@SFOGuy False positive. This is not the type of serious brawl that occurs when there is a severe lack of parenting in a particular neighborhood.

The "wise elder" in the video is proof of this -- he wouldn't have been able to so easily break up a fight if your anthropological study were at all accurate. The kids know they're in the wrong. They just don't like being laughed at by their "friends".

I've also never heard of a culture where teenagers don't get into fights after school and where classmates don't use peer pressure to bully less aware students into fighting. This is a classic scene from countless middle class neighborhoods, white or black.

When their yuppie parents see this video, I can almost guarantee some asses will be red. Unless they're the kind of ultra liberal parents that don't believe in punishment -- then I may be inclined to agree with you in part.

I think if their new movie was just Hugh Jackman and Patrick Stewart banter I'd be more inclined to go see it.

If I don't want to help you because I fear that you might be hostile, then you actually becoming hostile is not a convincing way to get my help or trust. And further it's justified my initial fear that you are indeed hostile, so now I'm definitely not inclined to help.

Rather than get angry at people who refuse to help them (out of fear), a more reasonable reaction would be for refugees to direct their anger at the small minority of terrorists and extremists - i.e. Be hostile at the actual people that are responsible for the xenophobia existing in the first place. To agree with them and join them is only going to undermine any efforts to stop xenophobia.

The other thing is, the countries that have helped the refugees most, seem to be the ones that are getting the brunt of hostilities from extremist groups. So it goes to show that this hostility not originating from xenophobia, and it seeing this happen gives other countries little reason to want to help.

Meanwhile this filth and the horrible people who voted for Trump and support the Republican party, AKA radical right Christians HATE homosexuals themselves. They don't show their hate via bombs, but via tossing stones of bigotry and laws to discriminate against them for daring to sin differently.

And there is no opinion on climate change... again it is science. No denying the science. You are entitled to your own opinions, yes, but not your own facts. Sorry, but the universe isn't only 6,000 years old, no matter what your stupid book says.

And you can think gay marriage is a sin. Nobody on the Left ever said you had to accept the sin, to accept the homosexuality, but you do have to accept them as people. It is the right who wants to deny them rights as human beings, just because they sin differently than the rest of us. Jesus said let those without sin toss the first stone, and then notably didn't toss any stones himself, who hung out with the sinners and taught love was the most important thing, but the Right is far comfortable tossing those stones against the gays, to deny them a wedding cake, to deny them a wedding and other rights, just for a sin that doesn't effect anyone but those doing it. It isn't murder, but the Right treats it as such. That isn't just stating an opinion, that is full action against another human being for being different than you, and this ass hole and anyone who agrees with him is a horrible human being for wanting to deny somebody rights for being different. Yes, we may disagree that it being a big deal, but there isn't an effort to deny you the right to speak out against homosexuality if you are so inclined, but you can't claim you are being repressed when you are the one seeking to do the repression. Apparently the Right's attitude is "my sin, isn't as gross as yours, so it's not as bad... and God isn't doing a good job of convicting you of it, so I'll do that job for Him" as He's too weak or something to do it Himself apparently.

Sodom's sin was being a land of plenty and not doing enough to help the needy and the poor in her borders, and other versus talk about how rude it was to foreigners... sounds a lot like the Republican party in the US... actually, the Republican party and Trump sound a lot like the anti-Christ system in Revelations... but I'll ignore that and assume that Christianity is still more than likely just as fake as the other 5,000 gods. Now, yes, the Bible does mention the sexual immorality of Sodom, so it likely didn't help, but it's specific sin, the thing God judged it for, was not doing enough to help the needy and the poor, though it had plenty of resources to do so. Basically the "I don't want my tax dollars going to help those [needy and poor] people" as my evangelical brother in law once said. That sums up the Right these days, fuck the poor, and help the rich, who cares what Jesus said about the rich and the poor.

Then the whole, you can't judge a whole party based on a few bad apples... yet the Right sits in judgement of all Muslims and want to deny people refuge who are trying to escape the radicals, because one or two radicals might slip in for each thousand saved... that's showing the love of Christ, "stay there you Muslim bastard, have your women raped, and you children forced into military camps and be radicalized, serves you right for daring to be having an accident of birth being born in the wrong country and being raised on the wrong faith". That is the attitude the Right sends out when they want to deny refuge to refugees.

So I sit in judgement of all Christians based on the fact the KKK, Nazis, Westboro... and frankly what seems to be the vast majority of evangelical Christians these days. If they can sit in judgement of others, I'll sit in judgement of them. I realize the hypocrisy of that, and admit it, which is FAR more than anyone on the Right ever would do. But as the Carman (famed Christian singer whom I've seen many many times live when I was a Christian) song says, their "witness could have been more than it had".

