The bitchiness usually is just lurking out of sight, but tends to bubble to the surface especially in "atheism vs religion" and also "cops behaving badly" videos. Some people on the Sift have very strong opinions when it comes to those topics and can't refrain from sarcastically slamming others with different points of view.

For example, if you watch a video of cops potentially behaving badly and don't agree the cops were entirely in the wrong invariably there will be someone on the Sift to accuse you of being a statist or in denail about <insert country name of choice> having become a fascist police state.

Of course, I'll take VS comments over YouTube comments any day of the week. Most people here at least try to be civil even when they're being sarcastic.

This is just "Ow! My Balls!" except not sarcastically....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAg1r6zw7Bg

I hope you're being sarcastic. If not I'm not sure what you were expecting from a video titled "Merry Fucking Christmas".

Yeah, it's lame. I was 78. I can clearly see how previous generations (all of them, not just one or two) have been blind and irresponsible. On one level I can't blame them, because there was a time where all a person could ask for was peace and prosperity.
But we've had peace and prosperity for so long we've been living in excess at the expense of the rest of the world for decades.
We need to hold accountable the people who realized and took advantage of that, and instead of making stupid sarcastic videos like these, actually do something to fix it. Because we can.

Are you trying to be sarcastic? Someone must have told you that doesn't work on the Internet without the Sift's sarcasm(TM) buttom, right?

Either way, what appears on this video is proper police work and deserves applause.

Being unable to vote is not the same thing as being denied the right to vote. Saying a three year old is a suffragist is kind of...well, silly. But it's true based on the idea that she is "denied the right to vote."

Because the definition is so broad, it really means NOTHING at all (As John Stewart said, "When you amplify everything, you hear nothing." The definition as you use it is the same vein.)

Are corporations, declared real people by the supreme court, suffragists. Publix maybe, but not Walmart! (That was facetious, not intended to be sarcastic.)

For example Jigga, we are both poor suffragists because we can't vote--in the Iraqi elections. Poor us, being held back. I don't apply suffragist to reasonable expectations. You should have to be a citizen of the country you vote in. A certain age (Which doesn't imply you should or should not be allowed to pre-register...) A certain mental capacity (Ie., not in a coma. Ie., have the ability to spell capacity and not "compacity," like I apparently cannot do )

I do think tests on intellect make for suffragists. I do think gender and gender identification make for suffragists. I do think religious bias makes for suffragists. I do think being arrested and paying for your time yet being released and unable to vote makes for suffragists.

I don't think this girl in any way shape or form is a suffragist.

I get that the "sarcasm" button can be a pretty heavy handed device to convey nuance (especially in a post where maybe only part of it is sarcastic), but I'd have to say you pretty much failed to convey the tone of that in your first post.

These are great. It's like Professor X studied at the Dr. Evil School of How to be an Arrogant Sarcastic A$$hole.

Sorry for the lack of clarity, but it isn't that unclear unless you would be stunned with disbelief by the answer. We, America--as I said--we understand how fucked up the system is. Through apathy or fear or some other reason, we, America, don't care.

Not being sarcastic, just pointing out that America is different from other Western nations, and not in a good way. When I say "we" I don't mean all Americans. Just enough to keep universal healthcare out of our laws.

The kind of sarcastic, awkward "The Office"-style humour they introduced into the first Hobbit movie was a real turn-off for me, as was the sloppy, rushed-looking CGI (there's a scene at Rivendell where they didn't even bother replacing the scale doubles' faces with the actors' faces) and the odd habit of having the characters fall hundreds of feet onto solid rock without breaking any bones (this happens at least three times in An Unexpected Journey).

The Hobbit is a children's book, and doesn't meet the tone of its sequel very well, even after Tolkien's revised edition. It is a lighter book than the Lord of the Rings, in every sense, and the first film showed that it really can't bear the weight of either the padding PJ has added to the story, nor the efforts to bring a more Rings-style feeling of epic seriousness to what is a small, selfish story about some dwarves looking for gold. The epic/serious tone constantly conflicts with the childish slapstick humour, meaning that neither really work.

It would have been much better as a single 2.5-hour film. I dread to think how much wandering about, awkward humour, diversions from the story, too-weighty extracts from the LOTR appendices and (oh goody) dull Elven love story padding is to come in the next 6 hours of this trilogy.

They are glorious engineers (this is not sarcastic)

@Krupo - That's really nice of you to say. Thanks! And you were right on about my intent.

@shatterdrose - I wasn't being sarcastic. I felt it was genuinely a nice gesture (despite any potential ulterior motives by the tippers). Not only did I include a smiley, but a smiley with extra cute eyes . I just made two unrelated comments.

"And I never said they stiffed servers, just that when servers get stiffed, they don't really make anything" - me

Lucky started his comment with "That's nice". I doubt he meant that in a non-sarcastic tone, because otherwise I've totally been misusing that phrase forever now.

Second, I'm half Native American . . . Mostly Blackfoot.

I understand respect your reasons for upvoting a comment, but I must say that to me is a very odd motive, although legit (since if I don't absolutely clarify I'm an ass it appears), but it's not the way I use it, or I believe, they way many other use it either.

For instance, @deathcow, I respect his reason for the sheer fact that it's basically the whole "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it to the death." Or something thereabout.

But you are right, I'm sure Lucky wouldn't have known. But by his tone it didn't seem to me he really cared to know, or that he was even accepting of what he was just told. Again, the "that's nice" doesn't come across to me as a heart warming welcome. Nor does the crack at the Indian Reservations. Maybe something along the lines of "But I thought Federal Minimum Wage was $7.15/hr, or is this perhaps from another country?"

But as I pointed out in my second comment which you quoted, to like is to show support. But again, I never said that Lucky or the Likees don't tip well, just that IF - drawing attention to the word IF - you - attention being brought to the use of 2nd person narrative, as in talking directly to the person, not making an accusation that said person does said behavior due to the word if preceding it - stiff a server, they don't really make anything.

(Also, @lucky760 made a follow up comment that to me sums up what I believe Lucky was trying to convey at first, just much better. In addition, that brings up a much more salient point which others have commented on, and it seems if I make a comment on it as well, I've committed a Sift-Sin.)

"While they argue on paper that everyone should have a gun, In reality, these old white racist men really would not want a armed black populace, thus the humor of hypocrisy."

???? That's quite the assumption. I am a member of the NRA, and I never saw those attitudes either at my local gun club or at the national meetings. I guess it must be true, as you have asserted, that I am naive.

For the 'tingling' sensation, try some cortisone cream. It works wonders for me...

OK, that line about cortisone WAS sarcastic. I admit it!

assuming you really aren't being sarcastic. The argument is that the NRA is largely controlled by old white racist men. While they argue on paper that everyone should have a gun, In reality, these old white racist men really would not want a armed black populace, thus the humor of hypocrisy.

Actually since your first assumption is that they would turn to crime, that speaks more about your attitudes, actually. Yes, quite sad. Either you're sarcastic, or very niave.

and since bobknight is incapable of avoiding a sift with involving black people.

comment in

3

2

1


PS: my alternate account sense is tingling!!!!