize Matthew is just a figment of his imagination.

OMFG... really bob... really... It's people like you that made me ashamed of being a Christian when I was a Christian. Completely believing anything they are told or read from someone with supposed authority without actual critical thought of the original source themselves.

I've hear that Jefferson never meant to exclude religion from politics and believed and repeated it myself for years. Then you know what I did? I actually read the letter that Jefferson wrote. I could have my son, who's going into 6th grade read it and he'd tell you the same thing I'm about to tell you. It's about keeping religion from unduly influencing politics. Especially when you read it in context with the letter that the church sent him that he was responding to, and it becomes more apparent if you read his drafts which were much more to the point.

Yes the phrase "wall of separation" does come from the letter and not the Constitution, but the 1st Amendment includes an establishment clause that prevents the government from favoring one religion over the others. Remember the pilgrims came here to escape a Christian nation that favored one form of Christianity over all others. Admittedly they were more about the fact they couldn't persecute others the way they thought they God wanted them to, but it was the government's church that prevented them from doing so. You can't even be King or Queen of England unless you belong to the Church of England, and if you were Catholic at some point in your past, you are disqualified, even to this day. Yeah, the Church of England no longer has as much influence over the laws as it did when the pilgrims and other early settlers escaped England to come here,

And if the only reason Christians are good is because of fear of punishment or hope for reward, then they are horrible people. Millions of people are good because they are good people without their faith dictating to them to be so. Most people of other faiths are good without the racist brutal Abramic God of the Bible. Most atheists are good without any god. Most pagans are good with their various gods. This insane all morality comes from God alone didn't make sense even when I was at my most evangelical, Fox News watching/defending mode. There were too many people in the world who's good without God and even in those days the concept that somebody would be good only because the Bible tells them so, or they are afraid of God's wrath if they don't is backwards. And as I read the Bible more and more, it became apparent that the far rights obsession with people's sin over love was misplaced (though the far right's sickening defense of Dugger shows a great deal of hypocrisy since if Dugger was on the Left, they'd be all about his sin rather than showing any sort of love, it's when others sin differently than they do they get upset, like at the gays). It was reading the Bible that moved me to the left as the clear Christian way, since the right defends and loves the people Jesus condemned and shames the people that Jesus defended and told us to love and help. It eventually got to the point I couldn't hold onto faith when over half the Christians of this Nation just blindly follow what they are told in church and on Fox News over the truth that Jesus and the Bible was teaching and thinking they were doing the Christian thing at the same time. I then began to do a critical analysts further and eventually became an atheist, because they are all equally bad/good. There is nothing new or original in the Abramic faiths that wasn't there before or since either in the same region or elsewhere... all those other elsewhere's where Jehovah somehow couldn't make himself known, as if he was just a figment of one small regional tribe or worse a racist jerk not worthy of following.

Anyhow, the best way to maintain Christianity is to keep it out of politics. Because what happens if you set things up to let religion influence politics and the Muslims gain power? Then you'll be crying how religion shouldn't influence politics. Or perhaps not that extreme, perhaps some form of Christianity that other Christian's don't agree with gains power and influence? Perhaps the Morman's or the Catholics or the Jehovah Witness? At what point does religious influence stop? When laws are passed that any church that doesn't practice or allow the speaking in tongues is outlawed? The 1st Amendment is designed to keep religion out of politics in order to protect religion.

Let's break that last sentience out again. The 1st Amendment's establishment clause is designed to keep religion out of politics in order to protect religion. The whole point is to keep one form of one faith from dominating all other forms of the same or other faiths. It protects those other forms Christianity and other faiths.

Finally there is no war on Christianity. I admitted that long before my fall from faith. I was there with it all, with how it was targeted, but the reality is there is no war on Christianity here... all that's happening is specific forms of Christianity are loosing their influence on other Christians and society as a whole, and they are very vocal about how it's persecution, because like the pilgrims, they are no longer allowed to persecute others the way they want to. Maybe if the people screaming about how Christianity is being persecuted while they try to deny equal rights to others because they sin differently than us, would actually show the love of Christ and behave the way He actually would have in modern society rather than trying to show how Christian they are, then perhaps Christianity wouldn't be losing the numbers they are. I know I, and many other atheists, likely wouldn't have had at crisis of faith if it wasn't for the far right. I never would have explored the logical and theological problems with Christianity and the Abramic faiths... I'd probably eventually found a more Quaker, left leaning (most the Quaker "Friends" related churches in this area are the far evangelical right Fox News types) type church that seems to be more in line with the Bible and teachings of Jesus, but the far right pushed me into a far more critical mode than I would likely ever have gone to on my own. So keep it up those on the far right, you are the ones destroying and making a war on Christianity. You push more and more people away, and more and more people stop seeing any difference between the far right and radical Islam.

