oh bobby bobby bobby..
you should know better than to talk smack like that my boy.
you need to back that shit up son!

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/2/amy_goodman_two_democracy_now_producers

https://www.nlg.org/sites/default/files/RNC%20DNC%20Final%20Draft%20REV1.pdf

http://rnc08report.org/archive/361.shtml

http://www.prisonplanet.com/why-we-were-falsely-arrested.html

http://911blogger.com/news/2008-09-05/lockdown-st-paul-adam-turl-september-5-2008

still think it didnt happen at an RNC?
why you keep defending fascism only to be forced to eat humble pie eludes me.
you may be republican but those cocksuckers dont give two shits about you bobby boy.

not...one...bit.

@Imagoamin

whoa whoa whoa...
did you think i was calling YOU a bed-wetter?
like as in actually using the pronoun "you" to direct my fictional interaction as representing an actual person,in this case YOU?

well,that certainly explains the tone of your reply.

if this is the case then i humbly and sincerely apologize.i was not referring to you at all,but rather a hypothetical and totally fictional interaction between a cry-baby and myself.

which you actually just made my point about humor,and in this case sarcastic humor.an over the top referencing of a certain hyper-sensitive group,in order to make my point about bad ideas,bad philosophy and poor judgment.

the sarcasm should have been obvious.
but alas...it appears it was not,and has been misconstrued as a personal attack.

moving on to your suey park rebuttal.
while the response to her initial call for justice can easily be seen as vile and grotesque (because it is) how does that take away from her inanity? her blatant disregard for nuance and context? or that she simply lacks the basic intelligence to discern satire from actual racist remarks?

it does not.

i think that most people would agree that the vile,disgusting and dehumanizing responses that suey park was subjected to,are to be condemned and yes...ridiculed..for the stupid and trollish behavior they represent.

you do not reply to stupid with even more stupid.

i dont really understand your defense of language,or better put,the imposing of certain words being stricken from the language altogether because some people find them offensive.

language is a fluid animal,and it is ever-changing.words and terms are dropped from the vocabulary or they morph into something altogether new.i have no skin in on the game in that regard.that is how language progresses,and yes,certain words can be offensive in certain contexts.so we should avoid using them,if only to be a decent human being.

my issue is with the FORCED attempts to re-integrate new words.to control what people say and attempt to bring real world consequences upon them,and then turn around and call it "justice".that is not justice! that is censorship!

maybe this will help a bit.
i view words and language as such:words are the means to express thoughts,feelings and imaginings.when we consider the complexity of our thoughts,feelings and imaginings then it becomes quite apparent that words will NEVER suffice to truly,and accurately,express those very human creations.

words will always be inadequate.

so when some people get it in their head that certain words are just too offensive to even utter.this narrows the field of expression that is already inadequate.(i am not talking about BLATANT,and archaic terms that are not only offensive,but are no longer relevant,and in existence still to simply disparage,insult or dehumanize).

now maybe some words no longer serve a valid purpose or are truly offensive and need to be re-examined,but the only way to reach that conclusion as a people..we must actually TALK to one another,and it is in this free market of ideas where bad ideas go to die.

but we have to able to conversate for that to happen.don't you agree?

now i am not going to bother addressing the rest of your comment,because your tone was just a reaction to where you presumed i was coming from.

and you did presume.

you seem like a decent sort,so i will just chalk your final response up to finding my comment offensive and replied in kind.

just know i wasnt heated,nor enraged.
and i certainly wasnt calling you a bed-wetter.
though the extreme end of social justice warriors are STILL humorless cunts.

It almost sounds like he is suggesting to keep an open mind and learn about other cultures, religions & mythology in order to understand those perspectives; and overall to be humble to the mystery: that we do not know.

In my opinion some of his opinions were a little contradictory - he doesn't believe in any sort of god or gods, but it seems that a wiser statement would be that he doesn't know, which would correspond with the "I don't believe in atheists" theme.

