Pauline Hanson and her party are completely bonkers don't get me wrong.

But they are also one of the only parties addressing the immigration issue, which is why they got some seats. No other party is really making as much of a fuss about immigration, so people that don't want Australia to turn into Germany/Sweden, have no sane person to vote for.

It's lose/lose unfortunately, until someone reasonable stands up and even addresses the concerns.

I'm all for multiculturalism, but not if some cultures don't reciprocate, which is what we are seeing throughout Europe.

It's a talent contest, not a game show.

Don't you just hate it when you don't have a point so you try to be priggish and correct someone on a technicality ....but you get it wrong?

There's two big differences between them as far as voters see them. Both are disliked very much.

However, there's a large portion of the people who hate Hillary Clinton do it for completely fabricated reasons. This isn't to say that there aren't some reasons to hate her. But when Trump and the GOP are going around saying stuff like "Hillary Clinton wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment", which absolutely isn't true in the slightest, gosh, I wonder if there's a portion of the electorate who will hate her for a complete falsehood. Who could it be? Hmmmm....

Again, don't get me wrong, there's plenty to not like about her. I've said numerous things about the whole email thing, which I still can't believe she ended up doing something that stupid.

Trump? Well, I'm sorry, but he's said so many things at this point to piss so many groups off, they hate him for things that actually are true. He did target Muslims for discriminatory policies. He has said disparaging remarks about women, implying a news anchor who disagreed with him must be on her period, and women who get sexually harassed should find another job, not the people who were doing the sexual harassment. He's said most Mexican immigrants are rapists, murderers, and drug runners. And Hillary Clinton is mostly hitting on stuff like that, you know, stuff he's ACTUALLY said. In fact, one of her attack ads is just a barrage of clips of Trump saying Trumpy stuff with kids watching it. There's not a shred of evidence Hillary Clinton has ever come out in favor of completely abolishing the 2nd Amendment.

So, you can say half the country hates her, but come election day, when she wins by what appears at this point to be a margin larger than Obama thumped Romney, CLEARLY Americans like Clinton a heck of a lot more than Trump overall.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the movie for what it was as well. Jackie Earle Haley was an amazing Rorschach and while the other characters weren't as strong, they did fit into the roles. However, it was not as powerful as the comic version and Snyder did fall into his slow motion 'moment' vs 'scene' trap. If you compare what Jackson did with the Lord of the Rings, Jackson had to trim some of the source material but he stayed true to the 'feeling' of the books. If you were a diehard fan of the books, you might not care for his interpretation, but he did give you the majority of the work. Snyder didn't really do the source material justice and while some of that may lay with the script, it still is his fault to a point.

He is a very bombastic director if given a mostly action based movie to work with. As soon as you take him out of that comfort zone, he tries to apply the same formula and that can kill movies that require a defter hand to work all of the nuances.

Hey dude, long time no talk. I know this is coming out of left field, but by chance have you ever met Melania Trump? I just learned today that she is from Slovenia, and I immediately thought of you. Now don't get me wrong; I know that Slovenia is a nation of 2,000,000+ people, so I certainly don't expect you to know every soul in your homeland. I also know she hasn't lived there for 20 years. But she is around your age, and she briefly attended university, and you attended university too, right? I don't know what school you attended, but maybe you went to the same school?

I remember you saying that you were friends with one of those dudes from Perpetuum Jazzile in that 'Africa' video, so I thought, well, you might know someone else from Slovenia? I know it sounds stupid, but anyway it would be cool if you did know her so that you could brag on Videosift that you know the wife of the prick who might be the next US president and could potentially destroy the world. Maybe you could even get invited to the White House. And then you could leave an upper decker. Google it. Do it for all of of us, you beautiful son of a bitch.