The spirit of Hitch lives on in videosift comments, where the toss can and will be argued against you.

I don't think i ever appreciated him when he was alive, in retrospect it was a tragic loss. He was a great mouth piece for the rational. I think he expressed in his outlook what it means to be human in many of his religious debates and gives me more comfort in my own mortality than any figment of somebody else's imagination could. In short, care for the ones you love and do what you enjoy (his purpose being to protect and love his kids and er... spread the seed).

Figment of our imaginations!

>> ^shogunkai:

>> ^ForgedReality:
Is it still racist, even with this continuing overabundance of evidence, to say that they can't drive for shit?
I mean, honestly, sometimes you just have to take a look and say "hmm, maybe there's something about a certain group's neurophysiology that gives them a tendency for a certain trait." How in the hell does one mistake the brake for the gas, and THEN fail to figure out what the fuck to do when the car isn't actually stopping?

Population of China: 1,338,299,512 (2010)
There is bound to be a larger number of fuck ups.


>> ^mentality:

>> ^ForgedReality:
Is it still racist, even with this continuing overabundance of evidence, to say that they can't drive for shit?
I mean, honestly, sometimes you just have to take a look and say "hmm, maybe there's something about a certain group's neurophysiology that gives them a tendency for a certain trait." How in the hell does one mistake the brake for the gas, and THEN fail to figure out what the fuck to do when the car isn't actually stopping?

The reason why Chinese drivers are bad is because China is a developing country, and car ownership is a new phenomenon. A well established driving culture and respect for traffic regulation just doesn't exist yet. Overall regulation, enforcement and education is poor compared to developed countries, so you're bound to have more bad drivers.
So in summary, it's not a racial issue and you are a racist.


It's not a geographic issue. Every auto accident I have been in was the fault of an Asian driver. Why is this? Some people are just less aware of their surroundings and don't pay the fuck attention for whatever reason. It's not ALL Asians and it's not ONLY Asians; it just seems to be a trend in my experience. Stereotypes exist because our brains have evolved to recognize patterns. If a pattern exists, it isn't because it's a figment of the imagination. Wouldn't knowing HOW and WHY those patterns exist be beneficial?

I'm a realist, and we, as a species, need to stop being fucking pussies and being afraid of everything. We're afraid of what people might think of us for looking at the evidence and trying to discern the facts. Somebody needs to do a fucking study on this. We need brain chemistry analysis, anecdotal evidence, circumstantial parameters, field studies, etc. Every region, every age group, male and female, all nationalities (both relative and irrespective to location), etc.

If it's just my luck to consistently encounter this evidence, fine. If it's a real phenomenon, even better. Either way, understanding the data can lead to solutions. Hiding from it for politically correct reasons is a disservice. Perhaps understanding certain tendencies in drivers could lead to solutions which do not single out certain groups, but also help to improve safety on the roads and prevent fatalities.

With so many agreeable comments, i taught myself how to quote properly * pats himself on the back *

>> ^ChaosEngine:
If Yahweh showed up tomorrow, I'd start looking to form a resistance.
^ I'm in and have a bunch of analytical minded friends who would be gearing up before they even heard the word 'resistance'.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
pineapple on pizza is an unholy abomination
^ /agree re pineapple. It belongs on my pizza's as much as i belong in churches, it ruins the experience.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

There is another position on this: anti-theist. Most strongly evinced by Christopher Hitchens.

>> ^volumptuous:

Richard Dawkins' approach to this is the term "non-theist".

