Ugh, the jobs the few workers were doing seemed so mundane and repetitive. That's all i could think about after i saw the first worker bee, straightening the popsicles (8 hours of that, yikes). Kinda ruined the video for me

Yep, you're exactly right. Members here don't take kindly to people ignoring the huge, repetitive warnings.

The no-self-linking policy is one of the core values held close to the heart of the community and a big part of the reason we have such a great catalog of videos (instead of tons of garbage from people trying to get their videos more views).



If you like the stuff you find, stick around and enjoy. Otherwise, thank for stopping by!

Sam Harris is sharp as ever. Cenk loses damn near every point. I can genuinely not see how anyone can think Cenk "won" this debate.

@enoch I must say that I'm disappointed if that's what you're walking away with from this clip. Cenk seems to misunderstand most of what Harris is trying to say, and when he explains further Cenk brushes it off and changes the subject in, to use the wording from the video, a scatter shot way. Grabbing parallels or examples from seemingly random and unrelated ways. It feels like Harris is fighting an uphill battle which is tiring him, so there's a lot of repetitions to try and hammer the points home. Sadly they seem to fall on deaf ears.

I don't see any arrogance in the video, granted I'm missing the last 30 minutes or so.

The point at issue isn't 'is islam bad', though obviously it is; but 'is it possible to generalise about large numbers of people who are in the same club and believe the same things' well yes of course it is. As for corroborative evidence, this is not an assertion that requires it. To the extent that it's possible to generalise about anything, it must be possible to generalise about people who have voluntarily signed up to the same ideology.

What's more the actions of individual muslims aren't important. You can't judge any ideology by the actions of its supporters because mostly they will act from, for example, biological imperatives, personal temperament, cultural factors independent of religion and so on, regardless of what they profess to believe. Which is not to say religion isn't influential and dangerous. To assess the merit of an ideology you have to look at what it actually says, what are its core tenets, what are the principles it espouses, and if you do that and ask the question 'does islam promote violence' the answer is an unequivocal 'yes'. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with promoting violence, but it's not my fault these people can't structure a proposition clearly.

Let's build some consensus. I'm sure everyone here can agree that islam's claims are unfactual, that there is no allah, that mohammed was a liar and that all muslims are idiots. These things are obvious, but given these certain truths wherefore do we defend these delusional maniacs? Certainly none of them is innocent. These are creatures who have signed up to follow the example, the whole point of islam is to follow mohammed's example, of a notorious murderer, slaver and rapist (historical and canonical facts); whose rambling, repetitive book is riddled with threats of eternal torture for unbelievers and exhortations to the faithful to slay those unbelievers, hastening them to that unjust end. Guilty, every one.

If you oppose bigotry, you oppose islam.

So, basically, the next Dark Souls.

Which is fine, because I enjoy those games. Character and enemy designs look great, but at this point they're just regurgitating a formula. It looks foreboding, it's probably going to be brutally difficult, there will be some interesting monsters and probably a convoluted, western-style dark fantasy plot. That's the same thing that Demon's Souls, Dark Souls and Dark Souls 2 offered to a 'T'.
Someone no one else has ever agreed with me from the game industry is personal reinvention, and I wish consumer demand was more fickle for less repetitive offerings.
I *might* play this, but after 3 games, multiple playthroughs of each (because I loved them so much), I'm pretty much over it. Plus, fuck next gen consoles, I could have gotten another 5 years from the current crop. I expect truly talented developers to innovate when they're lauded for their perceived innovation from past successes. Tackling an entirely different genre in the same way the *Souls games were throwbacks to more unforgiving times, or taking the extremes from the previous entries to completely unexpected heights.
There are so many fucking vectors of unexplored progress in the medium that it never surprises me when industry reports year-over-year declines for half a decade, and infuriates me to the point that I wish it would all just fucking die already, wipe out the failures, and rebuild it with this millenniums version of the NES. It's not even about finding "completely new, unexplored methods of interactive media", because you can continue to build on the genre's that exist with a 4-decade-old toolbox that an entire industry only recognizes the most recently opened drawer of.

I used to more of a fan of Garfunkel and Oates when I learned of them several years ago. But now Im over them....meh. All their songs sound alike. Why do you need both of you if youre just gonna sing in unison the entire time? Just find them to be too repetitive and lack creativity. They are smart lyricists...it just gets old to me.

It's that all cringing feeling that someone is trying to convince you, convert you, get into your head. The irrational thought, speaking it like it's truth, telling you to give up and obey, just let "him" into your heart, and all will be okay - Give up, give in, let go of all reason.

It's not just the sentiment of mind control through repetition and peer pressure, it's the ill-educated and backwards thinking and the intensity that they try to sell it with.

