OK,

So I don't promote or tolerate these kind of tantrums -at all.
But that being said. I really feel bad for this kid.

It seems kids are beginning with computers from the time they learn to click the mouse. It's what they know as a constant reality in their world. They are are being raised on it - it's like air. Their brains are being programed to exist almost symbiotically with the computer. When they are left unchecked, separating them can be mentally traumatic for them.

This kid is fairly young. It's almost like it's an animal response. It's up to parents to keep this type of tool from kids and monitor it's use. It's harder than it looks. I know If I separated my child from his computer, he wouldn't act like this, but I interact with him and we set limits on a regular basis. Now if I flat, went in and deleted his user ID and everything he had, ya, he'd be undeniably upset. Wouldn't you?

Only you and I have relationships outside of the computer world (I hope) so we all have something to fall back on partly because some of us remember not having the computer to start with.

Again, I don't condone the reaction, but I do understand it and I can't help blaming the world around us for the situation we are in. Computer games and websites are, in their design, addictive, they are meant to be, that's how they are designed. That's how they make their money.

It's not the child's responsibility to separate and educate himself against the onslaught of techno. His parents, his family, teachers and friends should get in on the solution.Us parents are a huge part of the problem. Kids don't even go outside to play anymore unless the parents set up a "Play Date" or a "Hang Out". Remember when we used to go outside and just knock on a door and say can Johny come out and play?" That doesn't happen any more. Kids just sit there on the computer waiting for the parents to initiate play time.


OK, I'll end now, but you see my point right...??

For the reasons that I agree with you and believe you are correct, I have achieved a Masters degree in transpersonal psychology and a doctorate in clinical psychology in the hopes of working clinically with these powerful psychoactive sacraments.

For the time being, I serve as the Executive Director for the Association for Transpersonal Psychology and am in collaboration with the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, both of which are worth supporting and participating, if only for the cognitive liberties both organizations represent!

(feel free to contact me off-line with questions.)>> ^CreamK:

Very interesting take. Amphetamines are a ticking time bomb for your heart that is true. you can use them for years without noticing anything wrong and you may just drop dead at any time. Every time you take them you are cutting your life expectancy. They do have some therapeutic use but the fact is that pulse and blood pressure shoot so high that it's dangerous.
LSD and MDMA are much better for therapeutic uses, i've experimented with both, first recreationally but after realizing their potential have found them to be good tools. With LSD you can decrease depression for long periods of time, we are talking about months. MDMA is good for traumatizations, it enables the person to talk about his/her issues in a non-judgemental way, it kind of detaches the emotions from that trauma and gives closure. Both should be studied really carefully, i truly believe that hallucinogens are the answer to a lot of problems created by the modern high paced world and the lack of spirituality.

Very interesting take. Amphetamines are a ticking time bomb for your heart that is true. you can use them for years without noticing anything wrong and you may just drop dead at any time. Every time you take them you are cutting your life expectancy. They do have some therapeutic use but the fact is that pulse and blood pressure shoot so high that it's dangerous.

LSD and MDMA are much better for therapeutic uses, i've experimented with both, first recreationally but after realizing their potential have found them to be good tools. With LSD you can decrease depression for long periods of time, we are talking about months. MDMA is good for traumatizations, it enables the person to talk about his/her issues in a non-judgemental way, it kind of detaches the emotions from that trauma and gives closure. Both should be studied really carefully, i truly believe that hallucinogens are the answer to a lot of problems created by the modern high paced world and the lack of spirituality.

>> ^EMPIRE:

I hate this whole rape-is-terrible-so-let-make-no-jokes-about-it. It's really annoying, insulting, and fucking stupid.
Yes, rape is terrible. So are many other things used for comedic effect: murder, racism, etc.
No one is allowed to demand SHIT from comedy. Take it or leave it.
Making a joke about something bad does not mean you condone it, in the slightest.


Two big differences between rape and murder: First, the victims of murder are usually dead, so they're unlikely to be sitting in your audience when you make a murder joke. Second, murder rates (in the United States, at least) are much lower than rape rates.

About 18% of American women have been raped. If you're a comedian performing in front of a large audience, realize that it is highly likely there are members of your audience who have experienced rape. And for many people, that shit is seriously traumatic. Does this mean comedians should avoid rape jokes? No. It's possible to tell rape jokes that aren't re-traumatizing to victims. Louis CK's joke about how there are no good reasons to rape someone except really wanting to have sex with them is clearly not a joke mocking rape victims (or potential rape victims). The humor comes from the ridiculousness of Louis's on-stage persona: Here's a guy saying something that starts out sounding reasonable but then qualifies it with something obviously ridiculous. It is the rapist's sense of entitlement, rather than the rape victim, being mocked.

This is not what Tosh's "joke" was like. Besides being infinitely less funny, it was targeted at the woman in the audience. Most of the people laughing weren't thinking "Ha ha, Tosh is saying something so obviously stupid." They were thinking "Ha ha, that bitch just got told." Tosh was asserting his dominance over this silly humorless heckler. That kind of rape joke -- where the premise of the joke is "Isn't it funny when bitchy women get raped?" -- is seriously re-traumatizing to a lot of victims.

