@serious-fase:

better to have loved and been raped than to never have been loved at all. that's my silver lining. also, it is both a joke and my opinion, as i both love and hate my now deceased rapist. yeah, i'm being cheeky but so wut.

too complicated for me to give a shit if my fucked up life and sense of humor triggers someone. try sitting in group therapy with me, sucka. fuck your conservative sensitivity. boo fucking hoo. it's rape. it happens. people get over it and laugh. we don't have to live like goddamn trolls under a bridge just because we are rape victims. honestly, stfu.

i wrote something similar in a therapy session after forgiving my rapist and being annoyed at people that coddled me because i'm a "victim". great, i'm a victim? fuck you.

honestly, if you're not over your rape trauma, don't watch a fucking rape joke video. JESUS. if the world wasn't so overly protective of this shit, maybe we wouldn't be laden with our constipated emotional issues and ineffectual pharmacological solutions which turn into accidental overdose victims every goddamn day. if you can't laugh, that's when you die.

your psychiatrist and therapist and all those tools that convinced you to take all of those drugs and wear the cap of the victim: FUCK. THOSE. PEOPLE.

OOOOORRRR if you like self worth at the cost of a censored life of half triggered social anxiety: Riiiiiiiiiiide the train to proper thoughts and chilled out operational defintions that make doing business and living healthy in corporate america a snap! just shame people for laughing at things that hurt you. and convince others that not shaming others into this is not right. oooohhh, that's the moral thing to do!!!

yeah, no thanks on that one -- laughing at what hurts me most is the only thing that gives me the will to keep living. you wanna shame me for laughing at my problems? that's a bunch of HORSE SHIT. talk about rape -- let's talk about the rape of our fucking minds every fucking day by institutions that teach us this bullshit philosophy.

i'm just tired and hungry -- and i had a good fucking laugh at this video. before you respond to me, fuck you, don't bother. i don't wish to discuss how i deal with my victimization through humor and even if you do -- not reading it

I fear you have misunderstood what I was getting at.

He talks for full minute about the ironic idea of the victims hypothetically having a sense of cognitive dissonance about the experience (done from his perspective).

Timestamp: 3:40ish to 4:50ish

I don't for a moment think he is suggesting they actually did, but the juxtaposition of that can be funny for the reasons I already outlined.
i.e. it is a common phenomenon in other areas of our experience, with people we idolise. By associating it with an experience in which we presume most people wouldn't or didn't feel that way, we have more strings of that irony thrown into the comedy orchestra.

Cosby is famous and loved and his fans presumably find him funny. There is therefore humour in the ridiculous idea that there might be some starstruck joy in being violated by said idol.

I think the bit worked perfectly if one can detach oneself from ideological prejudices.

As I already said, Louis's bits about paedophilia don't appear to be doing anything different here and thus far you have failed to explain how they actually differ, other than using the unqualified term "truthful".

Louis talks about their desires and relates them in a way universal to the human condition. This is precisely what much of Jim routine is clearly doing. "think about the thing you really love to do, well that's how Bill feels about rape" (paraphrased).

I can't see a distinction right now other than you appear to be much more emotionally sensitive to the rape thing. This is understandable, but I'm not seeing the lack of equivalence between the two comics here in terms of composition and implied meaning?

This whole bit felt deeply multi stranded and was tackling many disparate concepts at once. The gradation of rape was merely one of them and I think it's unfair to break it down to only one, or to deny the "truthfulness" hiding behind the sham.

Without that "truthfulness" the whole bit doesn't work, the assumption that the audience recognises the reality beneath the sham is unavoidable. Unless of course you think the audience and or Jim to be genuinely callous and misogynistic (which you've made clear you do not).

I guess my whole point is that the two bits are functionally almost identical. The only difference I can really see is a different style of delivery and subject matter.

I notice you appear to have dodged the comparisons to his war jokes?

Is there no moral equivalence there? If anything there is far less empathy and personal "truth" being explored. The "little cunt" just dies, Jim never attempts to humanise him or relate the kids experience in an ironic way.

By your logic that routine should be far more offensive surely? (especially when we consider that life and subsequent brutal death in a warzone is quite possibly a more horrible experience than most rapes, especially the kind being discussed here)

While I understand this is covering a sensitive and very topical incident that relates to a larger issue of police shooting minorities, I do think it skirts the edge of snuff.