Furthermore, I honestly don't think that those who (in Hedges' words), "do not explore the religious impulse" are inhuman. Even if someone never explores it in their lifetime. In my opinion - the late bloomers who have disconnected themselves from all inclination of organized religion or spirituality, to find it on their own later in life might have a few more advantages than those that did not disconnect themselves from it at some point.

My personal preference is that I do believe in god because I want to believe in god. Whether it's a metaphor, completely abstract energy, a point in spacetime, a massive intelligent energy field that existed long before the big-bang, a life-force found only on Earth or the Milky Way or a fucking super mega alien technological consciousness program experiment or even a microscopic white dude flying on a microscopic magic carpet or all of the above and none of the above. I just believe even though my version of whatever creation/god is, is completely unidentifiable, it's everything and it's nothing.

The only thing I don't believe is when he repeats that he doesn't know anything about politics.
I'm sorry, Steven, I know you're trying to be humble and to deflect to your comedian nature, but of course you know politics. You're now doing the same thing Jon Stewart did all these years - pretend to know nothing while absolutely knowing a ton and teaching us all how to think in the system.

You have taken over for Stewart now. It's just the humility is a bit thinly veiled.

Isn't Leary's whole shtick that he's really just a lucky asshole?

He's in character. He typically gets humbled (owned) in his comedic acts; he's the every man's angry man that needs the humbling experiences to grow rather than be destoyed by hubris.

I've never seen him as the type who competes, rather he reacts with the inhibitions of an angry drunk tellIing it lIke it is. It's difficult for me to see the difference between him being Dennis Leary for real and him being Dennis Leary in his acts. You always get the feeling he is implicitly telling his jokes from the underdog's perspective. He was just wrong about a fact, except he's a comedian, so being owned while in character is the riposte and payoff for the act. Greg's stare down ONLY works because it's against Leary. Two man bit. Three man with Colin's visual gag. (It's like the Marx Bros.)

They both win at comedy, but Greg wins at facts.

@rbar
well,the man is obviously cis-gender scum.
he was encroaching on her "safe space" and derisive laughter is a form of violence,which "triggered" her response.so her reaction by way of eye-burning chemical deterrent is totally understandable.

she was just defending herself from the oppressive "patriarchy".

this just in:
a man who filmed having an altercation with a woman at a convenience store has lost his job.the company he works for,after being made aware of the employees behavior had this to say-"we hare at super PC mart have a zero tolerance for those in our employ who condone "rape culture".having been made aware of our employees abhorrent and insensitive behavior,have since terminated this mans employment.there is no room in our organization for men who would so callously disregard the plight of the fragile snowflake.his actions do not represent our ideals nor image and we humbly apologize to the victim".

I agree about the over-reaction to the "white slavers" comment, which I think just got hyper-PC types riled up.

And he does seem pretty humble and wise, although if he was really going to practice what he's preaching he would just butt out and not say anything. To be fair, he probably got invited on the show and is just responding honestly to the questions -- which is a fair bit different than if he sought out a soapbox to complain from.

I think Lucas had a fantastic combination of Tolkien-esque level creativity AND knew how to adapt his specific creations to the broadly appealing "Hero of 1000 faces" fantasy prototype AND got lucky in many ways. He deserves a LOT of praise for all of that. ...BUT, for the original movies he knew how to delegate things that he doesn't do well -- dialog, directing, etc. He was reined in by internal and external constraints. When those largely went away, we got the prequels.

I love Star Wars and am very grateful to George Lucas for creating that universe. And I'm pretty much equally grateful that he isn't at the helm anymore.

@newtboy irt "I have to think there's something missing here....like what he actually posted that he's being charged with. Did he make threats? "

The video notes that the complainant in the case admits that the accused did not send her anything libelous, threatening or sexually related. That kinda covers all bases on harassment grounds, so if the only offense is "sending tweets", I would humbly suggest that she doesn't use twitter where.. people send you tweets... = \

@krelokk

I removed the last line of your post. You're entire rant/spiel/manifesto sans the dig about the accused perfectly describes the state of play with feminism as the bully. Irony is delicious... =)

@enoch irt your description

I think the difference between the racist and this guy the scale of consequences to the act they committed.

