Life is a road of suffering. Most things worth doing require suffering and sacrifice. If you don't learn how to overcome hardship, it's likely to overcome you.

His kung fu will be strong.....yours will not. He'll make your eagles claw look like a chicken!

I've never really found LSD that useful in any way to be honest. Shrooms (psilocybin) are a form of DMT (4-HO-DMT). For both experience and medical reasons, DMT or ayahuasca & Iboga are the two that are the most promising. Both ayahuasca & iboga have been used to overcome addictions and mental disorders and the experiences they contain are nearly in a whole other ballpark from all other types of "drugs". It'll probably take another 50 years for the establishments to admit to their health benefits or that they should be studying how they interact with the brain. Anyone who has experienced them knows it's going to take science a long fucking time into the future to only sort of understand.

@SDGundamX, first up, it was a throwaway line, you're reading way too much into it.

I'm not going to go over Jim Jeffries joke (it's been discussed to death already), except to say that, yeah, I got what he was trying to do and no, it still wasn't that funny or clever.

Besides, I wasn't trying to compare the two. Mine was a throwaway line, his was an extended sketch by a touring professional comedian. My point was simply that taste is in the eye of the beholder.

And would you please do me the courtesy of not telling me what I'm thinking. I'm not angry about ignorance, I'm angry about woolly thinking (specifically, lack of critical thinking).

If you're ignorant, then you just need to be taught. I'm not angry at ignorant people, I'm sorry for them and I want to help them.

My problem is with people (like the guy in the video) who have been presented with evidence, but ignore it because it doesn't fit their worldview.

200 years ago, if you believed that disease was a result of demonic possession, that's unfortunate. If you believe that today, you're deliberately ignoring knowledge.

As far as viewing people who reject evidence as a dangerous "other", I'm ok with that. As I've said before, I don't believe in "tolerance" as a virtue. If someone isn't bothering me, or someone is doing something I don't like, but it doesn't harm anyone, then I'm fine with them; I have no need to "tolerate" them.

But if people are doing something that causes harm (racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc), I don't tolerate that at all, and will speak out against it.


As for your torture example, it is flawed. You're saying that you wouldn't reconsider the ethics of torture, even if evidence of its efficacy was available. Do you see the problem?

You proposition was that torture is unethical, and your hypothetical evidence states that it is effective. The two are orthogonal properties. It is possible to be both effective and unethical.

Besides, I didn't say you had to change your position, I said you had to reconsider. If someone presented you with a philosophical argument arguing for the ethics of torture, are you saying you wouldn't even hear it out?

I hold positions like that myself. Despite everything, I believe that one day, people will overcome their petty differences and venture out into the stars. That doesn't mean I don't question it..

Well, at least it's not quite as desaturated as the rest of the DCU (yo, Synder! Colour is not a four letter word!)

Could be interesting, butI guess we'll have to wait and see. Has a lot of bad momentum to overcome.

Hmm... you make a compelling argument Maybe I just got sucked into the marketing! Matthias's explanation even points out that venturi pumps are inefficient, and used where you don't want the liquid you're pumping anywhere near the inside of your pump.

The big disadvantage of using a small fan is normally that you get more noise, which I suppose might be overcome by the ducting.

I don't see any reason you couldn't use a larger fan in the setup though... you should even be able to use a box fan.

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.

I just read it.

I get that it's a complicated issue and emotive for many, I've been on the receiving end of abuse myself and I do understand what being "triggered" feels like (not that I think it should change anything outside of a personal context). I also understand that a subject such as this kind of requires some nuance and intelligence if it's going to be tackled comically, without coming across as simply crass.

But, finding some material crass seems like a necessarily consequence of experimentation and having a diverse artistic community. And moreover, Jim's material here didn't come across as crass, or intentionally hurtful to me. (beyond a deliberate faux crassness clearly intended to emphasise the effect of the material)

I can only assume that it cut too close to the bone for your own sensibilities and/or experiences? Or perhaps instead that you are concerned that it might in some way encourage or validate the twisted attitudes of unevolved brutes?

I understand and respect this, but I have always seen such things as my own weaknesses and obstacles to be overcome. By way of example; to me death and cruelty are the ultimate comedic premises. They represent the deepest fears and anxieties inherent in the human condition, and as such conduits to the deepest catharsis.

Life is unfathomably cruel and brief; to find true levity in the darkest reaches of that, I think represents one of the highest and most liberating state a human being can strive for. (the temporary suspension of ego and care)

We all die and awful things can happen at any moment, this for me is the divine joke and I suspect the underlying power of all things we find humorous to a greater and lesser extent. (one could re frame that as "life is pointless and as such hilarious", but it would mean the same here)

I guess after all that self indulgent waffling, I'm saying that I don't think the collateral of other peoples sensibilities should hold back the pursuit of such lofty things. I'm sure Jim wouldn't see it in quite such terms, but in his own small way this is what I think he, like all good artists, is doing.

