Printable guns are another scare tactic. We are talking about guns that can only fire small caliber rounds and that still require at least a few metal components. There is no such thing as a totally untraceable, all plastic gun. Technically, if there were such a thing, it would be illegal under existing law.

Ghost guns are another freak out buzz word. It's a grey area that is quasi legal as long as you only make it for yourself. If you plan on making them and selling them, you are fucked.

Hell, I can go down to Lowes and buy materials to make a higher caliber zip gun that is actually going to be deadlier than a plastic printed one. With a cork, some glue,plastic vanes, a nail, and a shotgun shell I can make a grenade. With some matches, pipe from Lowes, a firecracker fuse, and threadlocker I can make a pipe bomb.

The point being, you can make damn near anything deadly with some work and access to everyday components. If you want to frighten a gullible populace with a scary plastic 'gun' to further your agenda against guns in general, it's child play to do so.

I don't even get the still image - just a big blank grey area.

Your video, Real Time with Bill Maher: New Rule: Hollywood's Grey Area, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This follow-up wins you 1 (one) Internet! I hit a fair number of points on her list and on the test, but fewer than I'd thought I might. Grey area, to be sure. Certainly will dig into it more though.

Thanks again!

This. You cannot assault people for speaking their mind, no matter how odious their opinion might be (with huge grey areas around actual incitement to violence and so on).

The second they start something violent though, you have a right to defend yourself and others, and there's no law that says you can't feel immensely satisfied while doing so.

But as much as I viscerally want to see Nazis punched in the face (Indy FTW!), it's not how you ultimately defeat them.

Short term, yeah, you have to defend yourself and stop them from achieving their goals... by any means necessary.

Long term, you have to prove them wrong, and the way to do that is with compassion (like the "Life after hate" guys, or this brilliant story *related=https://videosift.com/video/How-one-black-man-defeated-the-KKK-with-humor-and-grace).

*quality discussion though.

Sure, Javascript can do some great and beneficial things. But along with that comes a massive amount of grey-area stuff like tracking, loading content from "CDNs", etc. And then there's plenty of utterly indefensible crap like XSS attacks, intrusive advertising and malware, etc.

To me, the bad apples spoil the bunch. At least to the extent that I want to be careful to the point of paranoia about what I allow in -- I'm rigorously inspecting every goddamn apple. Admittedly, if you stay on legit and mainstream sites, the chances of stumbling on one of the bad apples are very low. But you're still subject to a hell of a lot more of the grey-area stuff that way.

To me, my scorched-earth approach is worth it both for preventing really nasty stuff AND the grey-area stuff that is getting more invasive all the time.

*promote this subject as it has me constantly confused. Such a grey area for me. Sifters your opinions/wisdom would be much appreciated.

They had a business permit, just not the new one that Santa Ana came up with for Pot Dispensaries. These shops have been operating in legal grey areas in Orange County, awhile back Santa Ana decided that they'd directly permit for it... but did it in a really screwed up way. A lottery.

Anybody who wanted to operate a dispensary had to pay $1690, a non-refundable amount, to enter a lottery for the privilege to buy a permit. Santa Ana collected more than a million dollars in the lottery fees. There have been enough accusations of shady behavior with the lottery process that a Judge recently issued an order to stop the program from going forward until it can be investigated.

The business in the video has been around since well before the Lottery. They got word that the city was going to use the Police to raid them instead of doing any of the normal things when shutting down a business, which is why they setup the hidden cameras.

Fault is a tricky one there, on a normal road the car would be at fault and on a road with a bike lane the bike would be. In the video the honking happens just as the cycle lane ends so it's a bit of a grey area.

That said, he should have checked behind him and shouldn't have taken offence at the horn.

I think the differences in the way we see things are, I see the grey areas, and you see in black and white. Once someone is guilty in your eyes you come down 100% on them.
Me seeing the shades isn't always better, as I give everyone the benefit of doubt, sometimes when they don't deserve it, but I give it to them till I'm proven wrong.
That's maybe why you're better suited for your career, and I'm not.
Being able to make a solid judgement call and sticking with it is a solid attribute.

