Both my reply & the video itself are both tongue-in-cheek. So who knows the "stop before the line" mistake is intentional by the narrator or not?

What you described is pretty much correct. Where I live (suburb of Toronto - Canada's largest city of ~6 million) I've only seen 2 aroundabout in my area, and they're in located in low traffic residential area and they're the tiniest of aroundabouts. But I love them, they're confusing to us North American, I guess, but they're quite efficient.

I wrote that as more tongue in cheek.

and WE wrote on our walls,we were saying something.

or at least it felt like we were saying something.
I wasn't being judgey,

was trying to be funny.

fail?
I guess?

good to see you btw.

'corporations bought, branded it, and started selling it at ludicrously inflated prices'

'From the ORIGINAL creators of Fallout'

'try not to break it'

Throwing shade at how badly Bethesda has messed up fallout since New Vegas.

“You know you didn’t have to shoot either one right?”

Roasting Bethesda quests, especially in Fallout 4

It was tongue in cheek of course, but they clearly were aiming at people dissatisfied with Fallout 4 and Fallout 76.

I like this sort of tongue-in-cheek natural history narration.

Sarzy,

Umm... sorry for not making the tongue-in-cheek joke/reference obvious? http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/you-have-died-of-dysentery

Exactly. Not everyone on this earth is meant to be a parent. Just like most things in life, it takes a person with the right personality, skills, traits, whatever, do be a good parent. I'm a father of a 4 year old, and while I think I'm a good dad, I have my flaws. But I knew what I was getting into. While is also why I stopped at 1 kid. He's awesome. (so far) We hit the jackpot, and I'm good with 1 and done.

It drives me crazy when I hear parents of 1, 2, 3, 4+ kids complaining that they never have free time....don't have enough money...bad mouthing their kids...

If that's how you feel, then why did you have kids?! If that's what you wanted, then you need to be all in and don't complain about something you had total control to prevent. "But I got 4 kids!" Well, you know how that happened right?

And don't get me wrong. I'm not judging the lady in this video. It could be short, tongue in cheek humor. I'm talking about people I personally know.

You weren't joking.

"Because of the value that comes from the ambiguity of what the US may do to an adversary if the acts we seek to deter are carried out, it hurts to portray ourselves as fully too rational and cool-headed. The fact that some elements may appear to be "out of control" can be beneficial to creating and reinforcing fears and doubts in the minds of an adversary's decision makers. This essential sense of fear is the working force of deterrence. That the US may become irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked should be part of the national persona we project to all adversaries."

That's the international political equivalent of acting crazy when someone tries to mug you. Give 'em the old crazy eyes.

Also, partly thanks to separate feeds for the two of them and being allowed time to fully answer, Chomsky was fantastic at dealing with Cathy Fucking Newman. The poster child for modern condescending journalism, with her "Ah, no one is surprised you're critical of the US...." --having listened to supporting facts for several minutes, she comes back with tongue-in-cheek-but-not-really insinuations about bias. Subtly and with plausible deniability, attacking the person not the argument.

It's good that this kind of discussion appears on TV at all, especially on a major British channel, but they get away with the same kind of shit that people lambaste RT for.

Didn't Hillary also make an implication about Obama being assassinated in 2008? Only I don't recall anyone making as much of a big deal about it back then. Meanwhile, this quote can actually be construed as Trump pointing out that gun owners would be the only ones able to fight back against their gun rights being taken away in a tongue-in-cheek manner.

If you compare both quotes side by side, both are fairly innocuous. It's just that the media blew one of them way out of proportion. Don't let the media lead you by the nose.

(And before the angry comments come, I am FAR from being a Trump supporter. I felt the Bern, and now I'm burning Green.)

Well, first off, the part about sterilising and killing was pretty obviously tongue in cheek, although I take your point that some Trump supporters might make the same point seriously.