There will always be Devils and Ignavi but would be Ubermenschen (or if you will Uberdamen) should never pander to such creatures, lest they allow them to pollute the light they seek to create.

Nothing is true, everything is permitted.
Love is the law, love, under the temperance of will.

(That last part is just a lunatics way of saying; never let the fear of the foolish compromise the pursuit of ones highest arts. Life is short, shine brightly and apologise only on your own terms.)

(^ I do unfortunately suck at actually living by the above, because I'm lazy and cowardly)

Apologies for the gender mixup, I'll make a mental note for future reference

Much love.

So, firstly, I must agree with @ChaosEngine, a commencement speech is no place for political commentary. A commencement speech's purpose is to allow one who has paved a complex path through life and come out on top, or one who has overcome something great, (and) has a important lesson for those less-learned to share their knowledge, that it may be used for good.

(God that sentence is long, let me catch my virtual breath...)

Next, why, if he is to provide political commentary during a commencement speech, as so many do nowadays, does he slam Trump?

Anybody? Is it his hair? Is it his puffy little face? Is it because he looks like a pumpkin? No? Perhaps its because he is a disaster waiting to happen, because that seems to be the general sentiment from many people who are allowed to speak their minds en-masse nowadays...

But how is Trump worse than Clinton? Hmmm? Perhaps there are buried rape cases THAT WERE MADE PUBLIC BTW, in Trump's past? No?

Perhaps making billions of dollars FROM ONE MILLION is just inherently evil? Hmmm, no?

Okay, that Hairdo, it must burn a hole in the Ozone layer wherever he walks... Or flames must flower at his feet, as lotus flowers did for the Buddha? NO?

Perhaps he was wrong about the people that you blokes are letting into the country? Yes? Then how come one of them, (whom you could never tell is a radical, HE HAD A WIFE AND CHILD), just killed 50 members of the LGBT community in the horrible massacre in Orlando?(which was so bad we are getting news coverage of it in LONDON)

Hmmm, maybe electing someone who actually admits there is a problem, destroying political correctness, and being damned with the "established order" which supposedly keeps you Americans safe isnt such a bad idea...

Maybe electing a Woman with a hideous blot of a record, and a long standing member of said establishment is one such bad idea...

True, but "terminal velocity" conveys decently close to the right idea and there isn't any specific word that means the speed at which magnetic force is overcome by centrifugal force. As far as I know, anyway.

Escape velocity ("the lowest velocity that a body must have in order to escape the gravitational attraction of a particular planet or other object") might be arguably closer to the mark, but gravity is not the same as magnetism.

If I'm doing the math correctly, the universe is expanding at around 46 miles per second, which is around 165,000 mph. Is there some reason why humans could not overcome this speed limit? It doesn't seem that exceptionally fast (no where near as fast as the speed of light), and if you accelerate slowly to it, like over several days or weeks, the g-forces involved wouldn't be that extreme, would they? The video didn't really explain why we could never go fast enough to overcome the expansion rate.

Also, I thought most theortical physicists like Stephen Hawking believe that in the future technology could advance enough to allow us bend space-time and hence travel "faster than the speed of light" without actually travelling faster than the speed of light, basically like folding a piece of paper and sticking a pin through both sides. When you lay the paper down flat, the two holes will seem quite far away from each other, but when you fold the paper, the holes are right next to each other. Our current understanding of physics doesn't rule out the possibility (at least from a mathematical perspective) although generating the energy necessary to perform such a feat would of course be problematic.

I think she is just arrogantly assuming that either:

A. Most young voters don't usually end up voting (one wonders why with this type of thing demoralizing them)

B. People will hate Trump enough to overcome their hatred of her.

The GOP has had problems since at least 2008, and they keep building up and up on the same issues.

The problem is the party is sort of stuck, and the split that it desperately needs would hurt it. Fox and the right wing talk radio aren't really on the classic GOP (of the Reagan and prior eras) side. Fox and talk radio and the social media that surround their viewers/listeners has shifted very far to the right. So much so that Reagan would in no way win the nomination today. Today's far right Republican party sees governing, and negotiating with the other side of the isle as a weakness. They don't want a representative democracy, they want a theocratic dictatorship while calling it democracy.

A party split is needed though. They need to split the two elements of the party from one another. Let the Tea Party form on it's own and let Fox and talk radio follow it. They'll find that the mass media is still far more central and closer to them than what they've been led to believe via Fox and talk radio, who accuses it of being far liberal. The party would be hurt for a couple election cycles, but as people start to wise up, they'd come back to the GOP from the Tea Party and the Tea Party would eventually become a footnote. As it stands, leaving the Tea Party elements in it will destroy the party in full.

The GOP keeps trying too hard to appeal to the far right element of it self and abandoning the central core. They are appealing to the hate mongers and bigots rather than the compassionate conservatism that Reagan at least pretended to have (though didn't).

