Can only guess what BK33's video is about. Seeing "T*****'s lawer" and the "Q" in the corner, is like being offered a cold sore lipped kiss.

I'll pass.

If it was something about '16 vs '20 - it's a poor point. No one died. People were unhappy but compliant. No one lied that the votes were tainted. '16 was far more sane and civil.

AND LOOK WHO WAS INSTALLED IN 2016!

It was like a Prom fiasco where the frogs from the biology lab won both King and Queen. Just made a mockery of the Prom's First Dance.

All the more reason the objection(s) to the 2020 election was a travesty. 2016 installed one of the worst ever!

https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2021/?page=overall

[Even ranked below a man that really never served. Man on his deathbed was considered a better President.]

But that’s the thing....they don’t have to prove his thoughts, nor his intent, only the results....because this isn’t a criminal trial and there are very different standards, they only have to show he didn’t preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, violating his oath and duty, because the only possible sentence is for him to be bared from office. His lack of action during the attack alone far exceeded that bar.

It’s becoming more likely (but still unlikely) they could get the votes because he’s barely putting up a defense. To me it seemed like a mockery of the senate, like they were just proving the point that his defense could be someone standing at the podium shouting “Bababoui, Bababoui, Howard Stern’s penis!” and still he would not be convicted...and I think that’s pissing off some Republican senators....but there are also many who are reading books and unrelated documents among other distractions and clearly not paying attention at all, proving the defense correct, they could say anything and still get him off without presenting any defense. A sad state.
On the contrary, the prosecution’s case is straight forward with video evidence and records of what Trump tweeted and did (or didn’t do like not calling in the national guard) during the attack on top of the horrific personal experiences of the same senators hearing the case....hard to forget a lynch mob looking for you and your family to hang less than a month ago.

Remember, there is no possible prison term here, no fine, nothing but baring him from office, that’s it. There should be a criminal trial for treason IMO, but it wouldn’t be a slam dunk. I think the standard isn’t what he meant, it’s what a reasonable person would think he meant. That’s not prosecuting thought crime, it’s prosecuting speech and actions that it’s plainly foreseeable will incite real crimes.

I barely remember the inauguration riots, the million pussy hat march made more news....Trump’s “biggest crowd ever” nonsense got more airtime, and damages and injuries were fairly minimal so, especially when faced with the fresh scars from 2020, they’re easy to forget. That said, I don’t disagree....by 2022 new scandals and a desire to forget will erase this from many people’s memories.

Romans 10:9-10

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved

When you do that, believing that Jesus died for your sins, God will save you and make you a new person. You're good if you don't care where you are going after you die, if you leave it as you believe up to chance. Yet the evidence that God exists is undeniable, and the coming of His Son Jesus Christ was predicted by prophecies going back thousands of years. So you're not really leaving it up to chance because the scripture tells you that you have no excuse for ignorance.

Romans 1:18-20

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse

You would say, I am sure, that you haven't seen any evidence for God but the scripture says you have and you have suppressed the truth about it. I believe scripture and in our conversations I am sorry to say you are always poisoning the well of reasoned debate with mockery and ridicule. What is behind that is a heavy bias and angst which keeps you from seeing who God is. Being obstinate against the truth of Gods word is foolish. Why not give God the benefit of the doubt and at least ask Him to show you if what I have been telling you all of these years is true?

1. I *AM* an LGBTQ person, I don't speak for them, but I am one voice.
I tend to avoid harassing people.

2. No.

3. a) Both. They aren't mutually exclusive. I want women to be equal and I want legal protections in place to maintain this. This is not secret information.
b) They do.

4. Question 3b) suggests women should be responsible for their safety. Question 4 seems to criticize the notion of being responsible for your own safety. Glad to see unified thought in this. The answer is I expected random bouts of mockery, judgement, and violence. You know, the other 95% of my life.

5. Because shitting on a group that seeks to change culture to react similarly to loss of black life as it does for white lives, while pointing out where society fails to meet this standard is pretty charactersticly racist.
Also I don't say that "Kill all white people" is not racist.

6. Yes. Did you know that the permanence of objects, the transmission of ideas and culture and systems of law are based on events in the past? That by studying history we can understand how humans work in a unique way, that knowing that say, there was a WWI may help us understand the conditions under which WWII occurred and that this knowledge may help us decide what to do in the aftermath of WWII to avoid a recurrence?
That if a group has historically had problems, many of those problems have probably been inherited along with consequences of the problems (such as poverty, strongly inherited social trait). Yes. Linear time,human affairs, culture. They are all things that exist.

