This is infuriating to watch because most of the examples of 'female supremacy' are legitimate examples of the evils done by substandard philosophy.

Anyone can find a dozen or so atrocities committed in the name of practically any ideological movement, which in themselves do nothing whatsoever to discredit its core ideals.

Feminism is not the pursuit of female supremacy, don't be retarded, although I suppose we do have to throw in the asterisk that there are those who call themselves feminists and fantasize about exactly that. Neither is feminism the simple pursuit of sex equality, but likewise a lot of dummies who haven't thought about it properly call themselves feminists for that reason. We don't need a grand theoretical framework to explain the idea that neither sex, or particularly the male sex, should dominate the other; that's, like, obvious. That's called basic rationality.

What feminism is, actually, is a confused and overblown patchwork ideology supported by mostly well-meaning but misguided morons in conjunction with a smaller number of loud-mouthed bigots. This is also a fairly accurate description of a lot of the backlash against feminism.

I chose to interpret this video as a somewhat exaggerated counterpoint to mainstream thought on sex politics, an example of devil's advocacy rather than the wholly sincere rant of a delusional. Whether that's true or not, it is the best way to watch it.
It will be interesting to compare its reception to this video on more or less the same theme.

I do consider myself to be oppressed by feminism; not as a man, which I'm not - I am a genderless mind - but as a rationalist. In reality, we are the most sorely persecuted sector of modern society.

"Feminism is the concept of Female Supremacy."

No it isn't. Downvoted.

Sounds like they wrote it with James Bond in mind:

"..a band, Muse, says that one of its songs, "Supremacy," would make for an excellent James Bond theme song, even hinting it had be submitted to the filmmakers. .."

http://www.hitfix.com/news/skyfall-producers-deny-muse-was-in-theme-song-running-adele-makes-james-bond-cry

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Awesome. I wish.>> ^rottenseed:

Is this your hand?>> ^dag:
The problem is that I'm an Apple fanboy, and Lucky is a Fandroid - I'm afraid we would kill each other on which app has supremacy. The compromise has been to make the Web version act responsively, to show a mobile-optimised site. It looks great on my iPhone - Lucky tells me it's good on Android (like anyone really uses Android to surf the web). Ooops, here we go.
>> ^braindonut:
Awesome! Can't wait to see the updates!
Speaking of updates, I was just thinking the other day... Have you guys ever considered making a mobile app for viewing/voting/commenting?

Is this your hand?>> ^dag:

The problem is that I'm an Apple fanboy, and Lucky is a Fandroid - I'm afraid we would kill each other on which app has supremacy. The compromise has been to make the Web version act responsively, to show a mobile-optimised site. It looks great on my iPhone - Lucky tells me it's good on Android (like anyone really uses Android to surf the web). Ooops, here we go.
>> ^braindonut:
Awesome! Can't wait to see the updates!
Speaking of updates, I was just thinking the other day... Have you guys ever considered making a mobile app for viewing/voting/commenting?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

The problem is that I'm an Apple fanboy, and Lucky is a Fandroid - I'm afraid we would kill each other on which app has supremacy. The compromise has been to make the Web version act responsively, to show a mobile-optimised site. It looks great on my iPhone - Lucky tells me it's good on Android (like anyone really uses Android to surf the web). Ooops, here we go.

>> ^braindonut:

Awesome! Can't wait to see the updates!
Speaking of updates, I was just thinking the other day... Have you guys ever considered making a mobile app for viewing/voting/commenting?

Except for adding the dextrose, it's pretty similar to how I cook potato chips. Each of the four main steps makes the end result better, but I usually omit the frozen stage (freezing reduces the water content a bit).

http://www.cookingissues.com/2010/04/27/the-quest-for-french-fry-supremacy-part-1/

Yes but also the cat wasn't using his/her claws at all. If they did, then this dog would be yelping and running to hide in the corner.
Both were just playing. Too cute indeed.
>> ^Stu:

always amazes me dogs know how much effort to put in play bites to make sure they don't hurt the other animal especially when there's a size difference like this...one chomp and the cat becomes puppy chow!

Your video, Cat and Dog Fight for Couch Supremacy, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Oh man this is ironic. I've never seen the Celtic cross being used that way before. For Irish and Scottish Gaelics the Celtic cross is just a Celtic cross, symbolizing their religion and culture. While the Hooligans in Poland are using it as a symbol of racial supremacy, kind of like how the Swastika from India came to be known as a Nazi symbol, which also changes meaning in different cultures as in Hinduism it's a good luck charm, while in buddhist context it symbolizes circle of life or eternity.

