No flying cars but instead we got woke kiddies shaming people on the Internets.

5.5k up votes, 173 down votes on youtube, we have some horrid people on the internet.

I have a plug-in for Chrome that turns "millennials" into "snake people" and my internet is a better place. What I got to see of your post was:

"Snake people, yawn."

And I think so. Who wins?

You're entitled to your opinion about the "joke". If I say it doesn't bother me it's because I'm telling the truth. If it bothered me, she'd know about it.

The problem with being funny (or talented in any way) nowadays is that you're going to get compared to the plethora of incredibly talented people on the internet. With this in mind I actually have a yard stick I'm comparing against. Maybe in yesteryear you could claim some person or another was funny (or talented) and it would be true in one's tiny circle, just like every ugly baby is pretty to their mother.

I'm happy to be percieved by others as pathetic - they're entitled to their opinions. But I'll happily keep calling people out as pathetic.

The social mores are clear in this case - it's rude to reply to a question with a question; and it would have been trivial to answer the question.

You're welcome to walk away. Don't worry, sooner or later I'll get bored of you as well.

Not sure I want to find anything named by people on the Internets...

Thank you for that great response.. Its really rare to see people on the internet come back at you with something else than pure rage...

That was pretty informative too (thx for that)

Destin is one of my favourite people on the Internet, and I'm proud to be a patron of his.

http://www.patreon.com/smartereveryday

This is not all directed @Januari, i lost track of how to separate quotes in comments about 4 years ago, but yours was the most detailed feedback i could use so i thought it polite to reply to you. In the approximate order in which things occured:

The only business of who that person was is them and i, and that has already been resolved. That should have no impact on this video, it is merely what the video reminded me of because that was what had recently happened to me. Perhaps that's why i saw the side i saw to it. I honestly do not understand the fuss, the fuss that has NOT been made by me. I clearly asked for feedback on my description, unfortunately no actionable feedback has come in - "i don't like it" isn't a recommendation.

I'll happily make a few modifications, but no one seems to like it anyway so i'd just as readily get rid of it if i knew how - you have already judged it on the description. If/when i find out how to, i'll do so, and until then if you'd like to say which bits in particular think are disingenuous? I'll make what changes i think have been suggested, but so far the feedback comes across more as a slight more than actual feedback so i still don't really know what changes to make. That's why i asked people!

I don't like the behaviour of the men at all. I don't condone violence towards anyone if it can possibly be avoided, but i didn't think that i needed to agree with the people who recorded a video in order to post it.

Did she "get what she deserved"? She was arrested, no harm came to her. Last time i checked we entrusted the law to settle things like that, and they made their decision. Carrying on like that wasting police time when there's real people out there in the world who need help? Does she even consider that she's making it harder for the next person who really does get shoved over to get the protection they need? Sorry, but yes i do think she got what she deserved here. The guys who shoved her deserved a little karma too, for more reason than one.

@Yogi - in both the original and now the new descriptor, i made it absolutely clear that this woman did not represent what feminism is. I can't understand why you are suggesting that i said such a thing when i specifically said the opposite. I do not even claim to understand how people like this lady thinks either. I recommend you re-read the descriptor. This woman is not a feminist, and i do not therefore "understand how all feminists think" as you falsely accuse.

Please at least limit yourself to insulting/berateing me for things i am guilty of. Like, for example, being naive enough to think that people on the internet can resolve a problem peacefully with discussion.

@dystopianfuturetoday - i hope that whatever species of male you represent is ok with that statement!

I blame people for the current situations, are you not a person? I'm also complicit simply by existing.
Why would I need to expose my friends and past colleagues to a random internet denier ...firstly, subjecting them to you would likely end my friendship with many of them, secondly, you said clearly that you had already asked them ALL, so what gives? Were you just lying? (I know the answer to that, but I'm not sure if you'll admit it or not) If so, why should anyone believe anything you say?
I don't debate EVERY single person, only those I think are claiming things I see as incorrect. Debate at least informs each other of the others point of view, if not fostering re-analysis and possible changing of minds.
So, you would rather accept a few weatherman's opinions instead of most climate scientists when it comes to climate. Meteorology is the study of weather, not climate...or the dog, not the man....SQUIRREL! It doesn't mean they know nothing, but it does mean they aren't professionals in the climate and that others are far more specialized in the field and should be deferred to when discussing their field of expertise.
As I said clearly, I think the 'debate' is moot, as the process is too far along to do much about as I see it, and the few 'folks' that might make a difference (but not enough of one) don't listen to random people from the internet.

@RedSky

20 billion was just an arbitrarily large number I chose to demonstrate that I think that the world would survive significant population growth beyond what we'll be dealing with in the near future.

The point of no return I was referring to is simply a point where we won't be able to get back to a place where we can sustain human population levels without significant environmental degradation and territorial disputes, among other challenges I'd prefer not to experience.

I do consider things like global warming, the fact that China is buying up land in Africa to feed its population, US foreign policy's competitive focus on securing cheap oil and the large scale destruction of rainforest to make way for single crop agriculture in Brasil to be symptoms of an imbalance in population vs. resources.

