I upvoted your video because I appreciate the fact you're trying to present a cognizant backing for a lot of the things you say and believe.

I don't know if this was your strongest card, 'tho. He's well-spoken, with impressive CV and an interesting argument. The problem is he's cherry-picking the entire video and sometimes even resorting to rank hypocrisy (it's anti-American to campaign to minorities with a grievance, yet pulling the same stunt got Trump elected when he did it with white people).

I notice he falls back on the Coastal Elite trope, as if being successful and having ideals is somehow an antithesis to all that's good and pure about corn farmers in Kansas. Somehow, it's all those darned people living in that magical wonderland of those who can smell sea salt from the front porch of their homes that fucked middle America.

No. Sorry. Wrong answer.

40 years of Republican-dominated rule, 40 years of a sick social experiment being run by the disciples of Any Rand, is what fucked those people. 40 years of tax cuts for the rich and excess taxation on the poor; 40 years of stealing from schools to pay for subs; 40 years of setting the wolves among the sheep in the form of stripping consumer protections; 40 years of historical revisionism; 40 years of the kind of government that should have landed the perpetrators 12 steps from 6 hooded men with 5 loaded rifles.

Republicans have been calling the shots since Reagan, but yet 8 years of the black dude somehow set the country on a frenzy of self-destructive idiocy unseen since the French Revolution?

Look, I appreciate that you're trying to raise the tone with videos like this. But if you're trying to intellectually shore up the dike, I've got bad news for you: the facts will rarely be on your side.

So this is based on the last reboot, I guess?

I get why they keep trying to make a Tomb Raider movie (basically recognisable character with sex appeal), but let's be honest, it was never the strongest story-driven game in the first place.

For all I know, the Syrian secessionists (if that's what the original local revolutionists should be called) are all gone and the fighters of today are nearly all foreign invaders

Given that both the government and ISIS armies both specifically targeted them first they likely are all gone. If you go back to Al Jazeera's coverage of the early Russian offensives, their airstrikes and attacks were ignoring the ISIS held territory and only hitting the moderate/legitimate rebels. Similarly, pretty much all reports of the ISIS foreign fighters coming in were that they never pretended to support the rebels, but merely replaced them demanding obedience or death.

@radx

The foreign element is fighting both sides of the war. The strongest fighting force on the 'rebel' side is ISIS and the strongest fighting force overall is the Russians fighting for Assad. If foreign support makes the rebels illegitimate doesn't it do the same for Assad?

To be fair, 300 barely touched on the politics involved, but they did play fast and lose with history.
Spartan soldiers were free men, and the Persian army included many who were drafted. Maybe they technically weren't slaves, but for all intents and purposes they were, so the line makes sense, even if it may be misleading without background knowledge.
True enough, from what I was taught, the Spartans weren't so interested in democracy, they seemed to believe the strongest should rule, not the weaker masses.

All that said, the Persians were invaders, so NOT the good guys in any form no matter what advantages their culture may have had. If Canada invaded the U.S., would they be the good guys just because their political system and society aren't in the toilet?

But... Americans have some of the strongest free speech laws and they're fucking morons.

(not all Americans, obviously, but on the whole)

She is: This entire thing, and all of the clips like it, and all the media coverage she's received for the past year are a political-strip-tease. She's only doing this to set up the strongest possible position in 2020/24. These are planned dog-and-pony shows.

It should matter more that she's not actually doing anything here, but judging by the comments she doesn't have to bother.

@newtboy,

Why do you insist on trying to contort things?

The stats I found showed 8% in mid 1930's....Before the war.
Provide a source then, I did and it's over 16% as of 1931.

You said the Palestinians stood alongside the Nazis....in 47?....so.....what Nazis?
I observed that the Arab revolt between 1936 and 1939 was led by the grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini. Who later found himself in Germany talking with Hitler and advocating a 'solution' for Palestine ala Italy and Germany. I didn't present an opinion for you to disagree with. I presented a statement of fact which stands regardless of whether you refuse to believe in it or not.

As for partition, stop trying to win points or something, it's inescapable that the partition agreement that the Jewish Palestinians accepted when they declared independence in 1948 was the 1947 UN Partition Plan, on account of the other partition agreements having not yet come into existence yet and all.

I didn't say the tensions didn't begin when Nazis existed, I said they were gone when the events you describe happened.
I think that was addressed earlier what with Arab uprising in the 30s, and the conflict between Arab and Jewish Palestinians continuing on from then all the way till it hit an all out civil war.

Nothing I'm saying here has to justify, forgive or declare Israel a saint and Arabs the sinners. I AM however pointing out some very basic facts that refute the argument that Jewish invaders just came in from Europe and seized Palestine from the Arabs as payback for the holocaust. That simply was not what happened.