>> ^spoco2:

The Bourne Indentity, first in serious. An AWESOME film, where the action scenes were nail biting, fantastically staged, and you could SEE what was happening, UNDERSTAND what was going on. Great film.
Next film, Bourne Supremacy. Had a great story, but I couldn't fricken STAND the action scenes, couldn't tell what was going on.
Compare this one from the Bourne Supremacy
with this one from the Bourne Identity
To me, the first one is confusing, a jumble of fast cuts and blurry movement. The second is nicely staged, has good beats, and lets you know what's going on.


I guess it depends on the directors intention. I like both those fight scenes. The Bourne Identity lets me sit back and admire the craft of a well staged dance, but the second one feels more urgent, more real.

I haven't been in a real fight for a long time, but "a jumble of fast cuts and blurry movement" is a pretty accurate description of your perception in that kind of situation. You don't know what's going on, it's not staged and there are no good beats.

Supremacy and Ultimatum were both directed by Paul Greengrass, who has always followed a more documentary style approach to film making. Doug Liman, I guess has a more theatrical approach.
I feel there's room for both styles.

@Yogi If I have you to blame then...'DAAAAMN YOU!'.

I don't mind a little bit of moving camera, Private Ryan got it pretty good, there was the motion of the camera as if it were IN the scene, but not so much that you couldn't place all the people and what was happening.

My prime example of this?

The Bourne Indentity, first in serious. An AWESOME film, where the action scenes were nail biting, fantastically staged, and you could SEE what was happening, UNDERSTAND what was going on. Great film.

Next film, Bourne Supremacy. Had a great story, but I couldn't fricken STAND the action scenes, couldn't tell what was going on.

Compare this one from the Bourne Supremacy
with this one from the Bourne Identity

To me, the first one is confusing, a jumble of fast cuts and blurry movement. The second is nicely staged, has good beats, and lets you know what's going on.

I have to say that just watching them again then after not watching either movie for some time, the first one didn't annoy me as much as it did at the time, which is probably due to 2 things:
1) I'm getting used to the god forsaken effect.
&
2) It's not as painful on a small screen. Blow it up so it fills your vision and it's unbearable (which may be some of the problem, as looking at the shots on monitors means they don't get the full effect).


Also, people say that the opening car chase in QOS was awesome here it is, I contend it isn't. This isn't so much to do with shaky cam as it is with insanely quick cutting, never allowing the staging of the scene to be felt, just making it feel like it was edited by a hyperactive 2 year old.

>> ^shveddy:
@HadouKen24 - All that you say is very dandy and very well may be true, but you'd be shocked at how widespread it is to cling to 19th century literalist beliefs. I'm not sure what country you're from, but here in the US it's remarkably common and even presidential candidates manage to think it despite pursuing the most powerful office in the world. I grew up in a particular Christian denomination, one of hundreds, and we had an official statement of faith that stated the absolute, literal, inerrant nature of the bible. This particular flavor of Christianity has about 3 million adherants, and again, this is only one of hundreds - many of which are even more conservative in their biblical interpretation.
When you say that it has been common for some time to regard sacred texts in a metaphorical sense I think that's definitely true, especially in the case of liberal theologians. However, when you take away the literal interpretations and leave interpretative metaphor all that remains is an interesting and influential piece of literature that has no specific authority. And I think this is a good thing. But the fact of the matter is that it lowers it to the same level as Moby Dick, Oedipus, Infinite Jest and Harry Potter - all of which are books that have interesting, moralistic metaphors just like the bible.
Let's face it, religion needs the teeth of absolute truth and the threat of moral superiority to have any privileged relevance over other interesting, moral works. I see neither in any of its texts.
@shinyblurry - Give me a non-macroevolutionary reason that junk mutations in Cytochrome C just happen follow a clear developing and branching pattern that just happens to coincide perfectly with those independently developed by scores of other disciplines (such as embryology, paleontology and so on) as well as those based on hundreds of other non-coding markers (such as viral DNA insertions and transposons, to name a few).
If you can give me an answer that can account for these coincidences, does so without macroevolution, and indicates that you actually took the time to understand the concepts I listed above, then I'll take the time to write a much more exhaustive response as to why you're wrong.


Hmm, your statement is littered with all sorts of inaccurate information.

Okay, first of all, this idea of "junk dna" is dying a slow death:

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/

Contrary to your assertion, so-called junk dna is functional. And the idea of viral DNA insertions is completely ruled out when this "random" DNA turns out not to be so random after all, and serving very specific purposes. The idea, created in ignorance, exists mainly as a fudge factor for the evolutionary paradigm. The problem for evolutionists is that natural selection cannot produce enough mutations to account for the millions it needs in the 300,000 generations it took for humans to evolve. It's a lot easier to come up those numbers when 95 percent of the genome is "junk".

