Quoting for posterity here (and so you can look back on it when you are less drunk/high). Are you trying to make a point? If so, you are failing.
a) Would you like a list of the comments I'm referring to? Was looking at the comment thread under the video I link to too hard?
b) Nowhere did I say only women get raped. What's your point?
c) OED: "antisemitism: Hostility and prejudice directed against Jewish people; (also) the theory, action, or practice resulting from this." Keep grasping at straws dude. I made no oversight, antisemitism is common among Muslim Arabs and Africans. We're all Africans, that doesn't mean some of us aren't racist against Africans. See?
d) this dipshit makes the same mistake of comparing rape to diabetes. Is it like a meme or stg?

Next time you're going to post a giant response, think about it a bit, m'kay?
>> ^vaire2ube:

Watch Truth[video] watch truth be called treason [video] RIP Patrice brother you had it down pat. Fuck 'em baby!!!
"Several comments about it here on the Sift sing the tune of "if you don't like it, don't listen to it", but that is missing the point completely."
uh no... besides that being that actual and only point.... one who would post such are ignoring an egregious and combative point of view, that is a result of being offended personally, not because one is perpetuating any kind of crime themselves, but because stupid people who cant seperate comedy from reality are quite a burden... sometimes... but you can argue with patrice when you get there... somethings are more important than explaining humor to the humorless. go be offended elsewhere BECAUSE NO ONE GOT HURT WITH THE JOKE OMG
What did the nun say to the priest?
Nothing, she fingered herself watching him fuck a little boys ass.
only women can be raped??? so no more priest jokes then? oh wait you're ignoring anal rape of men, HOW DARE YOU BE SO INSENSITIVE TO NOT ADDRESS THIS RABBLERABBLERABBBLE IM DESERVE TEH ATTENTION ETC
Here's something interesting that is real: Semitic =/= Jewish. It refers to language origins. Arabs are Semitic too. Care to explain your oversight there? How certain people get to appropriate things to be offended about whilst denying anyone who disagrees as not allowed? Because....??? See the problem here with allowing people who are offended to just have their way... It leads to excuses that de facto result in violence because there is nothing to reason with.

Watch Truth



watch truth be called treason



RIP Patrice brother you had it down pat. Fuck 'em baby!!!

"Several comments about it here on the Sift sing the tune of "if you don't like it, don't listen to it", but that is missing the point completely."

uh no... besides that being that actual and only point.... one who would post such are ignoring an egregious and combative point of view, that is a result of being offended personally, not because one is perpetuating any kind of crime themselves, but because stupid people who cant seperate comedy from reality are quite a burden... sometimes... but you can argue with patrice when you get there... somethings are more important than explaining humor to the humorless. go be offended elsewhere BECAUSE NO ONE GOT HURT WITH THE JOKE OMG

What did the nun say to the priest?

Nothing, she fingered herself watching him fuck a little boys ass.

only women can be raped??? so no more priest jokes then? oh wait you're ignoring anal rape of men, HOW DARE YOU BE SO INSENSITIVE TO NOT ADDRESS THIS RABBLERABBLERABBBLE IM DESERVE TEH ATTENTION ETC

Here's something interesting that is real: Semitic =/= Jewish. It refers to language origins. Arabs are Semitic too. Care to explain your oversight there? How certain people get to appropriate things to be offended about whilst denying anyone who disagrees as not allowed? Because....??? See the problem here with allowing people who are offended to just have their way... It leads to excuses that de facto result in violence because there is nothing to reason with.

>> ^SaNdMaN:

Just goes to show you, all those scooter-bound "disabled" fat people that you see riding around the supermarket CAN become normally functioning humans if they really wanted to.


I get what you're saying, it's not completely insensitive and some people need the extra push that a little cynical doubt can bring. In fact, a lot of people need that.

BUT...

The story of people who were once very physically fit, who get injured and then bounce back, is a really common scenario. In fact, many of the pictures you see in nutrition ads and diet books of people making crazy improvements come from pictures of athletes who've injured themselves. They get hurt and then take some recovery time to allow themselves to heal up, during which they gain a lot of weight and lose muscle mass. Then they get back on the old program and sell or trade the pics for endorsements or supplements, etc.

I'm not trying to say that this video isn't impressive. Just that everyone is different.

