Your video, The Adorkable Misogyny of The Big Bang Theory, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 2 Badge!

The Complicity of Geek Masculinity on the Big Bang Theory has been added as a related post - related requested by ant on that post.

The Adorkable Misogyny of The Big Bang Theory has been added as a related post - related requested by ant.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/The-Adorkable-Misogyny-of-The-Big-Bang-Theory

Good video. What irritates me is seeing instances where Aspergers is treated like it's the designer diagnosis of the decade. Seeing someone like Jerry Seinfeld or David Byrne comment about how they feel they have a "touch of Aspergers" and are on the "spectrum". Or the legions of Big Bang Theory fans who now "identify" as "Aspies" because Sheldon and what's her name have made it into a fun pop culture caricature. SMH on many levels.

I've never watched it, and find it really surprising that it's been on for over 10 years now. Over that time period, I've had a good number of friends and acquaintances ask me, "Do you know The Big Bang Theory?" I've always answered, "Yes, I'm aware of it," usually followed by my wondering if they're some kind of "Young Earther." With this sift I've now realized it's a sitcom. And it's just going into a long queue of "must-see" TV shows, like Two-and-a-Half Men, Always Sunny in BlaBla, etc. Somebody pushed me to watch Breaking Bad, but after just a few episodes...and Jesse the Idiot not dead yet...I had to quit. What a Gilligan! I guess I'll just go back to reading, and wait for Rick and Morty...and maybe, just maybe, they'll finally make a movie of Deadwood.

A math joke on a TV show in America... I don't think Big Bang Theory even has those. What audience could appreciate it today?

Reminds me of the Big Bang Theory reference in tonight's Simpsons - Much Apu About Something.

"Wolowitz? Worthless!"

I'm just realizing that the forced laugh track on this show is just as bad as The Big Bang Theory.

To more directly respond to the video though, the answer, as they already talked about is the media's fault. Bernie, despite his open socialism, is not very controversial. He's nuanced, shown that he can give complex answers to complex problems and actually seems to be interested in governance.

THOSE THINGS ARE BORING! Doing your job well is often boring. Media doesn't like boring. The media has their profits to think about, so they're going to generate controversy.

This is not groundbreaking at all. I call it the Cartman effect. South Park episodes usually focus on what crazy thing Cartman is going to do next. The show revolves around it. He does completely insane, amoral, disgusting things that no one should ever do...but the audience laps it up. Similar thing occurs with Sheldon of The Big Bang Theory. As I've already compared it to, Reality shows do the exact same thing. The contestant who everyone hates is kept on as long as possible, who otherwise would have been eliminated long ago. People love to hate that person. They keep watching to see what they'll do next.

This perfectly describes Trump. People who will never vote for him in a million years still follow what he does just to see what happens next. This also describes Fox "News" It recently just got ranked the highest in viewership for 2015 again. The right loves to pretend that means that their views are popular. No, that just means everyone wants to watch the trainwreck.

This is also why the Republican debates got more press than the Democratic ones. All the Republican candidates were fighting each other tooth and nail. All were going after Trump. There were a lot of catfights and lots of drama. Meanwhile, in the Democrat debates, everyone gets along. Even when they disagree, they do so in a constructive manner and everyone gets along. No drama, therefore no press. Being serious is boring and that doesn't generate ad revenue for media.

Having an outrageous, controversial candidate is still not enough to get elected though, in fact it cuts both ways. When you put forth a "Cartman" candidate, sure it rallies lots of supporters. But it also rallies lots of opponents (or more) against the candidate. This is exactly what happened with Palin.

Elections have turned into being more about voting against the person you don't want than voting for the person that should be in office. "Anybody but X"

A computer big enough to accurately calculate the position and properties of every "particle" (and ever decreasing subdivisions of energy and matter) would need to be the size of the universe in the first place. We can't even simulate enough particles in an n-body simulation to match the number of stars in a galaxy, let alone individual molecules, or shall we go further and say atoms, or further and say protons, neutrons and electrons? And that's for ONE galaxy amongst hundreds of billions in the OBSERVABLE universe... using only ONE force - gravity!

The guy has a great point about the Big Bang - a billion billion galaxies worth of matter and energy created in a split second from nothing? Doesn't sound like like the conservation of energy that is so fundamental to physics, right? But that's no reason to throw out hundreds of years of evidence and research which has proven conservation of energy to be true since then. The big bang makes the most sense given what we see today... if you want to propose a better theory, it has to make more sense than the Big Bang theory. Saying that the big bang doesn't make sense is not an appropriate starting point for a new theory, and doesn't lead to "so therefore we're in a simulation."

And it's not good enough to appeal to simplicity like @robdot is doing - basically saying that everything we see could very easily be an illusion for our benefit. That's an argument for God, in my opinion... just like how religious fanatics say "it was God's will for this to happen" we'd instead say "well, that's what the simulation wanted to show us" and call it a day. Furthermore if the manifestations of physical laws out there in the universe are illusions, they are at least consistent illusions that we can calculate and predict. And in that case, what is the difference to our lives whether we call it "reality" or "simulation" or "computer"? It it still what we always knew it was. If something created our universe and allowed it to run like a simulation, it is almost certainly intangible to us and for all intents and purposes meaningless too, because we can't touch, feel, see or understand it on any level.

This is one of the topics i asked of my favourite professor - how can we trust what we see if it could be faked, and what exists beyond our universe? His answer was, if i have to doubt what i see, i might as well not do anything at all, and if you want an answer to the second question talk to a philosopher. This is a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one. The scientific method doesn't care what you call the place you live in nor "who" we think "created" it. You can't hope to understand anything if you don't base it on the evidence you have. You certainly can't form a theory on the basis that all evidence is untrustworthy.

Understood. And it is upsetting to watch and comforting to see the dog's reaction. But on the other hand this is the first I'm reading that self-abuse, depressive episodes and panic attacks are now included in Aspergers, so I question the accuracy of the video's title. Or else I have been skimming the subject all this time, which is entirely possible.

I always read about it being socially inept, not being able to interpret facial reactions and body language of others, retaining reams of trivial data in memory (serial numbers, license plates), sitting awkwardly, being committed to certain routines, in general being smart and odd, etc.

People seem to cherry pick some aspect and now they have a "touch" of Aspergers, or they are now an "Aspie" just like their favorite character on "Big Bang Theory".

Comedy is about the most subjective thing on the planet. I think she's genuinely funny.

There's plenty of shit comedy around, but there's also plenty of great stuff too.
I think SNL is most overrated show in existence and I am utterly baffled by the success of 2 Broke Girls, Two and a half men and the Big Bang Theory, but Brooklyn Nine Nine and Community are great.

I don't have much time for Bill Burr or Bill Maher, but I think Doug Stanhope and Charlie Booker are geniuses.

YMMV.

Your video, "Big Bang Theory" season 4 bloopers, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 1 Badge!

Whoever put this together is rather dishonest.
NC: "These lightsaber battles looked prettier (but the plot/characters sucked)"
P: "These lightsaber battles suck because of the plot/characters (but at least they look pretty)"

OH THEY'RE SO DIFFERENT!


Truckchase, he's none of those things. The Big Bang Theory?! If you also think that TBBT is cheap, lousy comedy then NC might be right up your street. He's definitely not upbeat.