I'm not drawing the line at "everyone and stock up at the grocery store/pumps" type destruction before I take notice and preach caution. I think that defining that as a deadline would be irresponsible.

Again, I agree that we could theoretically mechanize the whole world in a way that grows the supply of resources and shares them equitably amongst an enormous human population, but that goes against the type of world I'd want to live in (excessive mechanization of natural resources) and the way human social systems typically work (equitable sharing).

There are various estimates on how much longer exponential human population growth will last, but it has certainly happened on a scale of centuries or decades - blips like baby boomers are just expected outliers within that trend.

But what's more important is that even if population levels peter off, it is consumption - which is the only statistic that really matters because it is the only negative effect of population increase - that will continue to increase exponentially as a greater proportion of the world's population begins to achieve first world living standards.

This is why free trade alone is not enough to solve problems. While it is likely to bring people out of poverty, raise education levels and increase human rights (all very good things), it will also continue to push our overall imprint on the planet in a more exponential direction than I'm comfortable with (one reason being the argument detailed in this video).

But of course I'm also uncomfortable with the prospect of any sort of forced population reduction mechanism, and I'm also uncomfortable with the notion of not raising people out of poverty.

So as I see it the only thing left to mitigate my fears is to place a primary emphasis on Education.

There's a million and one ways to do this: Everything from broad, effectual efforts like getting the Pope to get with the program and endorse contraceptives, to nearly insignificant efforts like arguing with people on the internet in hopes that you contribute some small part to a culture that places some significant emphasis on educating people about the importance of self control and restraint in every type of consumption - family size included.

I'm no expert but everything I've ever heard/read from informed sources (i.e. people who study these things rather than random people on the internet) concurs with exactly you you just said there.

Traffic Jams supposed to act like longitudinal waves that snowball as they go due to people driving too close and needing to overcompensate. i.e. what starts as a few people braking a bit too much becomes 100's of people at a standstill a few miles down the line of traffic.

I think you are entirely correct to suggest that if everyone maintained a healthy distance and steady pace traffic would flow considerably more smoothly and many jams wouldn't even happen in the 1st place.

There are choke points but these need never take up more than a lane if people had some perspective and collective sympathy....

Unfortunately they don't and most (or at least enough) tend to drive like the impatient selfish twats they are. This makes biking gently past all of them in their self inflicted gridlock misery all the more satisfying (wouldn't be the 1st time I've sung the Trololol song while doing so either )

God, I'm glad geeks exist. Without people like this, internet video would consist of nothing but beer pong.

I bolded the part of your quote that I found most interesting, because my original comment, before I self-edited, was "Oh noes! Someone is wrong on the Internet! I must DO something." I was going to follow up with how I was just as guilty as most people on the Internet of falling into that trap.

I will not deny that "communication" is taking place in this thread, but my belief is that what's mostly being communicated is various posters' needs to show others how right they are (or how wrong their opponent is) which I find contributes little to the collective body of knowledge, and I don't foresee anything constructive coming out of that.

I like how you tried to steer the thread back on topic with the last part of your comment. I don't really see a "twisted media engine" as you put it at work. Rather I see a reflection of the cultural fact that Christianity still has a significant hold in America (what is it, like 75% of Americans polled identify as Christians?). I think maybe the reporter also made an over-generalization about the area too and just assumed everyone there is Christian. And to be honest, if he had asked that same question to a random sampling of 100 other survivors, don't you think the vast majority would have said "yes"?

You could also blame books and homing pigeons -- Encyclopedia sets? Libraries? I spent many hours of my time as a child reading in these original information databases. I feel like the internet just brought a bunch of base fucks into a spectrum of reality that has always existed. Fucks that normally wouldn't spend their time consuming information in a database. Fucks that would market the shit out of every aspect of it. The perception of this video is a direct result of our internet being ground into dust.

At its mid-range potential, the internet is not much different than a library. I recall a lot of book-learned facts which are plain WRONG, including false and biased information, and unlabeled, incorrectly scaled maps being fairly constant. Yay Christopher Columbus! Yay happy natives! Yay dropping nuclear bombs on people! Yayyyyyyyyyyyyy

The internet brings ourselves closer and closer to instant, multi-perspective, peer-reviewed information, because we no longer need to thumb through catalogs, shelves, and pages, and everyone can contribute in a trusted, merit-based environment. Identify the fuckers of the internet. They pollute us with their bullshit. (I posit that I am not a fucker, I am merely disgruntled.)

One of my best friends is a librarian and the major difference he sees between Wikipedia and published books is that published books require new editions to replace outdated and incorrect information, potentially screwing over human memory for as long as that book isn't burned. (Sorry, rofl, I thought it was a funny way to phrase that. Plz don't burn books.)

The key is to avoid nonstop popular culture and focus on the vast educational potential of the internet.

And don't use social media.

And keep your mobile device's sound and vibration OFF. I love technology but don't let it reverse your human potential, let it augment. Focus on augmentation and factual checks & balances of the information you take in.

No to the conclusions from this video. No. No. NO! The net doesn't make us more superficial, we do and we always have.

And now let the people of the internet add their own CGI!