@BoneRemake

I was watering my rose garden and you walked by my place
I almost ran up to you in a lustful, unsensitive haste
I almost cried cause I acted so insensitive
But I wanted you to know about the feather-soft warmth I could give

I respect your feelings
I respect your gender
I respect your existence
I'll always be tender
Cause I respect your feelings
As a woman and a human

I'll be the pansy-growing gardener of our bouquet of love
A flower-wielding soldier with the grace of a dove
I'll love you all, heart, mind and soul, I'd never think of anything cheap
I'll read you some of my poems before you go to sleep

I respect your feelings
I respect your gender
I respect your existence
I'll always be tender
Cause I respect your feelings
As a woman and a human

According to what Christ taught, a Christian who lives for his own selfish desires isnt a follower of His. Jesus made it clear:

Matthew 16:24

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me

The key words in this context being "deny himself". Christians are to die to self, and put God and other people above their own needs. There are many teachings on this:

Matthew 5:40-42 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well

If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles

Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Luke 6:35

But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked

Luke 6:28

bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you

James 2:14-18

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead

1 Thessalonians 5:15

See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone

Galatians 5:14

For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Hebrews 13:5

Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”

There are many such scriptures. Jesus wants us to live a life of service, to have a servants heart towards all people. He wants us to bear good fruit for His Kingdom.

I must admit though that I have borne some bad fruit on these boards, and specifically towards you. I made some comments towards you that I regret. I said some things which were extremely insensitive and uncalled for, and I am sorry for saying them. I hope that you can accept my apology.
In reply to this comment by UsesProzac:
Oh shinyblurry, I actually agree with you there. I still dislike you intensely, but I must concede on this point. It is utter hypocrisy for people to claim to be Christian when they never engage in altruism.
In reply to this comment by shinyblurry:
>> ^Ryjkyj:
That really feels like the point to me. It could be argued that most of the scripture says it's OK to be rich as long as you are also godly. And I think THAT's what people really use as an excuse, while they brush aside the fact that Jesus repeatedly tells people to give their wealth away. Which a truly godly person would do without thinking. And not just 15% so they can feel good.

If you love the Lord and know that your providence is from Him, then I really don't see how you could sit on your wealth and not want to do things like, help the poor, house the homeless, dig water wells in Africa, etc. You should naturally want to do those things, and you would know that the Lord gave you the things you have so you could use them to benefit others. Scripture is clear that everything on the Earth belongs to the Father, and that no one can receive even one thing if it hasn't been given to him from above. I don't think a rich person who doesn't use His money to serve others could love God. It's okay to have nice things and everything, so long as you aren't putting them before the Lord:

1 John 2:15

Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.

Cenk's a little off base with this one. It was a stupid, insensitive and incorrect comment and can't really be defended without making it sound worse- as illustrated by Rosen's "clarification" statement. Do the appropriate Mea Culpa thing and move on so we can discuss more important matters.

>> ^aurens:

Funny: I don't find it at all hard to argue with the results. It was billions of years of biological evolution—particularly the development of coping mechanisms for acute stresses—that saved Captain Udell, not his appeal to the (presumably) Christian god. (Surely I don't need to explain the difference between correlation and causation, do I?) And yes, if he really did pause to pray, then his religious impulse was self-defeating: it delayed the instinctual biological responses that eventually saved his life.
The difference between me and the Westboro Baptist Church—I'll spell it out—is in intention, delivery, and degree. Of course, your criticism lost all its punch as soon as you went off the deep end in equating me with those crazies.
I learned from the Hitch, thankfully, to be weary of people like you, people who want to chastise—or, worse, forbid—the criticism of religion on the grounds that it's unacceptably irreverent. Well, goddamn right its irreverent (in the etymological sense); that's the point.>> ^Asmo:
Both are insensitive and intolerant towards people who have not offered any overt offense. Both are self justified and self righteous. I don't see much of a difference, even if you pan it off as humour.
Besides, the humour would have been closer to the target if the guy had actually died from his "self-defeating religious impulses". As it stands, he lived versus incredible odds in spite of taking time for prayer. Kinda hard to argue with the results in this case... X D



You are weary of his calling you a douche, and he is weary of you calling a guy whose body has been blown apart and is barely holding himself together for his wife and kids an idiot.



Way to raise the level of discourse here fellas.

Funny: I don't find it at all hard to argue with the results. It was billions of years of biological evolution—particularly the development of coping mechanisms for acute stresses—that saved Captain Udell, not his appeal to the (presumably) Christian god. (Surely I don't need to explain the difference between correlation and causation, do I?) And yes, if he really did pause to pray, then his religious impulse was self-defeating: it delayed the instinctual biological responses that eventually saved his life.