7. Yes, I have many examples of people doing this. Mostly this is due to short lifespan. But there are many manchildren in our culture, who seem to think that other people asserting boundaries is immature.

8. There are programs designed to help boost male education dropout rate. If you 'fight' for 'improvements in the fairness of social order ' to help achieve this, you are a Social Justice Warrior, and so you could just have asked yourself.
Also, American bias? Pretty sure this is not a global stat...

9. Because one focusses on correcting the inequalities between the sexes and was born at a time when women didn't have proper property rights, voting rights etc etc, and so it was primarily focussed on uplifting women and so the name 'feminism'. Egalitarianism on the other hand, is the general pursuit. Many feminists are egalitarian, but not all. Hence different words. English, motherfucker....

10. Nothing, as I am not.

11. No, my grandparents were being enslaved in eastern Europe by the far left and right (but more the right, let's be honest).

Seriously though, I don't remember the liberal protests of "Not all ISIS".

12. Ingroup outgroup hatred and distrust is a universal human trait. Race seems to provoke instinctive group psychology in humans, presumably from evolving in racially separate groups.

13. The phrase is intended to deflate 'Black Lives Matter' whose point is that society seems to disagree, in practice, with this. There's only one realistic motivation to undermining the attempts to equalize how the lives of different races are treated socially.
It's also designed to be perfectly innocuous outside of this context so that white people can totally believe they aren't being dicks by saying it.

14. My social justice fighting is almost always done in secret. I hate the limelight, and I hate endlessly seeking credit for doing the right thing. So I try to keep it to a minimum while also raising consciousness about issues where I can.
Hey wait, did you fall for the bias that the big public figures are representative in all ways of the group? HAHAHAHA! Noob.
Wait, did a man voicing a cartoon kangaroo wearing an Islamic headdress, superimposed on video footage of a woman in a gym grinding her hips tell me to stop trying show off how awesome I am and and to get real?

15. No, they are both not capable of giving consent. Sounds like you have had a bitter experience. Sorry to hear that.

16. I spent two decades trying to change myself. I tortured myself into a deep suicidal insanity. When I stopped that, and when society had changed in response to my and others plights being publicised sympathetically I felt happy and comfortable with myself.
You would prefer millions in silent minorities living through personal hells if the alternative means you have to learn better manners? What a dick.

17. Sure. It's also OK if you say 'nigga' in the context of asking this question. But I'm white and English. You should ask some black Americans if your usage causes unintended messages to be sent. I'd certainly avoid placing joyful emphasis, especially through increased volume, on the word.

18. Ah, you've confused a mixture of ideas and notions within a group as a contradiction of group idealogy. Whoops. I don't understand gender identity. I get gender, but I never felt membership in any group. That's how I feel, and have since the 1990s. The internet has allowed disparate and rare individuals to form groups, and some of these groups are people with different opinions about how they feel about gender and they are very excited to meet people other people with idiosyncratic views as they had previously been alone with their eccentric perspective.

19. If white men are too privileged then the society is not my notion of equal.

20. After rejecting the premise as nonsensical. In as much as I want rules to govern social interactions that take into consideration the diversity of humanity as best as possible, I recognize those same rules will govern my behaviour.

21. Women can choose how to present themselves. Video Game creators choose how to present women in their art. I can suggest that the art routinely portrays women as helpless sex devices, while supporting women who wish to do so for themselves.

22. You DO that? I've never even had the notion. I just sort of listen and digest and try to see if gaps can reasonably be filled with pre-existent knowledge or logical inferrences and then I compare and contrast that with my own differring opinion and I consider why someone might have come to their ideas. Assuming they aren't stupid I try to understand as best I can and present to them my perspective from their perspective. I don't sing, or plug in headphones or have an imaginary rock concert.

23. I have done no such thing. Look, here I am listening to you. You have all been asking questions that have easy answers to if you looked outside your bubble of fighting a handful of twitter and youtube users thinking these people represent the entirety of things and seeking only to destroy them with your arguments rather than understanding the ideas themselves.

24. Reverse Racism is where white guys are systematically (and often deliberately) disadvantaged - such as the complaints against Affirmative Action. I'm sure your buddies can fill you in on the details. The liberal SJWs you hate tend to roll their eyes when they hear it too. Strange you should ask.

25. No. I've never seen the list. I just use whatever pronouns people feel comfortable with. Typically I only need to know three to get by in life, same as most other English speakers.