Second, molecular and morphological phylogenies are often wildly divergent. This is from an Article in nature magazine subtitled:

"Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don’t resemble those drawn up from morphology. Can the two ever be reconciled, asks Trisha Gura"

"When biologists talk of the ‘evolution wars’, they usually mean the ongoing battle for supremacy in American schoolrooms between Darwinists and their creationist opponents. But the phrase could also be applied to a debate that is raging within systematics. On one side stand traditionalists who have built evolutionary trees from decades of work on species' morphological characteristics. On the other lie molecular systematists, who are convinced that comparisons of DNA and other biological molecules are the best way to unravel the secrets of evolutionary history. . . .

Battles between molecules and morphology are being fought across the entire tree of life. Perhaps the most intense are in vertebrate systematics, where molecular biologists are challenging a tradition that relies on studies of fossil skeletons and the bones and soft tissue of living species. . . .

So can the disparities between molecular and morphological trees ever be resolved? Some proponents of the molecular approach claim there is no need. The solution, they say, is to throw out morphology, and accept their version of the truth. “Our method provides the final conclusion about phylogeny,” claims Okada. Shared ancestry means a genetic relationship, the molecular camp argues, so it must be better to analyse DNA and the proteins it encodes, rather than morphological characters that can end up looking similar as a result of convergent evolution in unrelated groups, rather than through common descent. But morphologists respond that convergence can also happen at the molecular level, and note there is a long history of systematists making large claims based on one new form of evidence, only to be proved wrong at a later date"

They are so divergent that two camps have emerged in systematics, each claiming their phylogenies are more accurate. So your claim that Cytochrome C matches "scores" of different phylogenies is patently false, since hardly any of them agree. If want to say that isn't true, please provide the evidence. Note that "scores" means at least 40.

Third, creation theory predicts a hierarchical pattern, so finding one isn't going to falsify creationism or prove common descent. Especially in the case of the phylogeny of Cytochrome C, which has no intermediates or transitionals to be found. You do also realize that a common design can be explained by a common designer? It could simply be the case that Cytochrome C was tailored for different groups according to individual specifications, which then diverged futher by mutations. If your response is that Cytochrome C functions the same way in all life, my response is that the differences could be for coding other proteins.

Before I go any further, I would ask you to support your claims. Show me the specific data you're talking about so I can rebut it.

As much as people bemoan Reverend Wright, I never really got the controversy.

Can you please give me a direct quote where the pastor denigrates white people? Or says that black people are superior? While he talks about about race, complains about racial issues, and blasts the government, what racist thing did he say? 'Cause I can pull out reams of quotes from those Ron Paul newletters that denigrate blacks and push white supremacy.

You do know that that church recorded years of its Sunday services? That's how journalists could find a few choice quotes in years of sermons. But even with all that material to sift through, they found alot of nothing.

Where's the video where Reverend Wright stands in front of a black power flag and spouts off revisionist history to a the black version of neo-confederates?

I think its a shame that Obama had to ditch that church because some of his white supporters don't realize that black americans still complain loudly about racism in America.>> ^quantumushroom:

@NetRunner and others, I question your collective "concern" over this non-issue, which is comical considering Dr. Paul has no chance of wining the nomination (or does he)?
I don't know if you voted for Chicago Jesus, but if the facts that he spent 20 years in the Church of Hate Whitey under the tutelage of the deranged Jeremiah Wright, got married in said church and also gave it 20Gs doesn't bother you, then your problem with Dr. Paul isn't "racism", it's libertarianism.
As soon as his loyal Democrat mainstream media lackeys warned him, Obama abandoned the church he "loved" like a true politician. If that satisfied you enough to consider him electable, than a few ragged newsletters no one has seen isn't going to throw off Dr. Paul's base.
I don't know who among you voted for The One way back in 2008, but even if you did not, if you lost no sleep over Obama's questionable past (the parts the loyal MSM lackeys didn't or couldn't hide) then your arguments against Dr. Paul's past are moot.


>> ^NetRunner:
@Lawdeedaw I think there are several problems with that rant:

1. It assumes Ron Paul has changed
   
2. It assumes Ron Paul would be "neutral" on race
   
3. It assumes John Edwards cheating on his wife is worse than stoking racial animosity for personal gain
   
4. It expects us to forgive Ron Paul's sins, when Paul still denies having made them in the first place
   
5. It expects us to forgive Ron Paul's sins, when Paul hasn't really acted as though this sort of thing is something you need to apologize for and be contrite about
   
6. It expects us to have not forgiven John Edwards, even though he's publicly confessed, and been both contrite and repentant
   

@JiggaJonson: What's funny is that that is the least-shakycam fight scene in the least-shakycam Bourne movie. That one's actually quite steady and easy to follow. It just dumps around a lot. Grab one of the fight scenes from the Bourne Supremacy. That's where it went freaking nuts.