The difference between me and the Westboro Baptist Church—I'll spell it out—is in intention, delivery, and degree. Of course, your criticism lost all its punch as soon as you went off the deep end in equating me with those crazies.

I learned from the Hitch, thankfully, to be weary of people like you, people who want to chastise—or, worse, forbid—the criticism of religion on the grounds that it's unacceptably irreverent. Well, goddamn right its irreverent (in the etymological sense); that's the point.>> ^Asmo:
Both are insensitive and intolerant towards people who have not offered any overt offense. Both are self justified and self righteous. I don't see much of a difference, even if you pan it off as humour.
Besides, the humour would have been closer to the target if the guy had actually died from his "self-defeating religious impulses". As it stands, he lived versus incredible odds in spite of taking time for prayer. Kinda hard to argue with the results in this case... X D

>> ^aurens:

Yep, precisely my intention. It's my considered opinion that a tongue-in-cheek Videosift comment intended to highlight the silliness of self-defeating religious impulses is the moral equivalent of anti-gay, anti-black, anti-Islamic, anti-Jewish funeral pickets.>> ^Asmo:
[...] You trying to out-douche the Westboro morons?



Both are insensitive and intolerant towards people who have not offered any overt offense. Both are self justified and self righteous. I don't see much of a difference, even if you pan it off as humour.

Besides, the humour would have been closer to the target if the guy had actually died from his "self-defeating religious impulses". As it stands, he lived versus incredible odds in spite of taking time for prayer. Kinda hard to argue with the results in this case... X D

>> ^longde:

I agree the guy isn't racist. He just has a callous, almost criminal disregard for his latino constituents. I don't know how that's better than him being a racist.

I find it rather fascinating how shy people have gotten about using the word racist.

What does one have to say or do these days to "be a racist?"

Does one have to be a full-on white supremacist?

IMO, a "callous, almost criminal disregard for latino constituents" is what racism is usually about. You don't have to go that last mile and actively hate minorities to be a racist; treating minorities like they're not real human beings is good enough to qualify you for the label.

It only makes it worse if someone's response to being told that what they said was insensitive is to launch into a tirade about how oppressed they are by the PC police. It makes me think they're mostly pissed off that they bit back the racial slurs they wanted to use in the first place, and still got crap anyways.

Add in the fuller context (he's being interviewed about the police being investigated for using racial profiling!) and it's hard for me not to call him much worse than "racist."

I'd be horrified if I ever said something like what this guy did, and would get very contrite very quickly in response to the "don't you think that's insensitive?" question, especially in a situation like that.

I feel bad for the mayor. To me he comes off as someone who's not racist, but hasn't verbalized his thoughts and opinions in his head and as such puts his foot in his mouth when confronted on the issue. Getting flustered and frantically digging himself deeper in his hole after the initial stupid comment just makes him look dumber. But if you try to understand what he's trying to say, he's trying to make the point that he thinks his community is more tolerant than what the media portrays it to be, that while this incident sets a horrible example, it's not indicative of the community as a whole.

I think that people get outraged way too easily and that the word racism is thrown around much too liberally. Personally, I try to separate what a person thinks, what the person tries to say and what actually comes out of the mouth. Poorly verbalized thoughts are a more common occurrence where I work, perhaps, but to me a ridiculously ethnically insensitive sentence doesn't make someone a racist. To me it only makes them a racist when the sentence is the correctly formed verbalization of that persons thoughts and opinions.

The Backstory:
Here’s a way not to respond to charges that police officers in your town harassed, abused and brought false charges against Latino residents: by telling a reporter that you might eat tacos to help Latinos out.

Asked this week by WPIX reporter Mario Diaz what he would do for the Latino community, East Haven, Connecticut Mayor Joseph Maturo said he “might have tacos when I go home.”

Four officers in the town were charged by the Justice Department this week with conspiring to violate and violating the civil rights of Latino residents of the city. One officer allegedly said he “likes” harassing people who “have drifted into this county on rafts made of chicken wings.”

Maturo has subsequently apologized for his “insensitive and stupid answer.”

OMG!! @NetRunner, I didn't know you were a ship hand on NObama's child slave ship.. ..on his journey to explore the edge of the flat earth.. ..which was created 6000 years ago..!!


[holy shit this is racially insensitive]

I don't take recitation of those statistics as being racist in itself. Again, I'm using context. I know people who actually work in poor and ethnic communities that use such stats as a benchmark or as a reason to call folks to positive action.

