"sensitivity is more important than truth,
feelings are more important than facts"

Bill, the fact that you think those are "feminine" values illustrates exactly why feminism is still important.

Bill Burr continues to be an unfunnny throwback to the 80s and frankly, I wish he'd just fuck off.

Louis CK, OTOH, is still a comedic genius.

But here's the thing people. Comedians are great at comedy, but they're comedians, not philosophers or sociologists.

Comedy just doesn't really work with nuanced issues. There are tonnes of jokes about Trump because he's such an obvious combination of dickhead and idiot; there really isn't anything complex about him.

But you don't see much comedy about free trade vs. anti-globalisation because it's a fucking complicated issue that has pros and cons on both sides. Comedy is about hyperbole and exaggeration.

Fair enough, but outside the context of this particular incident, the US, in general, is still INSANELY sensitive to even the perception of lack of patriotism.

For example, back when he was just a primary candidate, Obama got in trouble for not wearing a flag pin. You just don't see that in other countries.

I think it's maybe due to the history of the US. It's still a (comparatively) young country, born out of rebellion and suddenly finding itself the most powerful nation on earth (mostly due to accidents of history and geography).

I was also thinking, they don't disinfect the plane between flights, so there's always going to be dander on planes, trains, and busses, and anywhere else open to the public. Her original demand that they remove the dogs wouldn't solve the problem if she's really that sensitive, would it?

I'm sorry you feel that way, but i think you're being overly sensitive.
Most videos posted aren't political (1/10 seems about average now), but admittedly a higher percentage are while our political fiasco is a danger to us all...that's perfectly reasonable, news that impacts us all sifts.

Very few posts are anywhere near as biased as you claim, and a large percentage that are that bad are actually far right, thanks to Bob posting the craziest right wing stuff. Look closer.

News that contradicts the right is not fake news unless it's actually fake, and fake stories are quickly fact checked and called out, on both sides of the aisle.

People are usually voted down because they have no point, only anger, vitriol, and/or easily disproved contradictions and misdirections, rarely if ever because they made a rational, civil point.

Want more non political videos....post some! Make the world you want to live in. Don't just whine about what is, make it.
Sad.

this video nails it in my opinion,and i respect those who have chimed in but i notice there is a glaring omission in the discussion,and i think it should be the primary focus:

intent.

words are just symbols.
scratchings on a wall meant to convey meaning.
a meaning that can easily be misconstrued because we all inject our own subjectivity within the abstract nature of words.

it is the INTENT that drives the true meaning of the words we use.
the engine that moves that vehicle forward,with our emotions and thoughts as the fuel.

now there are some words that should never be used,as chaos mentioned,simply due to their vile nature and the history of oppression,suffering and vileness.there are some words where you simply cannot wash the stain of bloodied,vile corruption off of due to their inherent nature.

but do we avoid those words due to political correctness?
or basic,simple human decency and politeness?

this video points to very root of the problem,and that is our very nature.
political correctness seeks to demand we change our vocabulary,our very lexicon,all in the lofty goals of being more sensitive and compassionate,but it ultimately fails because it does not recognize the very nature of who we are.

a polite person has no issue discarding words from his/her lexicon in the name of politeness,but there are those who ARE vile,racist,misogynistic and grotesque...and they simply adhere to this new social norm to avoid detection,and then create NEW scratchings on the wall to convey their loathing and beligerent ignorance,now done in secret.

because it is the INTENT that is the driving force,which then lends itself to situational context to help us all understand the why's and the what-for's.

political correctness does not take this into account because it views the WORDS as being the culprit to societies woes,whereas politeness addresses this problem head-on.

basically it is this:
political correctness=you are being an asshole.
politeness=don't be an asshole.
enoch=already an asshole

too late fuckers!

intent is everything.
because you can call someone a motherfucker!
a MOTHER-FUCKER!
or a hey mothafucker!

intent my friends..intent.

Makes you wonder why the big G left so many loopholes in the whole pleasure for pregnancy incentive. And, I mean, forget the contraceptives too, if my (hypothetical) wife and I knock boots at any time other than those special few days should we not be experiencing any pleasure?