I recall the earlier shooting of Walter Scott, where you could clearly see on the video that the officer shot him in the back multiple times. I was going to post that video when it came out, because I felt that it spoke to the ongoing issue of minority police shootings, but I decided not to since it was clearly showing a man getting shot and dying on screen.

I guess we need to maybe revisit the definition of snuff. Do we allow videos that show death or dying if it is a hot button issue?

*discuss

Wow. That's unlucky. I get those all the time, I probably pull down 15-20 nests a year around my house and garage, and I've never been stung by them.....yet. Granted, I do it at night or early in the morning so they're asleep/cold and can't react, and often just use a hose to spray them down from the overhangs, but they have seemed to be far less aggressive than even my bees, and almost domesticated compared to hornets.

PS: Is it possible your hippy neighbor gets upset not because of what you're poisoning, but because you're poisoning, period? Maybe he would be happy if you just squashed them or hosed the nests down? Many people are hyper sensitive to poisons, some for medical reasons, some for philosophical or ecological reasons. I grow a lot of my own produce at home, so I would be pretty upset if my neighbor started spraying poison on the fence line, because it would get all over my crops, and most insect poisons that cause instant death are not designed to wash off or be human safe. Just a thought.

That was impressively fast....and through a hard rain storm no less. I'm hiring them the next time I have a multi million dollar project that's time sensitive.

To quote Rashida, it is important to become more sensitive before being less sensitive.

I agree that being a Humanist is more inclusive. However, that umbrella word covers the valid word "feminist."

Trying to erase the word "feminist," scolding women and men for labeling themselves feminist, ignoring their particular need for that label as equality is struggled for is anti-Humanist, @newtboy.

Just sayin'.

And I'm the first person to speak up for how hard it is to be a man. Men are HORRIBLE to each other, for starters. In fact, I said it just last night, more than once, during a convo on the patriarchy after watching the 2007 movie made in Turkey called Bliss." There was some serious oppression of women in that movie -- very hard to watch. And it is important that the pressures that men are under are seen as just that -- human struggles and repressed pain that is masked by some really shitty outward behavior.

No need to tear down anyone else who is trying to improve their life and society in general. It is called being a Humanist.

"Can [They] be so insanely sheltered that they think her 'answers' help her?"

If you piece together all of her statements on a plethora of different topics, it is inescapably obvious that they (!) truly have no connection to anyone or anything outside their bubble. Surrounded by sycophants as the Clintons are, people have wondered, and justifiably so, whether she cares or even knows that she's lying on a regular basis. One might make the case that the entire concept of an objective "truth", connected to reality, has no meaning for them.

Additionally, she really does suck at campaigning. But that's not punishable by extended prison sentences, unlike, I don't know, sending Special Access Program (SAP) info through your own bloody email server.

Lastly, Joe mentions Powell (6:16 onwards). When Colin Powell was SoS, his office was connected to the internal system, but had no connection to the internet or the outside world in general. You can't get shit done that way, not in this day and age. That's why he had additional gear set up to at least send and receive emails. This was done separate from the internal network and, if I remember correctly, his entire staff was not only open about it every step of the way, they applied for and received special permissions before they touched anything.

Clinton didn't give a jar of cold piss about the rules that are meant to safeguard access to sensitive information. It was inconvenient to her, and since the rules and laws only apply to plebs, she and her posse set up their own system.

A whole lot of people have to adhere to tedious rules and procedures, with severe punishment looming just around the corner. One guy was in the press for receiving three years of prison after he placed a document on the wrong desk. So, if the FBI drags out the investigation or even buries it, you can bet your ass that a lot of people at different agencies are going to be fuming. And between the FBI, the NSA and CIA, a lot of people have access to the remaining emails from Clinton's server. That opens Clinton up to blackmail, a lot of it. Can't have a compromised president. Not to mention that someone's going to take the data and just drop it over at WikiLeaks or the Intercept.

Amazingly *skillful origami modeling. He should have used temperature sensitive inks so it could actually change colors instead of just using different colored lights.
*quality modeling

"Letting them know that you're about to have a lecture on very sensitive material is totally fine. I mean, I've done that."

Then congrats, you're OK with trigger warnings.