That said, I have an expectation that the people on this site are smart enough to read what I said as comic hyperbole. As for it being in poor taste, that's up to the listener. I certainly found it in much better taste than Jim Jeffries bit on Bill Cosby, but as you quoted Reginald D Hunter "take it from the rest of us who did laugh--it was fuckin' funny."

All comedy aside, I was being 100% serious when I said that if you really believe in something so much that no evidence will change your mind, then you shouldn't be voting let alone running for office.

As for getting the same response at the DNC.... you're almost certainly right. It would be about different issues (probably vaccines, GMOs and the like), but they would be just as wrong as the Republicans.

That anger is real and not at all misguided. Woolly thinking has held the human race back for millennia and caused untold suffering and horror: racism/slavery, sexism, homophobia, the "war on drugs", climate change, alternative medicine.... do I need to go on?

I'm not saying you can't have a firmly held belief, and I'm not even saying that everything you believe must be fully supported by evidence, but everyone (myself included) should be willing to at least question their own dogma.

"Would you reconsider in the face of new evidence?" should be the simplest question to answer for anyone.

I was thinking of what's probably called second wave, or what I think was being called 'the modern feminist movement' back then, but I'm pretty sure even that started in the early/mid 60's, well before I was involved, or even breathing....so yes, it was tongue in cheek.
I was a kid in the 70's, not a political organizer, but I did see Joan Baez twice before I was 10 at two of the dozens of woman's rights events I attended as a kid/teenager, so I say I get credit for being 'part of the movement'...especially since I continued to support, and sometimes actively work towards their goals, and consider them when voting to this day.

I understand I often fail at communication, please let me try again. My point was that when the name of a movement is so focused on one small (or in the case of feminism, large) segment of humanity, it can turn off many that agree completely with the motive.

EDIT: I do take your point, though, about end goals/primary targets. It may be an impossibility, but it would be nice to find names that can invoke both without being exclusionary. It would help people like me that get hung up on minutia and detail not be distracted by imperfect labels, and keep ammunition out of their opponent's guns.

Yes, I understand the reason the movement is 'black lives matter', and agree that they are the MOST oppressed, so deserving of the most attention. I don't claim to have a perfect solution that would both be all inclusive AND focus on the most oppressed.
With "you matter", I was thinking that is a way to say that the issues that matter to 'you' also matter, that your being oppressed and receiving unfair treatment matter, that your opinion matters, and that your life matters, no matter who 'you' are, black, white, woman, man, and all people in-between. Yes, even the Koch Bro's matter, just not more than anyone else.

Of course, you and others are free to focus on any issue, or any specific part of any issue you please, or not. I usually prefer a big picture approach for me, because it's all too easy for me to get myopic and dwell on (often meaningless) detail if I over focus, one of many character flaws. I think both mindsets have their merits and their drawbacks, and I think it's a good thing to have people in both camps.

As a small sidenote, I think it's slightly risky to indicate, even tongue in cheek, that any of us were involved at the start of a movement that began in the 1800s... even if you're kidding, people might get the wrong idea. Third wave feminism, which coincidentally I think you're more opposed to than the first two waves, did begin (I think?) in the US in the 1980's or 90's, but the overall movement was a well-established global phenomenon at that point. None of us were close to being involved in starting it.

As far as your main point goes, I think it's partly a question of whether you define your own vision by the end goal you want to achieve, or the first problem you want to solve. "Black Lives Matter" is not the end goal, it's the first problem we need to solve on the way to a state free of police murder. Egalitarianism, on the other hand, can be the end goal. It doesn't tell me which problem areas you want to address though.

For some feminists, feminism is the end goal - a woman-centric world would be better, more sane, and more sustainable in their view than any other world. For other feminists, feminism is the first problem area to address, ie that we are literally living in a culture of undeniable male supremacy.