26. I'm the audience motherfucker, and so are you. That's how it works.

27. I don't do those things, but yes, I have considered the notion of concept saturation in discourse. Have you considered the idea that people vary in their identification of problems, based on a number of factors. Some people are trigger happy and this may be a legitimate problem. Since you are aware of this, you also have a duty to try to overcome the saturation biases.
Similarly, if you keep using the word 'fucking', motherfucker, you'll find it loses its impact quite quickly. See this post motherfucker. Probably why you needed to add the crash zoom for impact. You could have achieved more impact with less sarcasm and and a more surprising fuck.

Actually, I think most Sanders supporters would say the entire primary process has been a "mockery of democracy". (although that contention starts from the misunderstanding that the primaries are supposed to be purely democratic...they aren't, the parties are private clubs not government organizations, so they're under no requirement to be democratic)
That "mockery" starting with the super delegates declaring their votes for Clinton before a single actual vote was cast, and continuing through the media pretending they don't understand that super delegates are not counted in the delegate count to "secure the nomination" and claiming that Clinton has had it secured for a while now, even though they know clearly that they are repeating a lie, because until they actually vote at the convention, super delegates can change their minds, so their "votes" aren't actually votes yet....which is why they are never counted in the pre-convention vote totals, except this time.... it's a con game that they're winning. Similar to Trump, they're banking on the American people's ignorance and gulibility, and it's working.

That said, you have a good point. Either the super delegate system is terrible and undemocratic and should be eradicated, or it's a good tool for choosing the best candidate and should continue....but many respond as if they think it all depends on who it's benefiting today and they flip flop like a mud skipper. Those people can be ignored, because their 1/2 vote for counters their 1/2 vote against, as I see it.

I have to preface this by saying I think the superdelegate system is corrupt and should be done away with.

But I do find it ironic that the DNC for months has been promising Bernie supporters "don't worry, superdelegates have never upset the will of the popular vote, we won't turn this into a mockery of democracy".

And Bernie supporters are now in the position on saying.
"Hey, you know that mockery of democracy deal? Maybe let's go with that. " ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

I want to watch Lemmy's show now.

I've never understood the fascination with people wanting to watch other people act more ignorant than normal (all of reality TV), but there's something different about the tone in this that just kills me. I feel like it's the same philosophy as reality TV, but something about that presentation, the subject and patient, sad, lack of mockery and silent sympathy that accompanies Lemmy's confusion that ropes me in. Too tickled not to say something positive about that.

Haha, yeah, I guess you're right. This is the first time anybody has made a mockery of transgendered identities, so they should just suck it up! Their number just happened to be up, in the Russian roulette that is comedy... It's not like there's a widespread history of that kind of jokes, or a history of discrimination, violence, and suicidal depression to go with it.

Again, I'm not advocating that the joke should be cut, because I don't know the context and I imagine whatever comedy comes out of Clint Eastwood will be asinine at best anyway. I do take issue with Maher's disingenuous pretense at not understanding what the offensive part of the joke was. He's literally saying "That joke was not an insult, it was not demeaning," when it obviously was. It played to the bigoted perception that transgendered women are men pretending to be women, which is both widely held and demeaning. He can defend it, but I don't see why he's pretending not to understand it.

No, why do you ask? Do you think i'm being insincere?

I made this same argument - in my long-winded way - in this comment just last week.

(as well as another comment previous to this that I'm not gonna search for)

I'm actually pretty polite and well-mannered when I'm not ranting, believe it or not.


The point being:

You hate when people talk badly about LEOs.
I hate when people talk badly about People of Color.

We both share that similar feeling.

You understand that not all black people are criminals. (i hope)
I understand that not all police people are criminals.

We both share that common ground. (as @kevingrr put it)

Here I am attempting to extend an olive branch and show you some respect..

And all I get in return is more mockery.


Oooh well, can't say I never tried to be friendly/make peace..

See, another example of some "i-can't-possibly-racial-insensitive-whatsoever-because-THIS-guy-agrees-with-completely-sheltered-rose-tinted-worldview" - *deep breath* - Bullshit!

[phew, these polite euphemisms for "racist" are getting out of hand now]

Unfortunately, the term "culture appropriation" is a misnomer.

The term coined should be Cultural MISappropriation and refers to shit like Blackface.

Something this was trendy, open mockery. Also, fairly lucrative.

This White Party video is a highly significant point of discussion and is important satire for all white folks to think about & discuss because..