If he has good at heart, when has Newt actually worked for positive change in this community that he so soundly criticizes? Obama was a community organizer in poor areas of Chicago. As a legislator he sponsored bills that directly helped people in poor areas and people in the black community. So, when he uses such stats--and he actually does have a history of telling all types of crowds to stick to a work ethic--Obama doesn't come off as a ne'er-do-well.

I know people who work at youth outreach centers and soup kitchens in DC. Noone has ever seen ol' Newt drop in to help. I've never heard of him sponsoring a bill to help the poor of DC, though he can rattle off all the problems those people have. As a longtime legislator and one-time speaker of the house and someone who lived in the DC area at least part time, he's had plenty of opportunity to lend a hand, but hasn't chosen to do so.

The guy's a professional speaker, but I've never heard of him browbeating poor whites. Hell, he's in South Carolina; he has plenty of chances to tell white people to get off welfare and food stamps. He could have used the stage in the video to do so. But, no, he has to pick on blacks to play to a white crowd.

Newt has such a well known public, political and legislative history that you don't have to troll youtube to see where he's coming from. The people who gave him a standing ovation certainly know.

>> ^Diogenes:

@longde
you may be right, though i do try my best to see the 'big picture' re looking at things in a broader perspective... you could even say that that's one of my hobbies
forgive me if i don't (probably can't) take up your challenge on providing the asked-for video... though i'll happily buy the rounds myself
i think the media (including youtube, et al) is inherently sensationalist, and as such, gravitates to coverage of what's wrong with the message rather than the basis of the message itself
perhaps this seeming focus on the plight of minorities stems from the basic statistics we have: iirc, there are more whites at or under the poverty level than all minorities combined... yet as a % of total population, they are outnumbered by both hispanics and and african-americans - more sadly (yet perhaps more indicative of newt's focus), is the fact that african-americans outnumber hispanic citizens, yet as a % of total population, the former has more people at or under the poverty line
now, you could take my recitation of those statistics as being 'racist' even though i don't think i am and also don't have a dog in this race
so perhaps newt's message is figuratively loudest where he believes the most help is needed (nation-wise)... but this focus can be skewed to seem a blatant criticism of the race of those affected
here's an 8-year-old quote from gingrich: "It is impossible to maintain civilization with 12-year-olds having babies, 15-year-olds killing each other, 17-year-olds dying of AIDS, and 18-year-olds getting diplomas they can't even read. Yet that is precisely where three generations of Washington-dominated, centralized-government, welfare-state policies have carried us."
taken broadly, many would agree and likely take no offense... but applied to a specific audience of specific ethnicity, would likely seem insensitive
i think newt's been fairly consistent in his views on poverty, which we can trace back to his seminal 'contract with america' in the '80s
but again, i could be wrong...

@longde

you may be right, though i do try my best to see the 'big picture' re looking at things in a broader perspective... you could even say that that's one of my hobbies

forgive me if i don't (probably can't) take up your challenge on providing the asked-for video... though i'll happily buy the rounds myself

i think the media (including youtube, et al) is inherently sensationalist, and as such, gravitates to coverage of what's wrong with the message rather than the basis of the message itself

perhaps this seeming focus on the plight of minorities stems from the basic statistics we have: iirc, there are more whites at or under the poverty level than all minorities combined... yet as a % of total population, they are outnumbered by both hispanics and and african-americans - more sadly (yet perhaps more indicative of newt's focus), is the fact that african-americans outnumber hispanic citizens, yet as a % of total population, the former has more people at or under the poverty line

now, you could take my recitation of those statistics as being 'racist' even though i don't think i am and also don't have a dog in this race

so perhaps newt's message is figuratively loudest where he believes the most help is needed (nation-wise)... but this focus can be skewed to seem a blatant criticism of the race of those affected

here's an 8-year-old quote from gingrich: "It is impossible to maintain civilization with 12-year-olds having babies, 15-year-olds killing each other, 17-year-olds dying of AIDS, and 18-year-olds getting diplomas they can't even read. Yet that is precisely where three generations of Washington-dominated, centralized-government, welfare-state policies have carried us."

taken broadly, many would agree and likely take no offense... but applied to a specific audience of specific ethnicity, would likely seem insensitive

i think newt's been fairly consistent in his views on poverty, which we can trace back to his seminal 'contract with america' in the '80s

but again, i could be wrong...