This has so much potential. I just hope Jorji Costava - the guy who turns up first with the passport drawn in crayon - is in it.

Wow, this really is the greatest spreadsheet in the world. This is not a tribute.

I've always wondered how they figured out who got paid what on international mail.

And sometimes those mailmen really do work hard to get the mail where it's supposed to go:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/iceland/articles/letter-no-address-hand-drawn-map-delivered-remote-iceland/

"I referred to the modern nazi who supports them"

Fair enough.

"It's not just a belief, it's a desire to exterminate, alienate and persecute an ethnic group. "
Agreed. That desire should not be considered an acceptable point of view. But there's a big gap between saying expressing a desire and carrying out an action.

"This implies that you think being 'nicer to Hitler' (i.e. not solved it with violence) would have gotten rid of them yet you contradict this later on."
No, I don't believe that. Hitler was in power, he had an army and he was already committing genocide. At that point, violence is your only recourse to stop the atrocities.

But yes, ultimately, if someone had been able to take Hitler aside BEFORE all the horrors of WW2 and been able to convince him to lay off the genocide, wouldn't that have been a better solution?

There are absolutely times when violence is the best course of action, but it ALWAYS represents a failure to resolve differences.

"I'm just saying if a nazi happens to get punched, on balance, it's probably ok."

I'm certainly not going to shed any tears over it and being completely honest, part of me relishes it. But intellectually, I know it's a) not a sustainable solution and b) it's a juvenile response.

"It's a bit like trying to 'defeat' religion. If you stamped out any sign of all religions in the world, all the imagery and documents and let's say memories too. Before long, religions would form because the human brain is drawn to those ideologies"

Completely agree. Put enough humans together and they form tribes and ascribe bad things to "the others". What saves us is the ability to learn from past mistakes as a civilisation, and even then we're REALLY slow learners.

But we have made progress.
Going from right to left, I would bet that even most Nazis think women should be able to vote; the vast majority of conservatives view racism as abhorrent (at least, consciously) and "Middle America" has mostly come around to gay rights.

"Defeated" might be the wrong word here. I want Nazism to become as laughable a philosophy as flat earthers. Espousing it should be met with the same response as someone who claims thunder is the gods playing football.

" TL;DR sorry for the wall of text, ignore me"

Don't apologise... it's an interesting discussion.

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick at some points, so let me just clear that up first:

"Woah, woah, woah! There's a pretty big difference between saying it's not ok to assault someone and expressing support for them."
-- I referred to the modern nazi who supports them, not you for thinking it is wrong to punch. You are not a nazi supporter because of your stance. A nazi of course supports hitler, etc.

So hopefully this clears up:
"The law has nothing to do with it. It is unethical to assault someone simply for stating their beliefs."
-- My point was that they are stating their support for genocide and harming other people. It's not just a belief, it's a desire to exterminate, alienate and persecute an ethnic group. They aren't shy about their template for society, they fly the swastika flag clearly and sieg heil and whatnot.

"Here we are, 70 years after the biggest armed conflict the world has ever seen.... and yet we still have Nazis."
-- This implies that you think being 'nicer to Hitler' (i.e. not solved it with violence) would have gotten rid of them yet you contradict this later on. Otherwise you must accept that violence was the most successful solution, and you are equivocating over semantics with this point. In as far as any ideology (which only really latches itself on generic human mindsets like xenophobia, and is therefore inalienable, a form of nazism will occur by some other name in any social group*) may be "defeated", it was defeated.

I accept that you think it is unethical to punch them. I'm not saying i want chaos in the streets where mobs go around tearing suspected nazis to bits; that's why i'm not asking for a law change and why i won't be opening with violence towards nazis. I'm just saying if a nazi happens to get punched, on balance, it's probably ok.

* - just expanding on this. It's a bit like trying to 'defeat' religion. If you stamped out any sign of all religions in the world, all the imagery and documents and let's say memories too. Before long, religions would form because the human brain is drawn to those ideologies; that's why so many diverse ones formed and still do. And as you originally said defeatable, if it isn't defeatable (because it's inalienable) then you're saying your own point is wrong.