Basically this is 5:32 worth of hypocrisy that is so typical of the Right that those deep in it can't even begin to see it.

@bareboards2
pure and utter sophistry.

and i resent the fact that you slyly attempt to imply that i will just sit back and remain silent to injustice.

when i feel quite confident my records on this site prove the exact opposite.i have vociferously and aggressively taken on those who would bully,berate and belittle anyone who would voice their opinion.

i believe i have come to YOUR defense on more than one occasion.

what i found disturbing in your comment and maybe i should clarify is this "As Homeland Security says, if you see something, say something."

this is LITERALLY what was posted on almost every open venue in east germany.

and for you to tacitly excuse this statement by dismissively stating that "the stasi operated in secret".as somehow being evidence of your own righteousness belies an ignorance of just how oppressive and fearful those people were living in those conditions.

so you are morally superior because you openly called to out,and i quote "benevolent dictator with a light touch",and did not do so in private?
THIS is your justification?
THIS is the evidence you present to me to...what? exactly?

if you truly feel that you have somehow struck a blow for justice and taken a stand for moral integrity,then i submit that you have no clue what free speech really entales,nor do you understand the implications when we,as a community,start calling in the big daddy in the sky every time someone writes an offensive potty/racist or bigoted word.

and just LOOK how you consumed @gorillaman 's comment.
you made no reference to his salient point,but rather focused on ONE thing:nigger prince.

now was this appropriate?
taken singularly i would have to agree with you.
no..it is not appropriate.

but when we take our understandings of @gorillaman,who has been a contributing sifter for over 10 years,and consider his humor..which is dark and incredibly dry (like sahara dry),then with this context added to the mix,we can conclude that he was probably making a joke...you are certainly within your rights to find that joke in poor taste,and with this community,you are also within your rights (and even encouraged) to take @gorillaman to task for his poor taste.

but instead you called for big daddy in the sky to bring the hammer of justice down,and punish this dirt potty mouthed racist.his crime?
racist verbiage.

no consideration of who was writing it.
no consideration of his history on this site,which you openly admitted is a community.
you just..focused..on..the..word.

and then you preen like a peacock thinking somehow you have struck a blow of righteousness?

please sister.....you accomplished nothing except to put dag in an awkward position,and came across as a self righteous moralizer.

when you simply could have done what other sifters here actually DID.
you downvote his comment.
and if you felt so inclined,and it appears you ARE so inclined,directly call @gorillaman out for his poor choice of verbiage.

look BB,
i actually find you to be a sweetheart,with a huuuuge propensity for empathy and compassion,but every time i engage with you my sphincter tightens up like it is preparing for a colonoscopy.there is this ever-present apprehension that my words will not be taken with humanity that they are written,or the open honesty i am trying to convey.

i am sure that if we were actually sitting in a cafe,sipping that delicious coffee you guys are so proud of, i would not experience this anxiety when engaging with you,but it seems EVERY time i disagree with something you post,or an opinion i may take issue with,i offend you in some manner.

you ..and i am sure this is not done on purpose..make it incredibly difficult to disagree with something you post,because i always feel i have hurt your feelings somehow.

real or imagined...i am just being honest here.i always approach any interaction with you as if i am walking on eggshells,underlined with landmines.

i am simply disagreeing with you here.
calling for a ban on gorillaman because of a joke made in poor taste,while simultaneously disregarding his contributions to this site,and taking his personality into consideration,is simply an over-zealous reaction and in no way deserves the attention of dag.

because if gorillaman deserves to be banned for an offensive phrase,than i should be banned as well.

free speech is just that...free.
of course we are free to ridicule that speech.
yaaay free speech!

Every story I see on this situation covers the emotional hot topics of they might endanger the tribes water supply, they might be trampling on sacred burial sites, they aren't being nice to the protestors.

So what are the facts? How was the company handling the concerns of the many people affected by the pipeline not just this one tribe. I have seen only one story that covered this and I have to say that it appears that the company has tried to work with them. https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-gates/on-the-standing-rock-tribes-dakota-pipeline-protest-/10154529600627457

I would love to see a story from the tribe perspective that shows. something that goes something like this. "we contacted the company on these dates and expressed out concerns over these topics (see attached letters, forms, online entries etc) we have not heard back or did not like their response (see attached responses). We worked with them and offered X alternatives... etc"

If I could see a fact filled version of their story that matches the one I linked above I would be more inclined to fully back them.

I'm in California, and i think dans in Thailand. California Is a Clinton state. If i was in a swing state i'd be more inclined to vote for that p.o.s. Clinton. I'm lucky i get to vote my conscious. I fucking hate Clinton but as horrible as i think she is shes still the only real option.