The problem with only defining your end goal is that it can become a little unclear what, if any, action you want to take. "You matter" is certainly fine, but I have no idea what you want to change in society, or if you want to change anything. I matter, you matter, and the Koch brothers matter - but we still have very different ideas about what society should be. In a perfect world I might want to join up under the egalitarian banner, but in the current mess we're in, I tend more towards environmentalism, socialism and feminism - because those are the problem areas I want us to address first.

I dunno, I think the performance has merits. It's not the feat itself but the presentation is tongue-in-cheek funny and enhances the schadenfreude stakes.

We're watching alternative comedy, really.

@transmorpher
ha! right on man.

let me start that there really is no argument between us,just a disagreement by degrees is all.

you do not have to refute my claim that "veganism is carried out for the feeling of superiority."

because i never made that claim.
my criticism was specific and focused on a single person @ahimsa,who,if you read his commentary,is most certainly taking a morally superior stance.

if you compare how you were interacting and how ahimsa was interacting.the differences are quite stark.

you were quite open and honest on how you eventually reached veganism.(bravo my friend),but i didnt really see you berate or belittle someone for still eating meat,or being a non-vegan.

oh...you certainly argued your points and exposed weak and facile arguments.you offered new ways of looking at the situation,but you really didn't judge a person for not following your ways of thinking/being/doing.

basically you took responsibility for your choices.shared your reasons for those choices and have allowed people to make THEIR own choices.

how can you not respect that?
which is why i wanted to trade partners.
tongue in cheek of course..that was my way of giving you props and respect.

ahimsa,on the other hand,didnt even respect those he engaged with enough to even use his own words,and instead indulged in presumption,laziness and pretentious twattery.(god,i love that phrase.thank you britain!)

ahimsa approached veganism much the same way a newly born again person approaches talking about their new love for jesus,by proselytizing.

being a man of faith i can understand and relate to someone experiencing a profoundly life changing event,manifested by a serious epiphany and the desire to share that new understanding with everyone you meet.confident in an absolute certitude of righteousness.

but it can be so aggravating to be on the receiving end of such self righteousness,because there has been little time of actual examination and reflection.the newness and novelty cloud all other considerations and ANY rebuttal or deviation is seen as an affront,a sacrilege and blasphemy and therefore should be dismissed...entirely.

i suspect that ahimsa is young and his/her veganism is fairly new and fresh.this would explain the religious quality of his/her arguments.

YOU..on the other hand,have approached from a far more even handed and open way.choosing instead to use humor and wit to make your arguments while not judging those you disagree,allowing for a real dialogue which can lead to understanding.

so good on you mate.

i specifically like the fact you lay out your journey and the reasons why ,but you do not admonish those for not following the same path.which is the correct way to engage.

and what i REALLY dig,is that your argument is basically "this is how i came to where i am,and i am betting that you will to...eventually".

because,at it's heart,you are 100% correct.there really IS no reason to eat meat.

a person who eats meat really has only ONE reason and that is simply "because i want to".now there are cultural and racial reasons,long standing heritage and dishes passed down over generations,and you acknowledge that,because it really is important and is underlying reason why so many still eat meat(and because we want to).

but i suspect that your final argument is more correct than incorrect.meat will eventually go away and be replaced by something better and more healthy.

but that takes time.possibly a generation or two.maybe three.
you recognize this,while ahimsa does not.

i also suspect you may be heading on your way to old fartdom.

anyways,thanks for the dance mate.
you seem a righteous dude.

@NaMeCaF
@jimmyjamesjimmy

Fair enough. The title wasn't meant to be literal (you can see the tags and description are correct) but more of a tongue-in-cheek "difference between contact sports vs. non-contact sports." Plus I figured no one outside of Australia had heard of AFL (didn't see that other recent Sift).

Sorry, tongue in cheek joke from American culture. People will complain when someone is breaking the law (a minor robbery, a traffic violation, etc) that "you can never find a cop when you want one"...

well, obviously, this officer was right where he was supposed to be. And, as noted above, this thief has some of the most abysmal situational awareness perhaps ever.

Does that help explain the American humor?