Thank thee Lord for blessing my cock with rigidity and sensitivity at this most horni... holiest of times. I come in jaysus name. Amen.

Sadly, the reason given, that Trump didn't like the investigation ramping up instead of being cancelled is not only not one of those good reasons, it's totally, unavoidably, obstruction of justice, a felony.

Also, firing anyone that disagrees with him is actually displaying weakness. Having the ability to work with those that are willing to oppose you is strength...a strength Trump is totally lacking.



Edit: and today it came out that in his closed door meeting with the Russians, he disclosed highly classified information that came from an ally...without notifying that ally....information called "code word information", the highest level of classification, so sensitive we don't share it with other allies....but he did share it with Russia. Apparently he couldn't help but brag about the "great intelligence" he gets in the daily briefing, and in the process probably burned an essential source of information on Daesh and Russian actions in Syria....but I'm sure you think that's just fine too.

@ChaosEngine
that article was utter shit.

"friend zone" is a term used to shame women?
how can that possibly be considered an even remotely true statement?

she makes a valid point in that women are not binary creatures,and are mutli-faceted,nuanced and complex.well of COURSE they are,but the "friend zone" is from the guys perspective,not a woman's!

do you know why the majority of some men end up in the "friend zone"? or should we just change that term to be more accurate "i am not interested in you because you put all your cards on the table in the first five seconds,so while i think that is sweet,i no longer am curious about you,because i already got you".

you know..the "friend zone",or as chris rock put it "emergency dick,just break glass".

the problem here is that while relationships are a long slog of compromise,negotiation and mutual respect to work towards a common goal.romantic courtships are akin to a game,a playful dance fueled by curiosity,intrigue and of course:lust.

the men who who get relegated to the "friend zone" do not understand this very basic tenant of courtship.they reveal all their cards up front,and while that may be the most honest approach,and one that women have been openly asking for,it ignores that underneath it all,a woman wants romance,mystery and a sense of discovery that will continually peak their interests.

they want to be woo'd,they want courtship and romance.
when a man shows all his cards he takes that way from the woman,and now that she knows she can "have" him.he no longer interests her.

and what the author of this article so callously ignores is that the "friend zone" is not really a friend at all,but a surrogate for a boyfriend.having a bad day?she calls her "friend".feeling bloated and unattractive? has her "friend" come over to make her feel better about herself.needs a date for her company christmas party and doesn't want to go alone? get her "friend" to come along.

so it should not be a surprise that some men find this hurtful and degrading.

but she has a point,the woman owes them nothing.the woman was honest and forthright and it is the man who has put himself in this position.

and let me be clear before i am accused of being a misogynist pig.

some men do the exact same thing,and i am guilty of it myself.

i grew up with three sisters,so i tend to be more aware and sensitive to women's choices,and i respect their space.i have never been one to push myself on any woman.i was never the one to pursue or as this article describes "persistent",because i saw that as a bit "stalky".

so if i was interested in a woman,and that interest was not reciprocated,i shifted to "friend" mode with no issue.to me it was a win-win.ok,so she was not interested in me in that way,but she is super cool,and interesting and now i have a really interesting and intriguing friend.

now here is an interesting thing that happened maybe half of the time.my new friend and i would hang out,go to pubs,clubs,movies and sometimes just make dinner and watch movies.friends right? she was upfront and honest with me that she was not interested in me in that way,and i can respect that.

and then one day she would have her college friend over for dinner (this is a true story btw,one of many).her friend was cute,smart,witty and had a sick sense of humor.yep,i was digging on my friends college friend,and we were flirting up a storm.we were vibing hard,clicking like we knew each other for years.

now what do you think happened?
i bet you can guess.
and you would be right.
my friend,who was honest with me about not being interested,started to get real shitty with me.like offensive shitty and i really did not understand why.it came out of nowhere,and now she was acting like some jealous girlfriend.

so i pull her aside and i am like..what the fuck is wrong with you? you are being an asshole!

you know what she said to me? and i can remember this clear as day "watching my friend flirt with you,and seeing how much she is into you.i began to see you in a different light.i can see how she sees you,and that you are amazing but you are MY steve! not hers!".