I still think that McCain made two major errors when he ran. First was stepping too far to the right of where his voting record was while running. Had he stuck to what his record showed, he would have stood a semi-decent chance of winning... had he not made a second major fatal error and that was putting a batshit crazy, way far to the right, person as his VP candidate. Even if she wasn't crazy, or had a brain, she was far too the right for most Americans. Now, even if he had stayed true to himself, and used a centrist VP candidate he may have lost as Obama tapped into something... and I don't think anybody saw that coming.

Then the GOP embraced the hatred of Obama too much. Obama could cure cancer and they'd decry it as a bad thing, he can do nothing right so far as they are concerned. They should have toned that down. They also messed up the messaging on Obamacare. They should have embraced it, noting that they invented it, and tried to pass the same thing into federal law 3 times prior, twice under Bush Sr and once under Clinton and each time it was the Democrats who wouldn't take it. Showing how the Democrats embraced your idea would have shown, "look, we were right the whole time. We could have had this ages ago but the Democrats said 'No' and now they realized we were right." Rather than take the high rode though, they rode the crazy train of hate, and pushed more and more to become obstructionist.

Now side note, obstructionism works. Many Republican and non-affiliated voters, blame Obama for the lack of progress, though none of his ideas really got to be tried since they were bound and determined to obstruct everything and have done everything they can to ruin the Nation so they can blame him for the state of affairs, knowing full well most Americans don't know Congress controls the purse and pretty much all things related to it.

Anyhow, then Romney too shifted far to the right of what his record as Governor showed, and again went with somebody who's too far to the right (who oddly enough is now seen as too establishment by the Tea Party element) as a VP candidate... though Obama's popularity, and the popularity of Obamacare would have made it hard to overcome... though again, if the GOP had handled Obamacare properly, as their invention, then Romney would have ridden that strongly as his state used the previous Republican led efforts to create the same program, to do so on the state level. He could have ridden the fact his state had it before anyone else... again they let hatred of Obama override the logical move.

The party in the end is too afraid to do what it needs to do. It's too afraid of the short term losses and doesn't realize that the far goal is obtainable.

That is all well and good, but the F35 is not just a sniper. It's a multi-role aircraft that needs to be an interceptor, a bomber, and a close ground support plane. You can be a 'sniper' and hide long range in interceptor mode, but bombing and close ground support are not going to be as kind to a plane that relies completely on stealth to overcome it's shortcomings in maneuverability, etc.

Additionally, the sheer cost of the vehicle is going to make it prohibitive for our allies to purchase it, meaning that in NATO combat groups, we will have it and our allies won't. It also means that we can't offset the trillion dollar development cost in ally purchases. Of course, it is likely that we won't even try to export it for the risk of having the stealth breached. We didn't export the F22 for similar reasons and it is dead now.

The simple fact is that we have sunk a ton of money into a pit and for little return. There are still huge long term delays in Russian and Chinese stealth programs, so just like the F22, this plane is going to come into production with no real enemies to fight against. Are we going to risk sending these vs last gen or earlier systems when our older planes are still more advanced than those and cost far less?

We aren't going to stop making this plane, we've gone too far. But it is going to be just as much of a waste as the F22 and probably more of a debacle when the enemy does come up with hardware capable of defeating it's stealth capabilities. Once that happens, we have a plane that is worse than the previous generation facing enemies more than capable of taking it out of the sky.

Talent will get you so far.
So will hard work and practice.

Want to be great? you need both.

Talent is meaningless without the dedication to build on it. Likewise (sadly) you can practice til you bleed, but you'll never overcome your innate lack of ability (I know, I've tried).

This girl clearly has both. Now, she just needs to dial it back a notch on the fills and let her groove show. Remember, the musicians serve the song, not the other way round.

Then allow me to clarify for you, this is how....you didn't say "our criminal justice system forever holds records against people ", you said...
Newtboy said:
"Absolutely it's fair to expose people's public actions and tie it to them personally. 100% fair and proper. Period. People should own their actions, some need to be forced to own them."
Lawdeedaw said:
Newt, this is a racists dream come true...it's what's keeping black men and women (who predominately are abused into our criminal justice system) unable to be productive citizens. This grudge holding helps no one.

You state that what's keeping blacks down is their criminal records...as if they all have one, and it's the only thing they have to overcome, and as if only blacks have criminal records. Need I say more, or do you now see the racism I see there?

I did not say it SHOULD be indefinitely held against him, please read again more clearly. I said it WOULD be held against him. Two different words and concepts. I said clearly that it was overboard that that would happen, but it's reality that once on the internet with his name attached, it will follow him for life. That's not an endorsement, it's a statement of fact.

You are FAR from crystal clear. I've now explained how you said what I read.
I'll assume that you assume my assumption is assumptive, and assume your assumptions are also all assumptive assumptions, although I do assume that assumption is all based on assumptions. That clear it up?