It's legitimately a fun, worthwhile movie. "Suicide Squad" sucked, but having seen it first helped me appreciate the new one.

I was on an escalator recently with my sister. Sister got on first then me. As we were moving I slowly started moving forward until I bumped into her. When she turned to look at me I told her my step was moving faster than hers. Chuckles ensued.

At this point in time, I have recovered approximately 20 covid bodies since they started falling. So far no problems due to following guidelines from experts.

First, let me tell you I respect you and what you are doing. I also see that your efforts with bob are tearing you down. When you start writing in all caps it tells me you are trying to yell through a brick wall. Funny thing about walls though. Sometimes it's hard to know if you are on the inside or outside.

Just know that some people can't be reached. I'm sure bob has heard all the facts but yet chooses to go his own way for whatever reason. This tells me that bob hasn't had enough life experiences to make good decisions. Whether he is just a troll or really believes what he says it still comes back to his life experiences or lack of.

He starts fires and you rush around with a bucket of water trying to put out the flames. Your efforts are commendable and I respect you for that.

What I don't care for is what he is doing to you. You don't deserve it and I think as long as you just put the facts out there, everyone can pick up their own bucket and help put out fires.

Have faith that one day bob will be touched by reality when someone he loves is taken away. Then your words may be heard for the first time with him. That is when he may realize for the first time your efforts were to protect him and others. You won't need to tell him "I told you so". He will remember.

If you don't believe bob can change how will he ever believe it?

In the meantime keep protecting the ones you love. They deserve your time more than bob does. If you believe bob deserves more of your time, give him a way to find the door back to you.

I'm on your side.

I think it was probably a sifted video that first got me to look up Kaepernick's actual statements from about 2 years ago when he started sitting out the anthem in protest. There's a great post-game interview where he made himself available and answered questions from many reporters etc. about his motivations, etc.


To me, it seems impossible to watch that with an open mind and come away with the Fox News narrative on the guy intact. He straight-up says that it wasn't ever meant to be taken as a slight on the military at all. He clearly and rather eloquently explains what it was/is about for him. He acknowledged that there would likely be consequences, which certainly came true.

Maybe he wouldn't be a QB in the NFL even if he'd have just kept quiet and been a good little conformist, but he got to a point where he didn't feel he could do that.

So, at least in my eyes, kudos to him for standing up for what he believes in. Even after losing his primary soapbox (being an NFL player), he's still putting the issue out there with Nike's help. I don't necessarily trust their motivations -- all publicity is good publicity, after all -- but after having heard his own statements I sure as hell trust his as being 100% genuine.

I will follow you, Namor! First, let me use my Quantum Bands to wreak havoc and sink the entire west coast of the United States into the Pacific. And with the help of the Fantastic Four and the more agreeable Deviants, shield the land mass from all harm and construct that utopia: Atlantis 5.

Yeah, the other Atlantises were blown up and or phased out of time and space, but i have high hopes for A5. Better than liberal hubs named after Mesopotamian cities! Death to the Night Watch and beware gov't telepaths...

Wow, this is a first for me.
"Watch this video on YouTube.
Playback on other websites has been disabled by video owner."

It's very hard to differentiate ribs breaking and massive blunt trauma on that area. Something i found out after a wrestling match with one feisty woman where she landed on my ribs flying knees first taking me down... She was a stripper at a time and athletics to match. The doctor said that the pain is the same and only x-rays solved that nothing broke but i had a massive bruising under the ribs. Takes about same time to heal as bone injury too.

What first tipped me off was the fact it wasn't thrashing around in agony, suffocating.

ME and my roommate were discussing the lack of 'soul' in some musicians, and were using examples like Steve Vai vs. Frank Zappa and say, Yngwie Malmsteen vs. Buckethead, etc (for guitarists) and he brought up the whole Japanese fascination with jazz vs. a lot of her practitioner's technical skills relative to their lack of 'soul' and I was trying to think of an example of a Japanese musician WITH some soul, and could not remember this woman's name as I used her as an exception to the 'soulless', technical performer-

Thanks again Kulpims (pretty sure you first turned me on to this artist here), this woman has the whole soul + technical prowess package²

@shveddy First let me ask you a question, since we're discussing the incoherence of atheism: What argument would you give to Stalin as to why he should hold to your morality instead of his own?