and then she tried to kiss me,which was just awkward,because to me? she was in the "friend zone",and had been for over 6 months.i didn't want her that way.the irony here is that she could not handle that,and our friendship dissolved.which just fucking sucks.

this scenario has played out in my life quite a few times.so while anecdotal,i suspect women have had similar experiences.

so the "friend zone' may be considered a woman's thing directed at men,but in reality it is non-gender specific.most likely because woman are pursued more than men,but both men and women can be put in the "friend zone".

so what can we learn from this?
don't be a sap.
have some self respect and do not allow another person to use you for their own well being and sense of self.
if they are not interested? move on.
if they just want to be a friend? then be a friend,but do not expect anything more.if you cannot handle that,then move on.

pining away from a distance in the slim hopes that the focus of your affections will one day change their mind,is just pathetic.

and for fuck sakes,stop blaming that person for your heartache.
you put yourself in that position,and you can pull yourself out.

and the term "friend zone" is not used to shame women,that is just fucking stupid.the "friend zone" is a place that you put yourself in,because of flawed sense of romance,and you allowed yourself to be used for the betterment of another human being.so while you may be hurt and angry,you only have yourself to blame.

respect yourself yo.
/end rant

According to the JH website, it's not only wrong, the study could not show what you claim by it's design.
Excuse me...let me use their exact words....

Food Hypersensitivities and Their Link to RA

In some patients, specific foods have been shown to exacerbate the symptoms of RA.(ref 5) Avoiding these foods or food groups has been shown to have limited, short term benefits but no benefits long term. Even though different forms of dietary modification have reportedly improved symptoms in some patients, people with RA may have spontaneous temporary remissions. Therefore, it is important to perform double-blind, placebo controlled trials to differentiate diet effect from spontaneous remission. You may identify a food that is a particular trigger for you, and this phenomenon is real. However, the science is not able to reliably identify specific triggers for individuals.

Diet elimination therapy is a method of determining food hypersensitivities with patients. Elimination diets avoid a specific food or group of foods such as milk, meat or processed foods that are known to be prime allergy suspects. These foods are eliminated from the diet for a specific period of time. Foods are then gradually reintroduced one at a time, to determine whether any of them causes a reaction.

Panush and colleagues, demonstrated temporary improvement in the signs and symptoms of RA with diet elimination and modification in a controlled study where the symptoms associated with food sensitivities were studied.(ref 5) During this study when the patient was fasting or on a severely restricted diet, the patients symptoms improved significantly. However, when the patient had milk reintroduced into the diet, episodes of pain, swollen and tender joints and stiffness were experienced. Similarly, Kjeldsen-Kragh and colleagues(ref 6) noted that fasting may be effective in reducing the symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis, however most patients relapsed as new foods were reintroduced into the diet. Pain and discomfort frequently returned once a patient reverted to a normal diet. These studies are few in number and should be interpreted and extrapolated to real life only with careful thought and caution.

So, no vegan has arthritis, but the entire medical community just missed that fact? Not true.
One more total misrepresentation of the science by your guru....the ACTUAL science, from Hopkins, says....
"In some patients, specific foods have been shown to exacerbate the symptoms of RA.(ref 5) Avoiding these foods or food groups has been shown to have limited, short term benefits but no benefits long term. Even though different forms of dietary modification have reportedly improved symptoms in some patients, people with RA may have spontaneous temporary remissions. Therefore, it is important to perform double-blind, placebo controlled trials to differentiate diet effect from spontaneous remission. You may identify a food that is a particular trigger for you, and this phenomenon is real. However, the science is not able to reliably identify specific triggers for individuals."
So only in hyper sensitive patients that have allergies to dairy, meats, or processed foods has this appeared to be somewhat effective temporarily, not long term, not for everyone....and it seems only anecdotally at this point (they imply that there have not been double blind, placebo controlled studies yet).
Fish oils are FAR more effective, but, you know, that's an animal product, so McDougal (as he is want to do at every turn) dismisses it in favor of false claims about miraculous veganism and misrepresentation of the science.

