Catch up if you missed the first Show Me Your Genitals music video.

I think something in the language I used above makes me sound more pissed off than I am. I was actually feeling really positive after reading this thread, but I just hate confrontation and I feel like a whiny bastard anytime I bring this stuff up So first let me apologise for sounding so angry and negative. I love you guys

Well, if you want to talk about change, I'd like it if people stopped using the term in both the overt negative sense (gay = bad/rubbish) and the more subtle sense (harder to define, but 'gay as comedy' sorta sums it up). The former is much easier to combat, and the latter is so pervasive in our culture now that I felt it was hopeless to even mention it.

The more I think about KP's video and description the more it bugs me. If I was browsing a feminist site and they posted a comedic video about cats in boxes, I wouldn't add that to the femme channel... isn't that a fair analogy? And saying "I guess homosexuals like to laugh too"... there seems something quite insidious there. I have to counterbalance that though, because I know KP is a great guy!

It isn't a problem with the word itself that I have, it's the usage, so renaming 'gay' to 'homosexuality' wouldn't help - in fact, if the sift had a louder queer community I think they'd already have mentioned something about 'gay' not being inclusive enough. I don't think channels can be renamed, anyway.

^Sarzy, those are Valkyries as in from Valkyr, the drug. Probably from the induced dream sequences. Sure, they weren't there in the games, but I sure loves me those impressive visuals.

And yeah, although I'm hyped and will see it (nothing wrong with Mila Kunis on.. in my mind), it's Ludacris and... Nelly Furtado (allow for pause to sink in) that first got me worried.

OMG, this is a first for me. I thought I'd seen them all.

yeah i too remember being shocked as hell when it first hit me:
wait, we've got an actual budget -surplus- for the first time in how long, and it was accomplished not by trickle down supply side (aka crumbs off the table) conservative republicans, but rather by liberal democrats???

>> ^quantumushroom:
"First, let me say I take full responsibility for my own actions and for those of my administration. As angry as I may be about activities undertaken without my knowledge, I am still accountable for those activities. As disappointed as I may be in some who served me, I'm still the one who must answer to the American people for this behavior.
You'll never hear anything like that from any Democratic Pollster, er, President, including the Obamessiah.


And you will surely never, ever hear this from Bush.

"First, let me say I take full responsibility for my own actions and for those of my administration. As angry as I may be about activities undertaken without my knowledge, I am still accountable for those activities. As disappointed as I may be in some who served me, I'm still the one who must answer to the American people for this behavior.

You'll never hear anything like that from any Democratic Pollster, er, President, including the Obamessiah.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

First, let me say I appreciate your honest attempt at "tearing me a new one". Compared to other replies, yours is a gem (a diamond with 250 written on it). You asked me some non-rhetorical questions, and I will gladly answer those that my two previous replies haven't, as they were not specifically aimed at your criticisms.

Oh, so having a college degree automatically exempts you from being lowlife scum

Sigh. Obviously not. You quoted me as saying "Not to say there aren't lowlifes in corporate America,". Did you not read the full quote or are you ignoring it on purpose? In the latter case, at least don't quote the embarrassing contradictory bit.

I'd rather have my blue-collar job over sitting in a tiny fucking cubicle any day.

Maybe so, and you may well hold a moral "relatively high" ground by doing so as far as I am concerned, but in light of america's global pursuit of economical happiness, I consider pretty much all jobs inside the U.S.A and some parts of Canada as "corporate". My usage of "corporate America" here was both a rhetorical and a conceptual synecdoche that played on the ambiguity of adjective-noun compound nouns in English (out of context, "corporate America" could mean both "the corporations of America as a whole" or "the whole of America as a corporation"). Sorry for the misunderstanding here, as usage should have required quotation marks to show I didn't use the idiomatic expression "corporate America" in its commonly accepted technical sense.

So now you're calling America's greatest generation lowlife scum? I would think that the veterans of WWII deserve nothing but honor and respect for their actions, and you should too.

I do respect them, and tried to make sure that what I said could not be construed as showing disrespect towards veterans of the two World Wars. Yet you have done so with a comment that is taken completely out of context as I implied it applied only to an ENLISTED army, specifically this one that is stationed in Iraq. As I pointed out, conscripts (and other time-of-war enlistees) are a different matter altogether. If you think they're not, may I just point out that officially, the United States has not been at war with anyone since WWII? Not in Korea, not in Vietnam and certainly not in both Iraqi "operations". The Congress may have voted funds and whatnot, but that is not War according to any international definition. Thus, only WWI and WWII will stand as examples of real modern wars with conscripts and ethically justified enlistment. Also, see my second post.

If it wasn't for them, you'd all be speaking German and saluting the Swastika right now.

Overused red herring. Please think of the Nazis and their children!

How can someone that honestly doesn't know of back-room politics and abuse of fellow humans be low life scum?

It is called guilt by ignorance (in christian terms, "Vincible Ignorance". Ask a theologian near you) You can be condemned in court as a consequence of it, if it can be shown that while you could have known the law, you didn't make the effort to for whatever reason (normally, you're suppose to know all law, but let's say you try to argue that it was somehow absolutely impossible for you to know it and that this should somehow absolve you of any wrongdoing). See also the concepts of "pluralistic ignorance" and of the bystander effect.

What if he did know about it?

Then that makes him guilty by association if he could prevent wrongdoing or if he refused to denounce it.

Maybe he would fucking want to join just to show that there ARE people in the military that don't beat on prisoners?

Maybe, but that doesn't change the fact that people in the military did beat up prisoners. If he joins the army without denouncing those actions, how are we to know that he doesn't intend to perpetuate them?

