@newtboy

can we trade debating partners?
@transmorpher appears to not be suffering from a bad case of twattery as my partner is and seems waaay cooler.

i have to admit i am watching with a tad bit of jealousy the snarky give and take you two are engaging in and what do i get?

a fucking quote miner.

might as well head to the church of the nazerene revival tent and strike up a convo there.

praise jesus!

My mistake.
I'll admit, his delivery is going down hill these days. I've been a fan for a LONG time, but he's not as good as he once was by far.
I get especially annoyed when he gets upset when his audience groans at a bad taste joke, it's like he doesn't understand that's a POSITIVE reaction to a bad taste joke, and indicates his audience understands it's in bad taste. You would think he would know that after 3+ decades in snarky 'comedy'.

To your points....
When a parent takes the kids side over the teachers....well, that depends on what the issue is, but on it's face that's also coddling. The implication/infrence is that it would be about the child's behavior in class, or their academic performance, and in either case taking the child's side over the teacher is teaching them that they are more important than the authority, and/or that their word is going to be taken over an adult in authority, and their POV or opinion is the only one that matters. That's terrible, and sets them up for failure and/or prison later.
Not telling a child to shut the fuck up when they are rudely interrupting adults DOES breed poorly mannered narcissists, as it's teaching the child that what they have to say is the MOST important thing, far more important than the adult discussion they are interrupting. That's terrible, bad manners, completely unrealistic, and not good for the child's development into a decent human being. Children are not adults, and 99.9% of the time what they want to say/ask is not important. Even in those rare cases where it is important, not teaching them to not interrupt creates mannerless narcissistic douchebags that never allow other people to speak and believe their every fleeting thought is golden.
Asking a kid where they want to go to dinner....OK, that's stupid. If you just ask them, the child isn't automatically in control. If you always ask them at every meal and defer to their whim over the wishes of adults (which is what I think he meant, but not what he said), that's coddling and breeding a narcissist that believes his is the only opinion that matters to anyone and should always take precedent over other's needs/wants.

Should I?

/ducks

In all seriousness though, no, I don't really have an answer to your question. What I like about Sanders is that he seems to call 'em like he sees 'em, instead of pandering to what he thinks will get him the most votes like most politicians (cough Hillary cough). So, I guess the best way to find an answer would be to examine what he says (and how he has voted) about constitutional issues.

I suppose that if I had to guess the most likely "constitutional right" that his opponents would call him out for NOT wholeheartedly supporting would probably be the 2nd amendment. He has said (and voted) that he is in favor of an assault weapons ban on guns that are "only designed to kill people". And that he wants "common sense gun control legislation" enacted.

Fox News would probably say that means that he is radically opposed to some of our constitutionally guaranteed rights and protections. You can decide for yourself whether you agree or not.


I should note that aside from my first line here "answering a question with a question", I'm not trying to be snarky in my reply here and wasn't trying to be in my first reply to you either. I just wasn't clear from the context of your original post if you were asking a question or if you "had an agenda". Now I get it. I think.

What I find interesting from this interview is that the logic he applies to ISIS applies equally to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Why did the U.S. invade Iraq?

Because it could.

Honestly, who could have stopped it? The U.S. has a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council meaning that the U.N. was powerless to stop them even if it had tried. Neither Russia nor China, the only two other countries in the world that might militarily give the U.S. pause, gave a strategic fuck about Saddam Hussein.

It didn't matter that there was no hard evidence. They did it because they thought they'd get away with it--and frankly I think they did get away with it. The people most responsible for the war are all free, not facing any charges, and making more money in their twilight years than the rest of us will make combined over the course of our entire lives. The worst they have to contend with is snarky late-night hosts.

EDIT: Meanwhile, U.S. college students are too busy protesting white girls dressing up as Pocahontas for Halloween and other "micro-aggressions" to get angry about any of this. Truly America is fucked.

Agree to disagree, I guess.

I was bored by the long beginning sequence and I certainly rolled my eyes more than once at plot points. Part of the beauty of the original was its grounding in Saturday serials that played before the movies that would leave you in a "cliffhanger" moment, then skip ahead to the following Saturday without explaining things. I don't think the reboot was grounded enough in that delicious silliness.

In my opinion, of course. I'm just one person. Clearly millions disagree with me. There isn't any right or wrong here. Although my unedited response upon walking out when it was over was snarky and judgmental. I'll apologize for that, but not for my personal experience of the movie that culminated in that one line judgemental-of-other's-fun review.

This video (sans snarky comentary) actually came from the SBS, The Feed from 2013 - http://www.sbs.com.au/news/thefeed/story/otherkin-heart-human-spirit-wolf

No need for snarky. I argued your point but less one-sided. Yes, America is too quick to put bullets into flesh and blood. And yes, I agree this was a dumb risk they took. But it was their risk, and it paid off. If this was the stock market, they would be rich.