TL;DR sorry for the wall of text, ignore me

Good and interesting stuff in there.

I think Sharpe is right that this escalation happened for a pretty silly reason (known blowhard and mouth-runner Trump runs his mouth, news at 11), and the NFL vs Trump skirmish detracts from the root issue that Kaepernick was trying to bring attention to a year ago.

On the other hand, I kinda agree with the other guy that maybe bringing attention to that skirmish will also bring attention to the original issue, so maybe it is a net good thing.

Yeah, the owners aren't going to give a fuck until shit lands on their doorstep. Yeah, calling people a "son of a bitch" rates at about a 2 on the "Trump just said what?!" scale. Sharpe's cynicism about how we got here makes a lot of sense.

I didn't care about Kaepernick sitting for the anthem a year ago enough to pay attention. I wasn't against it. I didn't think the was trying to "disrespect" the flag / soldiers / country / whatever, but I wouldn't have really cared if he was. Aren't people allowed to be anti-war? Opposed to mindless nationalism?


Fast forward to today. The billionaires that Sharpe mentioned who donated big sums to Trump's campaign finally get upset when his shit lands on their door. His (comparably tame) "Twitter attacks" on the NFL kick off a dog-and-pony show that may possibly have been cunningly intended to distract from the much more weighty stuff that Kaepernick was trying to draw attention to in the first place, but I seriously doubt that Trump is that clever.

However, something good did come of it: I went from "meh" to paying attention. I went back and listened to Kaepernick's interview about why he was sitting for the anthem from a year ago (embed below), which I didn't watch at the time. I heard a rational, honest, and eloquent young man calmly and clearly explain what he was doing and why he was doing it.

He saw injustice, and wanted to do something about it. He had access to a soapbox that very very few of the people on the receiving end of that injustice have. So, he made up his own mind to do something to try to get conversations started. He was surprised and confused that anyone would see his actions as disrespectful towards soldiers / military, and was later persuaded (by a Navy SEAL) to kneel as opposed to sit for the anthem in an effort to make that more clear.

He seemed aware that he can only control what he does -- not how people will try to spin it, and not how people may react to it. And he also clearly accepted that his actions could have consequences, and that he didn't want to rope anybody else in to acting with him unless they were prepared to accept those consequences also.

So, yeah. Some good came of this recent escalation, even if it came for the wrong reasons. Because some of the people that get drawn in to the dog-and-pony show might decide that they care enough to go back and take a deeper look at it, like I did. And when they look deeper, they're going to see Trump's standard, everyday twitter nonsense on one side compared to a lot of more rational stuff like, say, perhaps actually listening to words of the person that got the ball rolling on the other side (Kaepernick, and others). I like the way that scale balances out.

if your claim to his brilliance is because he drew out "Moth walks into a bar, bartender ask what brings you here?, and moth says because the light was on" into a 10 minute bit, you have something else going on in your brain of yours and it probably has to do with multiple voices.

I like norms deadpan deliveries and will even giggle at his "What, too soon?" jokes, but most of his drawn out jokes leave me with nothing more then a chuckle and wishing I had my 12 minutes back.

I have questions.

1. Do we know for certain the cop had his gun drawn? (Given he doesn't contradict the driver, it seems reasonable to assume he did)

2. Did he know the guy was black before approaching the car?

3. Were there other factors at play here (i.e. were they looking for someone who had just committed a violent crime)?

We don't actually seem to have much context here.

However, as a general rule, I would say that the cop is probably in the wrong here, and that police shouldn't approach a minor traffic violation like they would a drug raid.

Your video, No Signal And Black=Guns Drawn, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Is there additional background to this?

To me, three cops says regular "visit", but the application of a battering ram kinda screams "we expect violence/resistence". Over here, three cops would sit on the house until a locksmith arrives, not bust the door like barbarians. Or there would be a dozen of them, masked, guns drawn and at the ready.

A few points.
First, that was more than two points. ;-)
Second, watch again. The first time he pulls the trigger, it's pointed head high into the crowd, but fortunately for everyone, he didn't have a round chambered. True, his second attempt didn't look like it was aimed at people.