When the hairs stand up on the back of your neck, that's not the Holy Spirit, it's your internal warning system telling you to flee danger.

Q: Why do governments continue with experiments if there's not much truth to them?
A: Men who stare at goats (a few ppl fooled by ideas and passion can easily consume some government resources)
A: Magicians (show the audience one thing while you do another)
A: Bias perception (Misinterpretation of the results)
A: Progression (Legitimate achievements in technological advancements)

Either pick what makes you comfortable (mentally lazy), or utilize your critical thinking (worth breeding)

A rational mind staring into darkness will begin to see shapes and movements that aren't really there. It's due to mental cheat sheets, where the mind attempts to understand that which it doesn't by using current knowledge, assumptions, imagination and internal values/preferences/emotions (gross simplification).

An irrational mind more easily sees whatever is familiar/preferred to be seen. Those who stare long enough can become very difficult to persuade with an alternative view or bring back to a more rational position. (it's why teaching young humans 'what' to think is so much more defining than 'how' to think, re stubborn beliefs)

Yes humans are capable of some seriously great feats, but if you genuinely think that weather can be "controlled" to the extent he's referring to (while disregarding the far greater impacts that would occur globally for every smaller influence) then you're not likely to listen to reason, rather then continue to perceive that which you're predetermined to think.

Also it might help to listen to how he's making his points. It's psychological warfare, he's seeding you and getting you to defeat your own rational thought, poorly i might add, but still the attempt is there.
Why? By only making statements, your 100,000's year old critical thinking system will instinctively aim to challenge every point that isn't previously accepted (like how a cat instinctively chases a running non-threat target), so he mixes in the questions, the same questions, as repetition is the best form of learning (mind-raping)

And just to fuck with yas: if you 'knew' something crazy to be true, and as you spoke about it you could hear the crazy.. how would you convince a friend, a parent and a stranger?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Was It Something I Said, David Mitchell, Charlie Higson, Timing, Repetion' to 'Was It Something I Said, David Mitchell, Charlie Higson, Timing, Repetition' - edited by brycewi19

My reaction was: "Okay, that's it. I'm done with this show. I'll never watch Game of Thrones again and I'll never read the books, because the plot has gotten too repetitive and therefore extremely annoying!¹ It continuously uses the same pattern over and over again. Why should I bother watching the show if I know that every interesting and/or likable character (except Tyrion) will face certain death at the next best opportunity (George R.R. Martin said so himself, but I didn't expect him to do this every damn time) just as a means to shock the audience/readership and an attempt to make the plot seem unpredictable. But you know what? If you kill off the most likable and interesting character(s) every season/novel, this is very predictable. It's just lazy and unimaginative storytelling."

That's why I had already expected this to happen, although I really hoped it wouldn't, not only because I liked the character, but because this pattern is really starting to get old. Therefore, I just found it severely annoying, since it seemed so predictable and repetitive. However, I have come to terms with this outcome since then and I'll most probably keep watching the show, but I may never get invested in any character's fate again, because it can be easily predicted.

¹I'm not usually one to stop watching a show for any reason, except if it's really badly written and executed, and even then I give it at least several episodes to make up my mind. So I'm not one of those who say "If [insert character name] dies, I'll stop watching the show."

WHY IS THIS SONG SO CATCHY?

1. Brisk tempo
2. Simple singable melody
3. Repetition, repetition, repetition

Definitely an earworm.

He does and he uses it at his discretion.

When I am around the door is open and he is free to hop aboot.

Honest truth he came to me at six weeks liter trained from the respectable fantastic breeder.

I have never had a problem with his urine on carpet, he pees in his potty and rabbit poop does sometimes happen outside the enclosure, but it is not like dog poops, the poop comes out dry fairly well.

I said, never had a problem for me, he is out for 4 hours at a time and every time he feels the need of nature he hippity hops into his custom tiled corner pissoir and then hippity hops back to whatever he was doing.

Rabbits are very VERY clean by nature and habitual. he knows where to pee he knows where water is he knows where food is. Rabbits can not see in the dark so they need repetition, although they catch on quick. but think of how often the lights are OOT ? SMART FAST LEARNIN G LIL BASTARDS AND BITCHS.

I love me some Monty Python, but this feels really weak for them. Far more preachy than funny, and highly repetitive.

I can't listen to this song without a tear in my eye. It's just perfect - the simplicity of it, the perfect cyclical structure, the evocative repetition of "long time passing" and "long time ago". And the fact that it sounds hundreds of years old. Perfect.

Terrific, just what we need, another re-hash of an old story, complete with CGI borrowed from Lord of the rings etc. I understand the insatiable nature of the beast that is "entertainment," but it seems the beast is dying at the feet of repetition, banality and money. In the producers defence, original concepts are becoming increasingly rare.