^ The terms 'Anti-Theist' and 'Non-Theist' are more sensible/respectable than 'Atheist' imo (more so after hearing Dawkins mention Afairyist), but i accept the latter as it requires less side-track debating over terminology.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

I really, really hope that Videosift5 gives the ability to spend a PP on a "super upvote" for comments. (or something similar).
@Sepacore would get mine!! (above)

^ Cheers

>> ^Boise_Lib:
I'm absolutely against anyone, or thing, that shows the pettiness, jealousy, and just plan babyishness of Yahweh having any control over human beings.


^ /agree

>> ^Boise_Lib:
But, what about something (this is why I don't use the word "god"), which is benevolently seeking knowledge through it's extrusions--(that's us)--into this space-time we inhabit.
If we are all part of this thing can it really be abhorrent?


^ .. make duck bills with your fingers, put them to your temples and open them up as you pull your hands away: you're blowing my mind.

>> ^Boise_Lib:
My point is if there is something else out there, we--as a species--have no idea what that might be (all religions are wrong).

^ /agree

>> ^Boise_Lib:
[Sidepoint: The mixture of taste sensations evinced by the salty, savory ham and the sweet, sour pineapple enmeshed in melty cheese is a glorious thing.]

^ * slumps down in a corner and cries softly while singing Amy Grant's 'Innocence Lost' (Christian music, lol Google FTW) *

I can't relive my life
I can't retrace my tracks
I can't undo what's done
There is no going back

I chased a selfish dream
Did not survey the cost
Illusions disappeared
I've found my innocence lost

Some say it's lessons learned
Some say it's a living life
I say it's choices made
Knowing wrong from right

>> ^ChaosEngine:
What I do have to contend with is mainstream religion (and while we're at it, faulty thinking around astrology, homoeopathy, etc).
^ worked in offices for past 5 years.. don't get me started on astrology and homeopathy. The girls and 1 guy don't care what i say about religions and Gods.. but the moment i open my mouth about those other 2.. (think it's because i kept showing them proofs against the practices)


@Lawdeedaw
I see the points you're making, but there's a lot more to an Agnostic position than there is to either of the extremes. For 1, there's room to fluctuate to either end of the extremes without having to make an incredible claim that simply can't be backup in any scientific way as there are always 'trump cards' for this subject.

Better than Physics, Cosmology, Chemistry and Biology, imo Psychology has the greatest chance of proving God doesn't exist, but unfortunately it's not going to be an actual 'proof', at best (and it irritates/pains me to say) it will only be a really good reason to 'believe' or suggest that Gods are most likely figments of our imaginations off of our preferences. Easily ignored when in the face of 'faith'.

Call it 'safe' or even 'fence sitting' if need be, but i call it the result of thinking about the subject and being honest enough to accept 'i, nor anyone, actually knows.. but i think X due to Y'.

I used to think an Atheistic position for scientists was logical off of the point of 'no proof, don't believe'. But the reality is that scientists do believe things without evidence, they work their butts off to prove the idea, and either succeed or prove the opposite, sometimes even discovering things they had no intention of or even an idea that they were close to.. point being there are stages where they have reason to believe but don't have proof and these stages can make getting funding quite difficult.

For a Scientist, publicly and privately resting on an agnostic position somewhere between the 2 ends of the scale is more reasonable/justifiable and less arrogant/distracting.

If you can't honestly state "I know there is no God" in any/every debate/discussion, then technically you're Agnostic (unless stating the complete opposite).. but like me would take up a stance a pin prick away from 1 of the 2 disingenuous and arrogant extremes (specifically the good one, that doesn't 'justify' us not caring about others).

>> ^VoodooV:

Ditto. Agnostic is the only sane choice. Fuck Atheists who want to put agnostics under their "umbrella"

^ If it ever started raining/reigning in the way and with the unforgiving dedications a number of religions have in the past, i hazard the guess you would likely jump under my umbrella quick smart when it was the only place that gave us both the option to state 'i don't know/care' and live to tell about it.

/Agree re the disapproval of Atheists disregarding the line.. but to this day, I've never met an 'Atheist' that definitively stated when pushed 'i know God doesn't exist'.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

You're all figments of my imagination.

On @BoneRemake's profile page perhaps?
>> ^legacy0100:

I swear I've seen this before here on VideoSift but I cannot seem to find it. I dunno, upvote!

>> ^Yogi:

"What...ARE Youuuu?!?"


A figment of your imagination?!?