THIS IS EXACTLY HOW MOST COLORED PEOPLE FEEL.
[I would know, cause this is exactly how i feel]

So yeah..

Tactless, suggestively snarky comments, with a Token to parrot and espouse believes that confirm your bias.. -_-

Is simply "mild" racism in action.
It's Denialism. It's Victim-blaming.

"Stop complaining. We're all equal see. Can't we all just learn spanish & twerk our butts, as one."

And let Americans sweep all that other extremely racist shit under the rug for another 150 years?!

Fuck no.

There was a time when I would have been so excited for this movie. That time is not now.

*promote mockery of this boring ass crap

I'm not saying that "climate change" isn't "real," but that the practice of climate science is highly prone to fraud and conflates natural science with social science.

This matters because one could accept climate change on the basis of natural science but still reject it on the basis of social science given the understanding that the policies normally associated with environmentalism are clearly not the proper ways of addressing the effects of climate change.

As such, there is a lack of scrutiny in much of the discourse about and around climate change (to say nothing of the ridicule and mockery and epithets that are slung on "both" sides). There are a few separate questions worth addressing:

1. Is the planet getting warmer?
2. If it's getting warmer, is it anthropogenic (human-caused)? (If not, then it's unclear how humans can 'reduce' it and/or deal with the consequences.)
3. If it's getting warmer, by what magnitude? (This is a scientific question with many implications for policy.)
4. What are the costs of climate change? (Oft asked/answered)
5. What are the benefits of climate change? (Might it, say, make the arctic habitable and a source of land or food? Might it bring down the costs of heating homes/businesses in colder climates?)
6. Do costs outweigh benefits or vice versa? (This question, while important, is based less on scientific fact than on interpersonal value and depends heavily on the results of the scientific questions above. As such, public policy is based on facts and values, and does not translate science directly into policy.)
7. If costs outweigh the benefits, what policies are appropriate? (This, again, would be determined by the matters of both fact and value -- natural science and social science.)
8. What are the costs of the policies designed to reduce the costs of climate change? (Might the policies imposed to address the costs of climate change have associated costs that may outweigh their potential benefits? Might reducing the effects of global warming slow the economic growth so as to impoverish half the planet, or imbuing powers to governments that're likely to be used in ways having little to do with climate change? Such costs might have grave and devastating effects that far outstrip their potential benefits to say nothing of the perceived costs of climate change, itself.)

This is a social scientific question that is no less important than the natural scientific questions listed above. There are many more questions in addition to these, but this is perhaps sufficient to make my points:

* It's possible to accept the natural science of climate change, but reject the policies proposed to combat it.
* It is possible to think that climate change is anthropogenic, but to humanely conclude that nothing should be done about it.

However unpopular it is (on videosift especially) to dissent to the claims that anthropogenic climate is "real," it should be noted that such dissent does not, de facto, "deny" the science, but does, instead, take a far more considered approach that accepts the natural science in light of its many social scientific implications.

I disagree with this on a few points.

First up, "we didn't choose to be nerds". er, yeah, you did. It's not skin colour or sexual orientation, it's personal preference. Literally.

At some point you have to own your choices in life. I've always maintained that "you shouldn't judge people on their beliefs/opinions" is bullshit. It's not acceptable to use "it's just what I believe" as a scapegoat for unsavoury beliefs (racism, homophobia, sexism, etc).

Unfortunately, it swings both ways. If we get to tell racists they're assholes, we must accept that people have the right to judge us on our taste in movies, books, etc. If we can't do that, then we are forced to accept that reading Twilight or listening to Nickelback is not up for mockery. That is not a world I want to live in.

Now, that said, of course no-one should be bullied for liking sci-fi or math or science. Those things are awesome, but not even twilights fans deserve to be bullied.

Next up, the whole "it's not you, it's the bully and their own issues".

Sorry, but no. Some kids are just evil little fucks. They're not jealous or looking for attention, they're just mean. It's a nice idea, but honestly, some people just need to be powerslammed.

Not too long ago an embed of this music generator was allowed:

http://www.jeffwu.net/?page_id=967

Can't find the embed right now. But I remember shaking my fist angrily at this shameful mockery of the rules

I laughed really hard at this video. Why? Because it took a stereotype we're all familiar with, inflated it to absolutely absurd levels and made a mockery of it. (Just like their other video...) If that's not comedy, I don't know what is.

And it also had a guy getting maced in the face. That's CERTAINLY comedy gold.