And like most instances where people panic about them, Oxford hasn't made any sort of official policy. Professors are able to do so at will or ignore the use of the warnings all together. Much like they have been doing for years and years.

Curious how victims of sexual assault that often develop PTSD for periods following are somehow "coddled censors", yet the same doesn't apply for any sort of accommodation for other mental or physical ailments. We don't see people freaking out about warnings of flashing lights in various media for the epileptic, we don't mock the soldier suffering from PTSD who asks for accommodations, and we don't mock the migraine sufferers who avoid certain situations, food, etc to prevent attacks.

But somehow, the physical effects triggered by certain stimuli of a lingering sexual assault is different. Better alert the news media, the PC police rape survivors are here to ruin everything with their asks for "Hey, maybe consider my physical issues?"

Hi Folks - I feel the need to share my thoughts on this a bit more

"NOW THIS" videos are exclusively created to get clicks for this company.
Their sole business model is to post on social media and encourage people to share their content for marketing purposes. (Facebook and Twitter) so they can get viral hits.

They don't have tons of hits on their YouTube page because most of their hits are on Facebook with over 5,304,668 followers over the last two months
https://www.facebook.com/NowThisNews

And the main part to note here is they have "no original content" whatsoever.

They make their profit by stealing other people's video content and applying a template, and editing the crap out of things to crop it into a one minute video. They often cut out the sound, and ad the overlaying text as part of their template.

I'm a VERY STRONG believer of supporting the content providers.
"NOW THIS" doesn't create any of their own content. They steal it outright.
I'm really sensitive to theft from content providers, especially when the stolen content has only one purpose and that's to reserve it as their own content for the sole purpose of company profits.

As a member of the SIFT, I believe our job is to sift out the bad stuff and vote up the great videos. These guys don't create even mediocre videos. They grab any story they can and go for the emotional grab to catch people and get them to re-post. There is no quality to these videos of theirs.

i think he makes a great point in regards to jokes being well thought out in regards to controversial or potentially offensive joke material.

the really good comedians are the ones who can take a sensitive subject and portray it in a way that makes us reflect on the absurdity of our lives.holding a mirror up so we can all have a good laugh at our own contradictory nature.

carlin was a master at making us laugh at our own self-absorbtion.
bill burr has some his best material about domestic violence.
patrive o'neal makes misogyny hilarious.
doug stanhope revealing the absurdity of nationalism and pride in things we never had a part in.

a good comedian makes us laugh with jokes.
a great comedian makes us laugh at ourselves.

@Imagoamin

whoa whoa whoa...
did you think i was calling YOU a bed-wetter?
like as in actually using the pronoun "you" to direct my fictional interaction as representing an actual person,in this case YOU?

well,that certainly explains the tone of your reply.

if this is the case then i humbly and sincerely apologize.i was not referring to you at all,but rather a hypothetical and totally fictional interaction between a cry-baby and myself.

which you actually just made my point about humor,and in this case sarcastic humor.an over the top referencing of a certain hyper-sensitive group,in order to make my point about bad ideas,bad philosophy and poor judgment.

the sarcasm should have been obvious.
but alas...it appears it was not,and has been misconstrued as a personal attack.

moving on to your suey park rebuttal.
while the response to her initial call for justice can easily be seen as vile and grotesque (because it is) how does that take away from her inanity? her blatant disregard for nuance and context? or that she simply lacks the basic intelligence to discern satire from actual racist remarks?

it does not.

i think that most people would agree that the vile,disgusting and dehumanizing responses that suey park was subjected to,are to be condemned and yes...ridiculed..for the stupid and trollish behavior they represent.

you do not reply to stupid with even more stupid.

i dont really understand your defense of language,or better put,the imposing of certain words being stricken from the language altogether because some people find them offensive.

language is a fluid animal,and it is ever-changing.words and terms are dropped from the vocabulary or they morph into something altogether new.i have no skin in on the game in that regard.that is how language progresses,and yes,certain words can be offensive in certain contexts.so we should avoid using them,if only to be a decent human being.

my issue is with the FORCED attempts to re-integrate new words.to control what people say and attempt to bring real world consequences upon them,and then turn around and call it "justice".that is not justice! that is censorship!

maybe this will help a bit.
i view words and language as such:words are the means to express thoughts,feelings and imaginings.when we consider the complexity of our thoughts,feelings and imaginings then it becomes quite apparent that words will NEVER suffice to truly,and accurately,express those very human creations.