@renatojj Ah, its nice to be called a socialist for once. Where I come from, they call me a right wing capitalist
Any economic system is as cooperative as the next. That is the definition of an economic system, a system where economic transactions take place, ie cooperation. So capitalism is NOT more (or less) cooperative than other isms. (And mercantilism and corporate capitalism (corporatism right?) are forms of capitalism ;-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism)

Definition of capitalism:
"an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state" - oxford dictionary
Emphasis is on "for profit". So yes, all capitalist are per definition profit seeking. Relentless is something that follows Darwin. Those who are more relentless get higher profits and have more money to grow, invest, invent, etc. They eventually push out less relentless profit seekers so the relentless ones are the only ones left.
And remember you said them first, not me. I just said that capitalism tries to achieve profit and as competition drives prices down one way to do so is to minimize cost, ie become more efficient. So there is always a drive for efficiency in capitalism.
I am not against profit seeking, I believe that capitalism is the system that pushes the most growth in most regions, be it economic growth, technological progress, etc. That also makes it a rat race, where you continually need to go faster to keep up. As I am getting older I see that running is not the only game in town. And in most cases it detracts from happiness more then other methods in the long run (though it brings more wealth). Given also the finite resource problem and it is a good discussion to have if capitalism is the best and only economic system we should have on this planet. Like I said, for another time.

"The Libor and derivatives markets scandals, are not examples of free markets at all, they're abuses where the bad behavior was encouraged by policy"

What? What policy? The entire idea of over-the-counter (OTT, the largest amount by far) derivatives was that they are traded without any supervision or visibility. Complete free market! That and the inability to value and understand the risk per unit made for instance the Credit Default Swaps so dangerous. These were perfectly legal, and are still in most cases. The market is still unregulated today. You can argue that in the end it wasnt a free market because they got bailed out. Bullshit. They got bailed out because the other option was to let the entire economic system collapse. Letting the system collapse is not free markets, its stupid. The damage would have been catastrophic. The markets wouldnt repair that, they wouldnt exist anymore. That is why people call the derivatives market an example of a free market that should have been more regulated, because they had the power to destroy everything and the incentive to take the risk (for profit).
The way the bailout happened (and is still happening) is total and utter crap, but that is a different story all together.

Which leads again to the same question: if not the (IMHO obvious) derivatives market, name me an example of a free market?

OK...OK...

This is kind of weird, but I've been meaning to ask you for a while (in fact, I might have already asked you this and been so high or something that I don;t remember).

So, when I was around twelve or so, in 1992, I went to an O.M.S.I. camp in central Oregon down by the South Sister. There was a kid there with me, who's name I don't remember, who first introduced me to Duckman via the original comic. When teh camp was over, I bought the comic from him for ten bucks or something and I still have it to this day.

By any crazy, astronomical-chance-in-hell, could that have possibly been you?
In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
Cool, I live in Springfield actually but I just met a girl that lives up there, so who knows what the future holds. : I'd definitely go up for a siftup though if one happens to occur.

In reply to this comment by Ryjkyj:
Just moved back a couple years ago. That's one more person for the inevitable Pacific NW siftup... that will happen someday... maybe.
In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
This guy is a regular on the Portland Trailblazers after the game show called "Talkin' Ball". Never thought he was very funny. But now I can see why, he can't cut loose on that show like he can here.

P.S. Didn't know you lived in P-town Ryjkyj.

The more I watch her, the more I think she's...well I don't think she's a hack, she is quite intelligent, but I think her method for speeding up the video/talking fast makes for a very haphazard way to educate people. It tells me that she's either A) trying to show off how fancy she is with her math skills, but do it so quickly nobody notices she's cutting corners, or B) she doesn't have a full understanding of the topic.



She first bugged me when she did that video about abolishing pi for tau.

Thanks for the thought out reply. Before I get to specifics, let me throw out three thoughts:

1. First, let me define faith: complete trust in something, without personally verifiable proof.

2. I am in the same boat as you. I absolutely accept what has been taught to me in most science courses and books. But, aside from my own area of expertise, I take it for granted that past a certain point, I can't possibly reproduce the experiments and body of work in any particular field. So, my acceptance of, say, the results of organic chemistry is based on faith as defined above.