I've been pondering this a lot recently. Basically, I am the sole supervisor of a complex money making system - I've watched the Vice President manipulate the money in strange ways to make himself look efficient - another bullet-point on his LinkedIn page. All the while I'm not making anywhere close to what I should and they refuse to give me a raise - even though I single handedly bring in about $100k every week.

So - I just started coming to work super late EVERY DAY. And when I get called out for it, or threatened I just smile and say "definitely" in a real snarky way to anything they say because I know I have their fucking ballsacks in a cage and they can't do fucking shit about it.

So in the meantime, I bought 17 acres in the Santa Cruz mountains, it's completely off the grid, solar, grey water (still get good hotspot reception for sifting). Any day now, I'm just going to walk off the job and royally fuck the slave owner capitalist scum fucks and start living like a true patriot. Can't wait.

I know you're dumb/purposefully ignorant juuust so you can make idiotic snarky comments like this..

But you and everyone else know that Police Brutality trumps All Privilege.

For example, that 17-year old white libertarian kid that got murdered by a cop for flashing his headlights.

White Privilege is simply all the perks that go with whiteness.

@Lawdeedaw are you trying to make a point? or just being a dickhead?

Should I list a bunch of names that have been changed for precisely those reasons?

You mentioned Russia.. as in USSR Eastern Bloc Russia.. so.. yeah.

Pointlessly snarky much?

See, another example of some "i-can't-possibly-racial-insensitive-whatsoever-because-THIS-guy-agrees-with-completely-sheltered-rose-tinted-worldview" - *deep breath* - Bullshit!

[phew, these polite euphemisms for "racist" are getting out of hand now]

Unfortunately, the term "culture appropriation" is a misnomer.

The term coined should be Cultural MISappropriation and refers to shit like Blackface.

Something this was trendy, open mockery. Also, fairly lucrative.

This White Party video is a highly significant point of discussion and is important satire for all white folks to think about & discuss because..

THIS IS EXACTLY HOW MOST COLORED PEOPLE FEEL.
[I would know, cause this is exactly how i feel]

So yeah..

Tactless, suggestively snarky comments, with a Token to parrot and espouse believes that confirm your bias.. -_-

Is simply "mild" racism in action.
It's Denialism. It's Victim-blaming.

"Stop complaining. We're all equal see. Can't we all just learn spanish & twerk our butts, as one."

And let Americans sweep all that other extremely racist shit under the rug for another 150 years?!

Fuck no.

I came here ready to pick holes in this, and post a snarky comment... but he's pretty much nailed it.

Liked the scenery and scale. After "my sister has it" I thought of posting a snarky comment about STD. But then, at 1:35 I went all 10 year old again. *doublepromote, *doublequality.

I would also say 'stick around', but would suggest calming down as well, and being less disrespectful at the onset of conversation if you want respect back. Please read your first post in this thread as if it were written TO you.

I'm of the opinion that people starting their post thread by calling anyone that disagrees with their position (also those that don't stand up to defend that position) "asshats" (and other derogatory names) have driven many off the site, and convinced many others that commenting will only get them targeted for silly name calling. Making up kindergarten style names to call public faces you dislike is also not conducive to adult conversation.

Because YOU disagree with someone's point doesn't mean they're just 'arguing for the sake of argument'...are you just arguing for the sake of argument?...because I disagree with your position, and noted you didn't contradict mine in the least.

When you start out with calling all readers "Asshats", your tone is a problem, and your post will be read in the worst light possible.

Actually, yes, VS comments are exactly that...."WAAAY more tempered & articulate WHILE still being SNARKY & PEDANTIC"...and that's a good thing, a very good thing.


I wonder, can you back up any of your statements in your first post? Things like 'Sarkeezian finds porn disgusting, feels pity for sex workers, belittles sex workers, refuses to support victims (not publicly answering is not the same as refusing any support), somehow denying sex workers their chosen profession (by saying that selling your body for sex is prostitution?), etc? That seems like a lot of assumption coming from a non-response, but maybe you know her better than I.

OMFUCKINGGEEEE!

Asshats. This is why videosift is a ghosttown.

You all pretend your points are valid when in fact.. you just like arguing for the sake of it.

"Well, I didn't like the TONE in which you said THIS phrase. So clearly I'll have to prove to you that same point that we ALREADY AGREE UPON even HARDER"

"Psh, YOUTUBE COMMENTS! Everyone knows that OUR users and their comments are WAAAY more tempered & articulate WHILE still being SNARKY & PEDANTIC."

ugh, why did i think returning was okay.