Someone that honestly loves his country so much he is willing to put his life on the line is stupid?

If he is doing so blindly then yes, whether or not the thing he does thereby is wrong or not. Of course, that is only my (and I reckon most of the educated world, except some parts of the United States and some other really religious educated regions) ethical standpoint, and you may stand elsewhere on this issue.

O RLY? Care to actually back asinine claims like that up with actual fucking data?

Well, I haven't heard of any prisoners being tortured or beaten during the invasion per se, nor in the immediate aftermath, and my educated guess would be that the advent of such actions would indeed be sudden, but following a gradual increase in emotional detachment from the guards (refer to the Stanford prison experiment that I quoted two sentences later, which is more data than you'll ever need on this matter, I'd think). But what I wrote was not a scientific article. If I were to cite every paper I've ever read (most of which you probably couldn't understand right away anyway) to satisfy your misplaced need for "data", I would not be finished writing that first post yet. Relishing that thought may well please you; if so you are misguided indeed (misguided about how "science" works and also about the internets).

Again, O RLY? Moar data plz. Or should I say ANY data, please.
Again, have you not read what you had just quoted, where I referred you to a well known psychological experiment made in a prestigious school, published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and repeated in countless psychology textbooks which happens to sustain my very point? Or are you just trying to rip off my leg off of my still warm body? Also, see my last answer about your misunderstanding of the process of science, which applies here especially to social sciences.

Maybe because the point of my fucking post wasn't to counter his points. "Troops are low life scum" isn't a point, it's a n opinion, in case that's what you were referring to.

Maybe so, but then so was my remark not a statement about the opinionatedness of the poster you replied to, but about your implicit attempt at refutation through a more or less carefully/consciously constructed exclamation of disbelief. Indeed, as it is difficult to ascertain scientifically that a certain person or type of person is "lowlife scum", such bold statements are to be classified as opinion. It doesn't change the fact though, that some opinions are more educated than others and thus may carry more weight, either subjectively through a shared worldview and knowledge base, or objectively by being shown to be closer to an established truth that the participants in this debate eventually come to recognize as such later.

What the hell does that have to do with ANYTHING said here?

Yes indeed it doesn't directly relate, sorry. It is part of a previous version of my post that I forgot to erase entirely. Though the point it makes is now moot since it is not attached to the post as a whole anymore, the segment can be reconstructed as such: "[Your experience in your squadron may give you a different picture of the lowlifedness of the enlisted troops as a whole, since you generalize from your own, subjectively positive experience, but things may not be such when viewed from outside, and your own squadron may be a statistical anomaly.] Yes, you may have "heard [good] things" [about the rest of the army as whole], but there's a reason hearsay is not allowed as evidence in a trial: it's actually pretty unreliable. Also, keep and bear in mind that no one likes to think that he himself did "bad things" in a conflict. They always blame the other or perversely blame only themselves." For that last bit, see the concept of "pluralistic ignorance" that I quoted earlier.

Have I thrown a stone here?

I would say yes, and my whole post was, in a sense, a way to make this very point.

Basically, next time, if you don't have any data to back up supposed "facts", STFU.

Unfortunately for you, I had data, as I think I have shown here (too) extensively. But it was not to back any facts but to back opinion. I never claimed to have any facts concerning the lowlifedness of enlisted troops and neither did the original poster. The fact that I asserted my opinion as if it were fact is a rhetorical device of which you should be well aware of in "FOX-News America". It is one of the most simple, pervasive, transparent and perversely effective device in the whole of human speech (again, in my and some other people's view). It is also one of the easiest to catch, at least when you and your opponents are on different wavelengths: hence to need to train yourself to detect it even when people you agree with use it. I guarantee you it will save you from trouble in the long run.

It's a Christmas miracle! Or something like that...

In reply to this comment by oxdottir:
woah. I have 8 videos in my queue....

A serious first for me.


In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
*promote

woah. I have 8 videos in my queue....

A serious first for me.


In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
*promote

>> ^rottenseed:
why didn't he just slide the bar? fuckin' moron. Slide or push down on one side and push up on the other. Let gravity work its magic.


I don't know why either. At first to me it looked like there were collars on the barbell, so I thought he couldn't slide them off. However now that I reviewed it, I see he wasn't using collars. Maybe he didn't know about sliding the plates off.

It sounded like white bearded man at first to me too.

wow thats a first for me

Cannot play media. Sorry, this media is not available in your territory.

First let me say I do not support or denounce Scientology. The primary reason for my lack of opinion is that everything I have ever seen on Scientology has been designed to discredit it. There is so much anti-Scientology stories on the web I am glad to have had an opportunity to hear Scientology explain itself.

Wish this drug was available when I was younger and in a more free mindset. I always liked sharing trip stories with friends, ahh what the hell here's my favorite. So it was my first time. Me and 4 friends dropped 2 hits of flying pyramid acid each. Fast foreward to my peak. We all wanted to smoke a cigarette so we meander on my cousins/babysitters second story balcony. It was late april, and the trees were just starting to bud. So I'm sitting there smoking a cigarette and watching the branches on the trees dance like spaggetti as if they were propelled by the ocean current. Then the buds of the trees acted as little points like a connect the dot drawings. What my mind formed was a neon green tryanasouras. He wasn't realistic, just an outlined shape. at first the image was just a profile. All of the sudden he turned his head and looked directly at me. He craned his neck and head towards me slowly, opened is mouth and as his teeth went beyond my perefrial vision i felt his warm breath. (probably just a breeze). Then he was gone. I snapped out of it when my friend noticed I had dropped my cigarette, and asked if I was okay. I laughed for the next minute or so. There are very few moments in life that I wish I could relive, that trip was one.