Comedians have mastered this bullshit where telling offensive jokes and not backing down is a badge of pride. That shit was brave when Lenny Bruce was doing it, because he was purposefully challenging the ridiculousness of obscenity laws. Comedians aren't being thrown in jail for telling offensive jokes anymore. If your joke is offensive in the service of making a serious point, or even if it's just really really funny, I think you have a license to be somewhat offensive. But lionizing offensiveness for its own sake is nonsense. Tosh's joke wasn't funny and it didn't make any useful point. Obviously I'm not suggesting (nor is anyone as far as I'm aware) that he should be legally punished somehow for making the joke. His critics are just saying he's an inconsiderate asshole for making it. Why are people so upset about that?

Think about the stuff George Carlin used to bring up in his acts that were always funny....but could often leave you thinking about how utterly stupid the whole situation is once you thought about it.

Think about how traumatic rape has to be for someone, and then think about all the people who have fetishes built around it. It's a situation where if you can't laugh about how twisted people are when it comes to something like that....you're never going to really know someone (or yourself) because of that duality people have in regards to a whole lot of subjects.

IE The black and white idea of people being gay or straight, instead of being somewhere on the scale in grey territory and being miserable trying to conform to one side or the other.

Morality, honesty, faithfulness, etc. A different definition for each person that changes under different circumstances...like when dealing with their parents, their children, their friends, strangers, etc.

So, rape is bad, but a whole lot of people spend time romanticizing it...that in and of itself is a joke.

This is the first presentation that i've seen publicly that has mentioned "system adaption" - ie: the period of time it takes the ecosystem to adapt to events that are presently taking place or have already taken place. imho, this is a central concept that has been ignored. let's face it, human's lack both foresight and an awareness of our species as a whole. we are self-centered beings intent on immediate gratification.

the basic idea of system adaption is that even if we stop mucking about now, the damage that we have already done is still in the process of manifesting and will continue for some time.
the very same idea applies equally to the human body, and the human body is an expression of the planet. In other words, if we traumatize the human body, the effects, adaptation, and compensations take some time to fully manifest. this is very far from conjecture. it is fact. and the sooner you can attend to the problem, the easier your job is, and less suffering will be endured.

>> ^hpqp:

@shinyblurry (and @Morganth), you might be surprised to hear this from me, but I am all for having chaplains (of all faiths) in the military that soldiers of faith can go to. I don't think they provide the same help professional psychiatrists could but it's probably better than nothing. The way the US abandons its troops to the psychological trauma they face is truly outrageous; so far we seem to be in agreement.
But as @enoch pointed out, the point of this video is to call out the sly, cowardly tactics of evangelical missionaries in the army who take advantage of the traumatizing nature of war to bully people into belief when they are at their most vulnerable. It's a bit like stuffing fearful stories about eternal torture into the heads of small children (oh wait...).


I agree on the point that no one should use psychological manipulation to try to bring someone to Christ. It will only result in a false conversion, save the Lords grace. They believe they are doing a good thing, but the goal isn't numbers. We preach the gospel, but God is the one who changes the heart. Without a change of heart, there is no real change of mind. That said, it is the truth that man is a stubborn creature who, when things are going well, thinks nothing about God. It's only when things take a turn that he realizes his need for God. Man is naturally rebellious against God, and that is just the reality of his nature. Many people need to hit rock bottom before they will change, and God will bring them there if He has to.

@shinyblurry (and @Morganth), you might be surprised to hear this from me, but I am all for having chaplains (of all faiths) in the military that soldiers of faith can go to. I don't think they provide the same help professional psychiatrists could but it's probably better than nothing. The way the US abandons its troops to the psychological trauma they face is truly outrageous; so far we seem to be in agreement.

But as @enoch pointed out, the point of this video is to call out the sly, cowardly tactics of evangelical missionaries in the army who take advantage of the traumatizing nature of war to bully people into belief when they are at their most vulnerable. It's a bit like stuffing fearful stories about eternal torture into the heads of small children (oh wait...).

Great, re-traumatize a traumatized 17 year old girl for the second time....

Well the fact is, like anyone else, he may have gone either way. But a traumatic experience early in life forced his hand on making a decision. At that point he still could have gone either way. But as a victim a few things happen.

First it makes him question whether he is or isn't long before his body or emotions are able to deal with this kind of mature decision. Second, he is a victim, which means it's natural to rebel against that which assaulted him. And as he matures, it's natural to form some hate against that assault.

What he needs to learn is to disassociate. He has made an association between a gay person and a person that sexually assaults other people, particularly pedophiles. He doesn't see clearly as the trauma of his assault is still blinding him. To let his traumatic childhood carry over as an assault on an entire group of people is not only wrong, it's clinically incompetent.

Oh boy, someone has had a seriously traumatic childhood. The few comments made by the mother suggest she has had a hand in it.

As a Cincinnatian, the loss of 97X a few years back was quite a traumatic experience.

While watching that i kept thinking the guy in the panda suit should have started peeling off his panda skin while screaming.. that would have been hilarious.

I mean hell, the kids were already being traumatized, in for a penny, in for a pound i say.

>> ^aurens:

Eh, I disrespectfully disagree.>> ^Asmo:
I'm usually right on board with taking pot shots at religious crazies and their god bothering but I think we can cut a guy who was dealing with hideous injuries after such a traumatic experience a little slack for falling back on his faith, regardless of the fact that we don't share it.



Yeah, because intolerance of someone who doesn't share your belief system (or lack thereof) is awesome. /eyeroll

You trying to out-douche the Westboro morons?

Eh, I disrespectfully disagree.>> ^Asmo:
I'm usually right on board with taking pot shots at religious crazies and their god bothering but I think we can cut a guy who was dealing with hideous injuries after such a traumatic experience a little slack for falling back on his faith, regardless of the fact that we don't share it.