words will always be inadequate.

so when some people get it in their head that certain words are just too offensive to even utter.this narrows the field of expression that is already inadequate.(i am not talking about BLATANT,and archaic terms that are not only offensive,but are no longer relevant,and in existence still to simply disparage,insult or dehumanize).

now maybe some words no longer serve a valid purpose or are truly offensive and need to be re-examined,but the only way to reach that conclusion as a people..we must actually TALK to one another,and it is in this free market of ideas where bad ideas go to die.

but we have to able to conversate for that to happen.don't you agree?

now i am not going to bother addressing the rest of your comment,because your tone was just a reaction to where you presumed i was coming from.

and you did presume.

you seem like a decent sort,so i will just chalk your final response up to finding my comment offensive and replied in kind.

just know i wasnt heated,nor enraged.
and i certainly wasnt calling you a bed-wetter.
though the extreme end of social justice warriors are STILL humorless cunts.

i have been watching interviews where prominent comics are refusing to do gigs at universities due to the fact that the PC culture has become so saturated that they can't even do their bits,and it becomes a horror show.

young,educated people who mistake their own little bubble-world and attempt to project their sense of morality onto others by demanding changes in language and attitude by way of shrill harpy speak,is totally missing the point of humor.

comedy is the examination and critique of certain truths we may hold sacred,and expose the absurdity.a good comedian can do this fairly well,a great comedian does so with a finesse that is epic.

see:george carlin.lenny bruce,bill hicks,patrice o'neal,bill burr,louis ck.doug stanhope

so i have to disagree with you @Imagoamin.
comedians who thrive on being edgy are not thriving just for the simple fact of being edgy or controversial.they thrive because they are adept at exposing the absurdity of life in such a way that makes us all laugh.....at ourselves.

they experience pushback constantly in the form of heckling and jeering,and do so on a nightly basis and do not get upset that people get offended by their material.that is the very boundary they are pushing!

self examination,criticism and the ability to accept that maybe those things we held so dear are,in fact,absurd and in need of ridicule.the great comedians all give us a great,totally effective self-cleansing pill.they call it "the get the fuck over yourself" pill.

but the overly sensitive PC culture that is festering in our current higher education institutions is creating a new breed of human that lacks basic self-awareness and,on the whole,a gaggle of humorless cunts.

humor is a concept beyond their ken.they dont get it and instead of relaxing a bit,they prefer to get their panties in a knot over.....words.so they all get together and tweet and facebook,in order to share their outrage and make their little signs and march in front of a chris rock show with absolutely zero sense of irony.

to them they are striking a blow for justice!

which is just absurd,and in desperate need of ridicule.

Sorry, it turns out my fresh install of my email client decided to sort Videosift emails into the junk folder, so I missed a bunch of replies.

Mainly I was ready to string these guys up for mucking around with historical artifacts. The sensitivity to it is because the current occupiers of this country already wiped out millions of indigenous people, and now the least intelligent among us have to drag what's left further through the mud with their buffoonery.

I also think the way the government has dealt with this is perfect, but, I still cringe when considering the disparity between how this was dealt with, versus so many recent, violent and unnecessary urban confrontations lately.

agreed,to a point.the narrator didnt bother me that much,and i felt the content far more important than some random youtube channel owner.

this new overly sensitive,overly privileged with a healthy dollop of self importance being placed on the individual really needs to be addressed.

this new trend to silence dissenting opinions and demanding respect for our own,tiny and insubstantial habitats.while simultaneously disrespecting those who happen to disagree is hypocrisy on steroids.

to scream at the top of your lungs to the dean of students that his job is NOT to create and intellectual space but rather to create a home,and NOT be aware of the incredible disconnect to reality is quite disturbing.

there is REAL danger in demanding a space where only ideas YOU agree with,opinions YOU agree with are allowed,and all dissention needs to be either protected from or compartmentalized.

the reason why the free market of ideas is so brilliant and VITAL,is because this is the place where bad ideas come to die.bad ideas are challenged,scrutinized and criticized.when you remove this free flow of thought,then bad ideas can find homes in these small "safe spaces" and are allowed to breed and fester.

the new form of social censorship must be completely,and utterly destroyed.

lets get some fingers snapping shall we?