As a person who actually grows much of my own produce, I can say definitively that many of their numbers are WAY off. They require one to pay one's self $100 per month for produce shopping to come up with their $1400 per year 'savings', but claim 5 minutes a day for 'harvest time'...good luck with that if you're not living on just lettuce and cauliflower...peas and beans will take 3 times that. They claim $6 for seeds, but the seeds I buy are over $3 per packet, so that's only 2 vegetables at a time...not much variety. I also note they have no cost for soil, the bed, fertilizers, pest control methods/time, disease control, etc. They also arbitrarily put the maintenance time at :30 min per month...that doesn't seem really realistic for an outdoor robot. Keep in mind that a single break down can mean the loss of an entire crop, depending on how it malfunctions. They also don't give an expected lifespan...or guarantee/warranty, so there's little way to know yet if it will last a single season, much less the 4-5 they say it takes to pay off.

It would have made much more sense to me if they had compared it to growing a home garden by hand, as that's what it's replacing, not the grocery store.

Don't get me wrong, I love this idea and would take one in a second if someone offered, I just don't see it as cost effective at $3-4K. Once the bugs are worked out so it lasts 10 years and the DIY cost is down to $1K(+-), then I'll think they have something pretty good that could also save people money. Being totally open source, I have hope that it will evolve quickly and be clearly viable in the near future. The time is coming when I won't be able to do the home farming I do today...it would be great to have a metallic yard slave to take over for me when that time comes.

I guess that's where we differ.

I find it funny precisely because such things really happen.

In a world where no such cruelty exists, I think this kind of material would then become empty and pointless. Comedy thrives on the defiance of our misery.

I dare say it would get less of a laugh in Sweden for this very reason.

I'm clearly in the minority here, but then I suspect few people have developed the same sense of cynical detachment I have (working with the severely mentally I'll and dieing will do that to you).

The humour is definitely there, I guess you just need a suitably fucked up perspective to appreciate it.

Out of curiosity, did you find Jim's old bit about the child getting shot when he was in Iraq funny? I might suggest that is an even more cruel and fucked up situation than the subject matter being discussed here.

Would that only become funny when children are no longer victims of wars? Or is it funny precisely because of the incomprehensible cruelty and misfortune underlying it?

Perhaps you have an easier time detaching yourself from something that isn't as likely to happen to you? This seems reasonable, but I don't see how it precludes such material from being funny, only more challenging for one to engage with. (and thus more powerful if one can do so)

To bring in a thread from another reply "And this is the brilliance of Louis -- that he lays bare the humanity of even pedophiles. The truth of pedophiles."

In what sense is Jim not doing the same thing here? He is flippantly exploring Cosby's desire to victimise women, we all have desires and sometimes act on those impulses when we shouldn't.
Rape is an extreme example, but the thought process is ultimately the same thing writ large. "I want a thing I can't have, but I'm doing it anyway".
I might argue he is laying bare the universal human condition in just the same way, albeit with something closer to home for most people than paedophilia.

Presumably it's the other thread that's proving challenging, i.e. the masochistic idea of enjoying ones abuse? And again, there is something deeply fucked up at the heat of the human condition here. Deriving pleasure from victim hood, or having messed up priorities about fame and opportunity.
Stockholm syndrome, abused partners loving their spouses, groupies allowing themselves to be abused just to be near their idols.

We are really that fucked up as a species sometimes, cognitive dissonance is almost a way of life for most of us in our own little ways. It's clearly a deeply risque subject, but there is something dark at the core of the human condition there none the less.

The actual victims don't need to have the kind of mixed up priorities Jim is alluding to, we only have to recognise that we posses the capacity for that dissonance ourselves. (The joke being at the expense of our own inherent hypocrisies, not specific victims)

The only big difference I can really see is that child rape is much rarer than the kind being discussed here. (and thus I suppose easier for most to detach themselves from)

Is it really any less horrific? Surely if anything it is far more terrible for most victims and usually seems to cause more damage to their lives.

How does Louis's material on Child rape remain funny in a world where children are raped, yet Jim's material about women being raped only become funny in a world where they do not get raped?

Paedophiles have a culture too. They form groups, exchange materials, praise each others work etc. etc. Not to mention grooming rings and other such reprehensible things.

I understand that a particular subject can strike too close to home, but for me that was my failing to rise above my own fears and traumas. When I finally got to a place where I could laugh at my own victim hood, it was one of the most liberating experiences of my life. (Don't get me wrong, that shit never completely goes away)

Does anyone say Marin or Berkeley the way he does? How do you get Berkeley wrong? I can't imagine he's from the area or even heard anyone say those names before.