3. From my experience in the mill of American scientific academia and national laboratory culture, scientists DO NOT have an incentive to prove scientific 'canon' wrong. Especially in the politically strife world of academia, where tenure and grants are dependent not only upon good intellectual work, but upon soft skills and reputation. Too much in the fringe can sink you.

>> ^gwiz665:

@longde
I have seen the theories that have been through rigorous testing (aka the scientific method) and I can see the practical applications (power comes out of the reactor).
My logical basis stems from a mountain of scientific work in the field, where every single worker in the field has something to gain from disproving any given theory, but so far has been unable. Angels in the reactor is a rather hilarious hypothesis, but the onus of proving that hypothesis is on whoever makes it.
While the prevalent scientific theory has been verified by many independent scientists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor
If you can bring any sort of evidence, data or observation that can be analysed to the table that an angel actually powers the nuclear reactor, then present it, or have whoever made that theory present it.
Let's take a different example, since the nuclear reactor is a bit out of reach for laymen.
MAGNETS, I don't know that details about magnetic fields, but I do know that they attract/push each other depending on something or other. I have read books on why they do this, these books have been through this rigorous testing known as the scientific method, because every scientist in the world has an incentive to disprove it. This is one of the factor that make me believe in the validity of that particular book.
Furthermore theories about magnets have predictive powers in that they show how you can make magnets, and how to make different powers of magnets.
For me, knowing the gritty details of magnets is not that important, but to a physicist it is very important. A layperson just sees the results of academia knowing the details in all practical applications of it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet#Common_uses_of_magnets)
Gnosticism/agnosticism does not apply, as agnosticism implies that we cannot know and this is obviously not true, since we (the relevant scientists) do know quite a bit about it.
I'd rather use terms such as perinormal (that we do not know yet, but can be known) or blackboxing. A layperson, such as myself, blackbox a lot of things (I don't know how a CPU works down in the nitty gritty with electrons and what not), but I use it anyway - it's a black box that does shit. I click my keyboard, and letters appear on my screen - fucking magic. To me this is something I do not know all the details of, but obviously it works somehow.

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

This kind of thoughtful reply is all too rare on the Internet - and I'm proud that it's here on VideoSift.>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

@TheFreak @Yogi
Er, yeah, wow, I've been a bit of an idiot. It's surprising to find oneself called a reactionary, but that is indeed what my comment was, and you two are right to call me on it. But my initial reaction was just that - another homophobe, another joke about gay kids being murdered for their sexual identity, fuck that guy. But my initial reaction isn't the end of my thinking on the subject, so forgive me my knee-jerk reaction and allow me if you will to claw back a little bit of my reasonableness.
I agree with Louis that the gay community has missed the opportunity to ask Tracy Morgan why he feels the way he feels about gay men - such dialogue would be helpful in highlighting some of the attitudes people have to effeminately-voiced gay men. Since my speaking voice is not effeminate, many people don't guess that I'm gay on first meeting me, and in the period before they do realise (which is usually when I get drunk on pink cocktails and start talking about Sondheim), I've put up with a lot of blokey jokes about gays, and have witnessed the shift in men's attitudes when they realise that a gay man is in their midst. The gay jokes dry up immediately, which is kind of a shame because I enjoy offensive jokes of all kinds, and can usually counter jokes about "queers" with equal numbers of jokes about "breeders". I've noticed first-hand the difference in the way that people regard non-obvious gay men like me, and the way they treat the more effeminate and flamboyant members of (er) "my tribe". I've been explicitly told that I'm not included when they criticise gays, because I'm "straight enough". Sigh!
What I've realised is that, in a way, I'm more supportive of Tracy Morgan's joke than I am of Louis's rationalisation of it. Tracy Morgan can make such a joke if he chooses, and I can think him a sad man with backwards views on masculinity if I choose. Where I disagree with Louis is that he sees Tracy Morgan's joke as a kind of "progress" towards acceptance, but I don't see how making jokes about killing his gay son doesn't sound like he's "trying to figure out" gay male masculinity or that he's somehow less homophobic for qualifying precisely what it is that makes him want to stab some gays as opposed to stabbing all of them.