Losing a job because of a racist spiel openly given to a video camera = probably disproportionate, but it's the companies choice over who it hires, right? He has not been charged from what I could see (being a racist prick isn't a crime in the US right?), although I suspect his facebook page is gone because it got jumped on.

Losing a job, huge legal bills, facing jail time and a permanent record as a convict for having a difference of opinion = yeah, entirely disproportionate.

Activism is not inherently evil, much like a large gathering of people isn't inherently evil. It's when it get's abused.

One hopes the judge in this case sees sense and that the accused can sue the complainant for the damage she has caused to him.

Wow...I'd seen all the headlines about this, purposefully avoided most Star Wars commentary as it seems pretty weakly considered and nearly always click-bait.

Seems like the "white slavers" comment wasn't anything as serious as the hype-mill spun it. It's almost a throwaway joke that you can tell doesn't really land. I think Lucas seems humble and wise in this clip.

I beg the most considerable pardon, but you are threatening to ban me for expressing my opinion?

Hmmm, lets examine, cleanly.

1.) I post an amicable, slightly contradictory post, not insulting anyone.

2.) YOU come along and post a distasteful, loud, angry, aggro-laden post in response.

3.) I do the same, not because I am angry, per-say, but to prove a point(which apparently is still lost on you.)

4.) You again post in your Aggro manner.

5.) I post in a far more cordial manner(yes, I was insulting you), but I still maintained a certain level of cordiality.

6.) You attack and THREATEN to ban me, over a simple argument that you had just as much(if not more) to do with than I did.

I inquire as to who is in position on this site as a manager, original author, or owner, so that I may report your threat to ban me based upon your not so humble opinions about what I say...

Maybe, (suggestion for @dag?), there should be another channel /tag for this that allows for us to post thoughtful-but-offensive clips (that won't just pave the way for a slew of porn or violence).

RE: the 'educational' value-- maybe a "human condition" or "humanity" tag would be good? I know there's already 'humanitarian' but the difference in meaning is probably clear. There must be a term to categorize videos like this under exclusively... "Graphic Content"? Some way to respectfully post videos that encourage sincere, humble thoughtfulness about our world and lives, that can show content like this in that light for the sake of seeing the gravity of our existence face to face. These events, actions and consequences are all reflective of all of us.

I also have certain content that I refuse to put my eyeballs on, and would get extremely offended if I opened the Sift one day and found it at the top of the page, but I'm more in favor of giving videos like that a proper place rather than censoring it entirely.

This is one artist I heavily recommend. I'm super pumped for this new album.

His already released albums are really quite great, my play count is probably in the thousands on some of the older tracks and I've never been tired of them.

Naturally I'm a bit of a bias fanboy but I dunno, his music just works for me. You can listen to all of it on Spotify but he's a small time artist, so if you can spare the bucks for a purchase I know he appreciates it because I've emailed him a decent amount and he's a genuinely nice guy, very humble.

It's humbling to think we live in such amazing times, all we have to do is put on a pair of glasses and every day will be like seeing the world again for the first time.

I agree that there can be an element of that, not even an element but a crystal clear revelation of "this is how I need to change". That is one way the psychedelics move, one of the ways that they are more powerful than anything else a human can experience. They are enlightening as well as humbling.

Well, that would leave me speechless, were I to care about anyone who would feel embarrassment over this. If Letterman did that to spare embarassment, he should be embarrassed, and I don't believe it.

Another person crying for you is excellent. Humbling and GOOD for all -- including an audience that desperately needs this truth of being. It's humanizing. It's deeply rooted in being emotionally TOGETHER, not as you would indicate it being an action of opposition.