I downvoted your comment for using misrepresentational propaganda and unverified anecdote masquerading as scientific data from a known liar with undeniable bias to support your unsupportable position(s), that veganism cures everything including cancer.

Your video, I Meant To Do That-Sensitive 44 Magnum Trigger, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

It is binary at one stage of processing. when a neuron has enough input it fires an action potential which is a binary one or zero. that then gets "read" by the synaptic terminal and turns back into an analog signal to a "post synaptic" neuron.
As you said, how this signal is then processed by the next neuron depends on a lot of factors including the effects of other neurons. Synaptic strength refers to the amount of electricity the post synaptic neuron sees given this binary 1 or 0 and is often measured at rest. However, if other neurons are firing it can go up or down, amplifying or shrinking it by activating other voltage sensitive ion channels or by increasing the conductance across the lipid bilayer of the cell so that the electricity leaks out of the dendrite of the neuron before it is processed at the soma (the cell body where a new action potential can be generated)

Awesome to have real concrete information presented in a way that seems very distinct from what you'd get from sources on the far ends of the spectrum, like High Times or the DEA.

I'm quite surprised that smoking pot seems to carry an increased risk of bronchitis, like tobacco, but apparently NOT lung cancer (unlike tobacco). Are the carcinogens in tobacco cigarettes all from additional ingredients? Could people be growing their own tobacco and rolling their own cigarettes and avoiding one of the biggest health consequences? If so, shouldn't there be a market for tobacco cigarettes without any added ingredients?


I have never smoked pot OR tobacco. A lot of my reasons for avoiding either come down to a hatred of and pretty real sensitivity to / negative reactions to exposure to smoke. Some of my bias against that transfers into bias against pot in general, since smoking it is the default method.

At the same time, it seems ridiculous to me that pot is double-secret schedule 1 illegal while alcohol and tobacco are both perfectly legal. Especially when it seems apparent (although I don't really know what I'm talking about since I've never used it myself) that the intoxicating effects of pot are comparable to but generally LESS dangerous than alcohol, and the negative health consequences of pot are FAR LESS than either alcohol OR tobacco.

Getting real facts and knowledge out there like this video is doing has to have a positive effect on that very questionable policy.

I think choosing who you want to make sweet love to is the one area where it's completely fine to discriminate in whatever way you want. Having a sexual orientation isn't sexism, not dating the elderly isn't ageism. Even more shallow things like preferring certain body types or certain races is fine, because the alternative is to lie about what attracts you, which is not actually a kind thing to do.

What really pisses me off is guys who somehow feel entitled to dates from women who aren't interested. Just find someone you're compatible with, there is no "correcting" people's sexual preferences.

As for the better point of women being hypocritical because they don't want to be judged on their weight, I think they're smart enough to know that happens, but it does seem crass to ask for exact measurements. The main difference is women believe most men don't mind being asked their height, and men know most women do mind being asked their weight.

So men, own up to your height insecurity whenever possible so that women will be more sensitive in the future.
( Γ˚Д˚)Γ

@enoch, you seem to be under the impression that you or I or anyone else has some kind of right to say whatever the fuck we feel like saying on the sift.

We don't. This isn't some public forum, it's a privately run website and @dag or @lucky760 have the right to decide if they don't want @gorillaman calling Obama a "nigger prince".

The sad thing is, I mostly agree with his post, but that one stupid epithet undermined his whole point and made him look like an ignorant fool.

And yeah, I'll fucking say it, calling Obama a "nigger" offends me, and not in some sensitive snowflake way. It should fucking offend you too, and frankly, I have no problem whatsoever with either dag (in his Siftler guise) or us as a community deciding that that's not cool and we don't want it here.

Free speech is not absolute, and anyone who thinks it is is deluding themselves. There are well-documented limits to free speech (yelling "fire" in a public theatre, joking about bombs at airports). Once you accept that something is not absolute, you then simply have to argue the degree to which limits apply (same as gun control, if you accept that civilians can't have nukes, then you're already in favour of gun control, you're just arguing over the extent).