I only suggest that you see the possibility that sometimes honest people make poor judgement calls.
Where you see someone purposely ramming a truck, I see someone who made a poor decision in switching lanes and then proceeds to think she's good to go, and maybe is concentrating to much on the truck ahead and not seeing the truck beside her.
Poor driving, absolutely, but I can't believe her judgement said purposely hit the truck.

On the flip side. The truck driver is driving well within his limits, and maybe is tired of people cutting him off. So this time he doesn't let her in, not expecting that she may not notice him closing her out.

He could have avoided the collision, or at least tried, as he saw it coming and made no effort. She didn't. I don't dispute her bad driving decision or skill in this matter. On the flip side, his driving choices are not any better.

Have a great day. Keep on keeping on

I think we all have different degrees of empathy. Empathy is something that's learned and not something you are born with. The less empathetic you are the easier i assume it is to do something that society says is wrong. Empathy i've always thought usually goes hand in hand with right and wrong although judging what's right and wrong is subjective to some extent(lots of grey area).

Wow. So.....maybe I should stop being such an asshole, huh?...If I like, want folks to like, LIKE me?? Fuck THAT shit.

Who's Nickleback?? ...kinna missed the poppy-90s and then the government coop with 9-11 and all, bit fuzzy in the grey areas... GoddAMN!!-Typed this while listening and got a me a dweeb-speaking, 'Phil Fish' headache now

Excellent offering mechadeath, cheers. with some great scotch!

Agree on pretty much all of that, apart from the copyright part.

There are a caveats like smoking in non-smoking areas (smoke all you want, just not near me), parents who feed their kids crap (it's one thing for an adult to make an informed decision to eat crap, but kids should be given at least some nutrition), or drug related crime (and I don't mean possession or use). All are fairly grey areas though and beyond the scope of this topic.

One thing I don't get is WTF "use of her body" has to do with copyrighted works (other than in a sense so broad as to be meaningless)? It's a really weird connection to make, and it seems like you're arguing for something that pretty much already exists. No-one is going to stop you singing a copyrighted song, or reciting a copyrighted poem.

I genuinely don't get what your point is.

"Rugby player does his best to get a penalty called against the other team. I'm surprised teams and or players aren't penalized for faking it."

I'm surprised the guy wasn't penalized for taking a shot, he took it, it doesn't matter that he missed and the guy faked it. The referee used his personalty in this to tell the guy to get up and get on with it. This looks like a professional game with a professional referee that has been in the league for years. Likely knows all the players by name, and chats with them during the game.

It may not be by the book but at the professional level there's a lot of grey areas, the idea is the game is a spectacle and that's what the audience is paying for. Referees are there to make sure the game is fair, and to produce an event. This referee didn't ruin the game, he kept it going and kept the players honest. I say good for him, players respect him and his decision, and we move on.

And I sit here wishing to GOD that I reffed Rugby instead of Soccer. Because if this happened in soccer, both teams would be surrounding me whining constantly and they would never shut up.

Eh. Ultimately, satire can offend, but its goal is to enlighten people. If it's good satire, there should be a net positive societal gain.

I'm arguing that if you end up offending more than you enlighten, there's no net positive societal gain there. Especially if you offend a subset of the very group (targets of racism in this case) than you're trying to uplift with the satire.

It's got to be case-by-case, and it's often a very tough call. As I mentioned above, Dave Chappelle himself, by most accounts a comedic genius, struggled with it immensely in his material. And figuring all of this out is a tricky, ongoing process of discovery and dialog which requires a more nuanced viewpoint and empathy than you're showing a willingness to take on. Honestly it's a lot to process and I often wonder and question my own ability to navigate these issues.

Ultimately, I feel like you and many others just want win an argument and not really have to think about things like this anymore in the future. You want your racial satire and you want your rape jokes without talking about or thinking about any boundaries or grey areas for the purveyors of that comedy, and that's that. Black and white.

If something like this comes up again, welp, you already have an answer for that. You can just pull out your rubber stamp that says:
"It's satire people! Those offended don't get the context of the joke."

Colbert's character is a satire of just that kind of black and white way of thinking, so it's highly ironic for his viewership to mimic it.