Jews were unwelcome and persecuted in Europe long before WW2. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf in 1925, and he wasn't exactly putting pen to brand new ideas nobody had been circulating in Europe already. The Zionists for their part were also busy and in action long before WW2, in no small part for reasons above. The Zionists were absolutely looking to take back 'their' homeland and by invasion if need be. That doesn't mean every Jew in Palestine was a Zionist anymore than the above makes every European and Arab nazi sympathizers. The reality was a lot more muddled and complex.

In the end, the big events driving the Arab-Jewish civil war in Palestine was as you say, an inability of the immigrants to live together with the natives. So on that front we are well agreed. You seem content to place 100% of the blame on the immigrants(which I must insist we refer to as refugees given they are largely European Jews between 1940-1947). I disagree. I believe I've given adequate evidence to demonstrate that the inability to live together was as much to blame on the Arab Palestinians as it was on the Jewish. If we want to blame anyone in the whole mess, the strongest blame still lies with the Axis powers for creating the refugees in the first place.

*Warning I've only gone and done yet another wall of text again! This may or may not get read by anyone on here (good god I wouldn't blame anyone for skipping it), but at the very least it's formed the backbone to a video script so it's not a complete waste of my time! (he tells himself)*

This is as much @bareboards2 as yourself, but he already made it clear he wasn't willing to engage on the issue, so you're getting it instead MWAHAHAHHAHA! *coughs*

I don't wish this to come across as over condescending (though I'm sure it will none the less as I'm in one of those moods). But pretty much every (successful) comedy premise operates on the same underlying principle of irony. i.e. there is an expectation or understanding, which is deliberately subverted, and what results is comedy.

In this case, amongst other things we have the understood premises that:
A. rape is a bad, often horrific thing.
B. that there is an established social taboo about praising such behaviour.
C. that there is a section of society inherently opposed to making light of things of which they do not approve (or in a way in which they do not approve)
D. most words and phrases have an expected association and meaning.

What Jim Jefferies (an accomplished and well respected comedies amongst his peers) has done here, is take these commonly understood premises and subverted the audiences normal expectations in order to evoke a sense of irony, from which the audience derives humour and amusement.

A simple joke might take a single such premise and perform a single inversion of our expectation. e.g. my dog has no nose, how does he smell?....terrible!

By subverting our assumed meaning (that the missing nose refers to the dogs implied lack of olfactory senses), the joke creates basic irony by substituting this expected meaning for that of the odour of the dog itself.

This is of course a terrible joke, because it is as simple as a joke could be. It has only one layer of irony and lacks any sense of novelty which, might tip such a terrible joke into working for any other than the very young or simple minded.

We could of course attempt to boost this joke by adding more levels of irony contextually. e.g. a very serious or complex comedian Like say Stuart Lee, could perhaps deliver this joke in a routine and get a laugh by being completely incongruous with his style and past material.

And herein we see the building blocks from which any sophisticated professional comedy routine is built. By layering several different strands or ironic subversion, a good comedian can begin to make a routine more complex and often more than just the sum of its parts to boot.

In this case, Jim is taking the four main premises listed above, layering them and trying to find the sweetest spot of subverted expectation for each. (something which usually takes a great deal of skill and experience at this level)

He mentions the fact that his jokes incite outrage in a certain section of society because this helps to strengthen one of the strands of irony with which he is playing. The fact that he also does so in a boastful tone is itself a subversion, it is understood by the audience that he does not/should not be proud of being merely offensive and as such we have yet another strand of irony thrown into the mix.

You know how better music tends to have more and/or more complex musical things happening at once? It is the same with comedy. The more ironic threads a comedian can juggle around coherently, the more sophisticated and adept their routines could be considered to be.

Naturally as with music there's no accounting for taste as you say. Some people simply can't get past a style or associations of a given musician or song (or painting or whatever).

But dammit Jim is really one of the greats right now. Like him or lump him, the dude is pretty (deceptively) masterful at his craft.

There are at least 4-5 major threads of irony built into this bit and countless other smaller ones besides. He dances around and weaves between them like some sort of comedy ballerina. Every beat has been finely tuned over months of gig's (and years of previous material) to strike the strongest harmonies between these strands and probe for the strongest sense of dissonance in the audience. Not to mention, tone of voice, stance, timing etc.

I think Ahmed is basically terrible too, but it is because the jokes lack much semblance of complexity or nuance. Jeff Dunham's material in general feels extremely simple and seems like it uses shock as a mere crutch, rather than something deeper and more intelligent.

Taste is taste, but I feel one can to a reasonable extent criticise things like the films of Michael Bay, or the music of Justin Beiber for being objectively shallow by breaking down their material into its constituent parts (or lack thereof).