Also Id personally define Silicon Valley as Most of Santa Clara County(not all). Palo Alto to San Jose. I don't think of it as including the cities of Milpitas, Morgan Hill and Gilroy. Although, i think of it this way due to when it was first being used and the area in encompassed at that time. It's probably been ever changing depending on how the tech areas expand.

Wiki describes it "Geographically, it encompasses all of the Santa Clara Valley, the southern half of the San Francisco Peninsula, and southern portions of the East Bay. It includes parts or most of Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, and Alameda County."

Except nothing you said just now was correct. If Jefferson would have gotten his way there would have been no slavery. The fact that he said as much during a time when that could get your entire family brutally murdered is kinda a benefit to his character.

Oh, but he owned slaves, so he must have supported it. What stupid people believe this crap? You know who else owned slaves? Schindler did. He saved as many as he could and after the war? He was hunted like a dog. And while Jefferson did not "save" blacks, in a way he certainly did. His dictums were to treat those in his care with care and respect.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't support the confederate mantras, or that those who supported slavery were just doing what the times dictated, but Jefferson fought it in his own way. However, it was a lost cause and so he only could use what little power he had.

Yeah, the first part is demonstrably false.

Don't get me wrong, I dislike this tendency to revoke terrorist's Muslim cards post-atrocity because a "true" Muslim would never do such a thing, but it kinda goes both way, dunnit? Either you are making some sizable edits to the definition of "peaceful" or you're suggesting that Muslims who don't murder aren't really Muslims. Could it be that "Muslim" isn't as powerful a descriptor as either you or "Muslims" might want it to be?

...do we know why they didn't just dredge it out like they now STILL have to?

Don't get me wrong, big explosions are worthwhile in and of themselves, but just curious.

Biggest pet peeve of the Sift is having to wade through tl/dr on topics I don't particularly care about to find a concise thought. I mean, wow, some of you people are long winded. I'm open minded, or at least try to be, but DAMN, this is a video commenting site, not a thesis repository. Don't get me wrong, I don't look at any of the Idiocratic comments at YouTube -they're all ghey- but sometimes less is more...

There's a difference between ignoring the laws of physics for a gag and sloppy animation that just gets them wrong.

Not speaking for @Drachen_Jager, but he seems to be saying that this animation is guilty of the latter as well as the former.

To me it initially looked exaggerated for effect, and certainly not aiming to be realistic, but I'm not an animator professional or otherwise. I will be going back to watch it again more carefully in light of these comments!

As a small sidenote, I think it's slightly risky to indicate, even tongue in cheek, that any of us were involved at the start of a movement that began in the 1800s... even if you're kidding, people might get the wrong idea. Third wave feminism, which coincidentally I think you're more opposed to than the first two waves, did begin (I think?) in the US in the 1980's or 90's, but the overall movement was a well-established global phenomenon at that point. None of us were close to being involved in starting it.

As far as your main point goes, I think it's partly a question of whether you define your own vision by the end goal you want to achieve, or the first problem you want to solve. "Black Lives Matter" is not the end goal, it's the first problem we need to solve on the way to a state free of police murder. Egalitarianism, on the other hand, can be the end goal. It doesn't tell me which problem areas you want to address though.

For some feminists, feminism is the end goal - a woman-centric world would be better, more sane, and more sustainable in their view than any other world. For other feminists, feminism is the first problem area to address, ie that we are literally living in a culture of undeniable male supremacy.

The problem with only defining your end goal is that it can become a little unclear what, if any, action you want to take. "You matter" is certainly fine, but I have no idea what you want to change in society, or if you want to change anything. I matter, you matter, and the Koch brothers matter - but we still have very different ideas about what society should be. In a perfect world I might want to join up under the egalitarian banner, but in the current mess we're in, I tend more towards environmentalism, socialism and feminism - because those are the problem areas I want us to address first.

Trump isn't the fool that folks on the left side of politics often try to paint him as. Don't get me wrong, I don't like him, and I think he has plenty of flaws, but he certainly isn't stupid. He's spent years reading the rules of the popularity contest often called 'elections' in the US, and, like him or not, he has been playing an excellent game.