Well I'm glad she added that Pokemon Go has a fairly reasonable model, I feel like that was the strong hand of Nintendo.

If you take away location differences, which there is a glaring issue with at the moment. Two players in the same reasonably supported area, the major difference in needing to spend money is how much you want to walk and that's the core of the game.

So if you want to play the game as designed (with no false limitations), you can generally play for free.

She's also not wrong that because of all that, I actually was inclined to make a purchase, it was small and I spent it on the non-expendable upgrades but I've been pretty anti-freeium in the past, so it was a big step for me to give such a game money.

I think Pokemon Go has certainly obliterated that 1-2% pay money statistic. I'm positive reports will eventually show it had a much higher stat.

It's not a saint, you can still gain a sizeable advantage by spending a lot of cash and these elements are still very much targeting the addiction of whales (expendable, short durations, element of luck with egg hatching). But it is a refreshing change for how they treat the "other" group of players.

I'm inclined to think that the force happens simply from the way the card is chosen - the riffle takes so little time, and is sprung on the mark, that he's pretty much forced to say 'Stop' at what can perceived to be the right point. Awkward if he declines when asked to confirm, though...

Quoting and responding..

"Well, yes and no. If you're being dumped somewhere that there's no landmarks and/or no cell service, you might have an argument that getting out puts you in danger, but that's certainly not the case here. "

Already agreed this isn't the case here. Twice, in fact

"I think that's the risk you take when you decide to go with Uber. You pay less, you get a certain type of service, but you have less recourse if it goes bad. "

Sorry, but no. There's still a base level of service to be expected.

"I don't disagree that he reacted poorly."

That's really my main point. You can be 100% in the right and still act like an asshole. If he had remained calm and called the police this video would've gotten no traction at all.

"He is NOT a taxi driver, he's an Uber driver. I disagree, Uber does not =taxi. Taxi=taxi...Limo=>taxi ...Uber ="

This is probably worthy of a separate discussion, but since we're here...

I 100% disagree with this. Uber is a taxi service, just a really poorly run one. They've just started in my hometown and they are actually encouraging drivers to break the law. In NZ, you are legally required to have a passenger endorsement to carry passengers for profit, but Uber just told their drivers "eh, don't worry about it, you'll be sweet" and then left them twisting in the wind when the government went "er, no, we weren't fucking joking", and started clamping down.

Frankly, the more I learn about Uber, the less I am inclined to use their service. I like some of what they're doing, but it's complete bullshit they way they treat their drivers.

Most of all, I hate the way they claim to be a "ride-sharing" company. If someone was setting up a service of "I'm going to the airport, want to share fuel/parking costs?" that's ride sharing (I think Lyft do that??). But that's not the Uber model. The driver is going where you tell them. That's a taxi.

Sidenote: I really wish we could have the old quote system back. Replying to long quotes like this is a pain in the arse now.

Doesn't look very well executed, but is certainly philosophically-inclined.

I've largely opted out of this one. I'm not an economist or an expert in european law, so I haven't the knowledge to make an intelligent choice.

I am somewhat naturally inclined toward remaining: there was never a trace of patriotism in my soul, and the european courts at least have done some service toward protecting british freedoms, both from our government and from those corporations who'd like to own it. The common market's a good principle, and I don't have anything but admiration for the idea of a european superpower to oppose the twin fascisms of the US and China.

I never thought I'd grow up to care about immigration, but it turns out I don't like seeing millions of social conservatives marching into western europe from lesser cultures, pushing back against the progress we've made in recent decades.

There's another dimension to that question in the UK, which I don't think is well understood externally: where absolutely anyone with a european passport is allowed permanent residence here, the government keeps the figures down to appease its more xenophobic voters by making it practically impossible for those outside the EU. So, every year we tell thousands of highly skilled, highly intelligent prospective immigrants to just fuck off. Good policy.

In any event, I don't endorse unjust systems like democracy, and wouldn't vote in any referendum.

*ban

Why? See the posting guidelines on the FAQ.

@newtboy @chicchorea or anyone else, please feel free to second the motion if you're so inclined.

I agree the kid's rather irritating.

...But to be fair, he's hardly an outlier in that regard among kids roughly that age.

I was a pretty insufferable know-it-all when I was around that age too. And I probably shouldn't be so sure that that is something that I've entirely grown out of now that I'm in my mid 30s either...

He's got an opinion (which I'm inclined to agree with) and is exercising his right to express it. Perhaps it is better to be opinionated and a little annoying than a blind follower. He'll grow into wisdom and empathy to temper that opinion with in time.

No idea, but given the video shows both sides of the brain reading text, I'm inclined to say no.