Likewise one could take the music of Wagner and while not enjoying the sound of it, still examine the complexity of it's composition and the clear superiority of skill Wagner had over most of this peers.

I guess what all this boils down to is, Jim seems to me to be clearly very very good at what he does (as he ought after all these years). Reducing his act to mere controversy feels a lot like accusing Black Sabbath of just making noise and using satanic imagery to get attention (or insert other less out of date example here).

The jokes were never at the expense of victims, they are at the expense of our expectations. He makes his own true feelings on the matter abundantly clear towards the end of the section.

As as he says himself his job is to say funny things, not to be a social activist.

I take no issue with you not liking it, but I do take issue with the suggestion that it is somehow two dimensional, or for that matter using controversy cheaply.

Offensive initial premises are some of the most ironically rich in comedy. It's like deliberately choosing the brightest paints when trying to create a striking painting. Why would you avoid the strongest materials because some people (not in your audience) find the contrast too striking?

Eh, much love anyway. This was more an exercise in intellectual masturbation than anything else. Not that I didn't mean all of it sincerely.

The crux of the matter is 'shall not infringe' vs shall not infringe - unless <name exception>'.

If you obey that law literally (constitution is law after all), then most prerequisites to gun ownership are non-starters.

Historically, legislators break that [constitutional] law here and there, but the absoluteness of the statement makes it hard to put up much in the way of hurdles.

As an aside, statements in the bill of rights are terse and without exception for a reason. When you enshrine exceptions, you allow for recategorization of legal constructs as subsets of those exceptions. Which in effect neutralizes the protection, and makes it meaningless.

So, if there was "freedom of speech - unless it causes distress" : then anything that people want to silence would simply be judged as distressing, and that would be the end of freedom of speech (you'd only need people hearing the case to consider it distressing in their opinion). The lack of exceptions empowers people to more easily argue against laws that infringe on those rights - given that there is no real 'easy-out' for infringing laws.

The NRA is the force that guards the 2nd amendment, backed by the people that want it protected (gun owners and gun industry alike). It's their place to push for the strongest 2nd amendment possible. That's their rightful purpose. Other entities can argue against them. We have an adversarial legal system, and that's the nature of the beast.

I'm confident that if there was an amendment protecting the right to drive a car on public roads, then driver's ed requirements would be under legal challenge, too.

-scheherazade

So, the survivors of a famine (ie. the strongest ones) had strong children? There could be another explanation besides epigenetics...

With all respect, and much consideration towards your emotional disposition to the matter, your vehemence and near maleficence on the issue is not met with similar kind, and is not respected by me as a form of open discussion.

Although I may agree that the reporter does indeed present himself as an a*****e, obviously degrading whatever planned speech or agenda this student had, it is not worth the spew which you present...

I must agree, however, that the general western population does little to nothing towards the meaningful progression of Human society.

On the other hand, what you advocate is a pipe dream, the likes of which I cannot fathom working, even with my liberal UK perspective. Though I do believe in banks being controlled, so they don't become to large to fail, as well as re-distribution of wealth from the top "1%" classes, how could one, if caring for the safety of their nation, advocate the lessening of funds towards a strong military?

I must also put into perspective, as I am guessing you are an American, what you Americans have compared to the world. You want to throw away your rights to bear arms, not considering what you would do without them. Here in London, we have no way to defend ourselves against getting mugged, many times at gunpoint(handguns are banned here, get the picture?). You want to stop giving money to your military, and ISIS just killed over a hundred people in France. You have more control over your personal freedom than anyone else, not to mention the strongest nation in the world, and you want to abandon the practices which got you there... Brilliant.

Too many unsubstantiated assertions here. From a website titled Storm Clouds Gathering, rumor mongering isn't exactly a surprise.

John McCain does not represent US foreign policy and sounds misinformed. The 4-5 US trained fighters and provision of tactical equipment pretty much represents the degree of support/involvement the US has provided Syrian rebels. For obvious reasons that he himself points out. There's no credible opposition remotely alligned with US values, and any arms provided risk ending up with radical groups.

Just because McCain thinks it's a good idea doesn't mean it is happening, will happen or that the executive branch shares his mindset. However it is true that Russian air strikes have primarily targeted other groups over ISIS. This aligns with what I talked about elsewhere that Russia's aim is to prop up Assad. With a western coalition taking on ISIS already, this naturally leaves Assad in the strongest position.

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/20151010_MAM922.png

Upvote the fermented fish!
It tastes way better than it smells - and the smell from a freshly opened tin is the strongest and most pungent.
In Norway we settle for a more palatable version - "rakfisk" made from freshwater fish like trout, instead of herring. It is also is fermented and smelly, but far from the same level as the Surströmming.

Your video, Europe"s Strongest Man 2015 - "The Mountain", has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.