Yes, people on both sides of this conflict came armed with pepper sprays, helmets, masks, and clubs. Only one side seemed to have guns, and they used them.

The guy who shot was far from being attacked, he approached gun drawn to have a confrontation, not to avoid one.
Side note, I hope they arrested the fucker with the spray can too. I don't justify unjustifiable actions...ends don't justify means.

So, the antifa should have shown up with guns? Or are you saying the right is SO dangerous you should expect to be shot if you protest Nazis? What is your point?

Clearly, you are a petty cunt, hence the petty comment. If this was a commentary opinion piece excusing the flamethrower, like that other video, I wouldn't expect any upvotes.

I'm Canadian so maybe that's only a problem here from my country. We have complaints and confrontations against churches for not hiring or rejecting a hire based on sexual practices, or even in one case for being an atheist. We also have a 'women's only' nude spa facing human rights complaints for keeping out people with penises because they are women too.

http://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/will-atheist-rev-gretta-vosper-obtain-no-fault-divorce-from-church

A 5 second google at least has some American tracking of demanding sexual practices be untouchable when religions or other clubs add new members or hires:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/lgbt-employment-discrimination-churches_n_6082846

It is happening, and more importantly, whether the laws are all there already or not, the fact a complaint likely would travel to the supreme court at least is certainly a pretty legitimate concern about where that line is being drawn.

And hey, maybe the Dems don't want to try and find common ground with that particular demographic. The fact is though that there are plenty of anti-nazi people in that demographic and many others that the Democrats have currently cast as 'enemy' thinkers. The Dems need to pick some things they are willing to compromise on that will help them reach out to voters that didn't show up for Hillary.

If the documentaries are focused on the dead bodies like this one is, probably.

The girl seemed to be in a lifestyle of unthinking foolishness. She will only not drive drunk again because she probably won't ever legally drive again. I doubt even this will teach her, some people simply cannot learn.

These films did little when they used to be the norm in drivers training classes, that's why they stopped using them. They simply weren't effective.

I can deny that this film made me think about being more cautious, because I'm not a moron that doesn't understand the outcome of a bad wreck, having seen a few in person, so beating me over the head with 'wrecks can kill you' is just boring. When I saw these as a teen, while learning to drive, I was titilated by the gore, but not effected otherwise. Most teens don't fully grasp that dangerous things are dangerous to them, and a large percentage are actually drawn to the dangers.

If humans were rational and only irresponsible by accident out of naivete, you would be right, but they just aren't. You have to be pretty brain dead to not grasp that high speed car wrecks can kill without a filmstrip telling you.

So I just got back from Paris.

If you think traffic in the US is insane, try getting from one side of the city to the other. There's no traffic flow; everyone just goes when they want. And peds are the worst. They will step out on the street whenever, instead of waiting for the "green man" (the 'ok to cross' light), and damned whoever is driving on the road at the moment.

The first day I was there, I saw the body of a struck Frenchman laying in the middle of the road by Ecole' Militaire (sp). In America, this would have drawn a huge crowd. In Paris, no one even slowed down.

Don't get me started with bikes in Amsterdam, either.

I know what the republicans in congress would say if Obama had pulled any of this shit or if Hillary had won and was doing any of this. The impeachment papers would have been drawn up weeks ago.

Disney are actually using the music and the lyrics to have the desired specific emotional effect on their musically and geographically poorly informed audience. Specific languages are present not for accuracy or making sense, purely for cinematic effect. It is much easier to use a real language and real obscure culture references than trying to come up with something original, like Klingon. Correct use of a specific language or musical reference is probably just an inside joke. Everything Disney does is cultural appropriation, that is their day job. They dont do documentaries, they are into compiled rehashed fairytales. If that one song was PC it was probably done that way on purpose, decided by Disneys equal opportunities department. A proper Inuit movie would have to be shot from an Inuit script with an Inuit score drawn by real Inuit men on Inuit snow in the only possible way you can draw while your fingers are freezing.