Like quite a few shows produced by US TV networks, I bet the first season will be exclusive to TBS for one year, then released on Netflix just in time to promote season 2. It kind of makes sense that the TV networks still want you to watch TV.

Your video, An Exclusive Club, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I hear they're getting the Bith back together...

Not sure this will last:
http://teamcoco.com/comiccon/an-exclusive-sneak-peek-at-the-cantina-band-documentary

On the chance your 'jokingly' isn't obvious, MLK, Ghandi and Mandela's causes ALL had support from those willing to use violence, aka better weapons would help.

Malcolm X would be the next most prominent figure beside MLK. Indian independence wasn't won with peaceful hunger strikes alone, and again lots of violence in South Africa.

Ghandi even bridged the gap to working alongside the effective army fighting for India's independence:
" I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.
But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment, forgiveness adorns a soldier."

Speaking more to the point of America today, pretty much no civil war has been fought exclusively with civilians on one side, and the government, police, army and all other branches of the state united on the other. The reason being that if that kind of unity within the government against the civilian population exists, you ALREADY have tyranny.

In America, the example would be if a president or a particular political party decided to try for tyrannical over reach, would the American public be better equipped to resist that with or without guns? In civil war, guns give power to the majority of public opinion that would need to be there otherwise. In a nation with an unarmed public, whatever the majority of soldiers side with is likely gonna win. With an armed populace, the civilian opinion matters more.

I think it's an overall modest observation, and one that really doesn't in anyway make it obvious that the modest benefit is worth the costs. That is another matter, but you can't factually claim that there isn't a meaningful difference between an armed and unarmed population when facing civil war.

I'm not worried about people being confused, more like confirmation bias.

You can get an Alt-Right website that does nothing but post 100% accurate, verified true stories. You can even have them stick to the facts and stay away from any editorialising within their reporting. If they then proceed to exclusively and only report stories about violent crime by non-white or non-christian minorities, they would have loads of content from across the country to publish every day.

I'm hoping that it's easy to see the problem with that?

I'm merely saying you can swap out alt-right for Scahill, and violent crime by minorities for American foreign policy evils and you still have much the same situation.

By definition foreign policy involves the relationship of at least two countries, reporting exclusively on the problems of only one of those countries creates a problem, same as alt-right example.

Sorry, bud, but black people (and other minorities, and women) have often complained, rightly so, about under representation and total exclusion from movies, tv shows, availability of positive rolls, etc.
Saying he's never heard that complaint is 100% unbelievable, and I call b.s.....he's doing it himself to an extent in this video. I was ready to upvote until he spouted that nonsense.

White people complaining about that is patently ridiculous.

True, but that's not all it says....
The presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered "snuff" if presented as a limited, incidental portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary that encompasses a much broader narrative. Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera.

As the fatal accident was the central point of the video and not incidental, and the video may or may not be considered lengthy and or news, I thought it a reasonable question to pose to the community.
To clarify, it was intended as a question not an accusation.

What I find most interesting is that these fancy watch companies really are trying to make good watches despite their technology being entirely obsolete insofar as making a tool for keeping time goes. Though there are surely a lot of people who are fascinated by and appreciate fine clockwork, they probably aren't the ones buying $50,000 watches and keeping the watchmakers in business. The people buying them are buying them as jewelry for the sake of conspicuous consumption, so for them it's really enough that it's fashionable and expensive enough to be exclusive. I find it so curious because the watchmakers are still doing actual engineering rather than just saying "art" the way a fashion designer might and just trading on the exclusivity of the brand.

@noims -- My grandfather had about 10 war stories that he rotated through telling, pretty much exclusively after one of my uncles "broke the dam" by asking him to recall things as they were at the Oshkosh air show standing next to a P-47 airplane like he had worked on.

By the time that happened, my grandfather was in his 80's and in very good physical and mental shape (cattle rancher that did daily work manhandling heavy feed bags around, etc.) but had a quirky personality because he was 90%+ deaf. I don't think that was a result of the war, hearing problems seem to run in the family.

Anyway, he frequently used those hearing problems as an excuse for not having to interact with people. He had hearing aids, but he'd turn them off most of the time and just ignore people. I think some of that was being an introvert, and some was probably lingering "shell shock" / PTSD effects. But overall he really adjusted back to civilian life just fine. Got a degree in education on the GI Bill and taught and coached basketball to High School students, then worked as a small-town Postmaster, and eventually retired to work the ranch. I don't think any of us in his family, including his wife and children, thought of him as being "impaired" by the mental effects of the war. But it was clear that some of what he experienced had a very deep, lifelong effect on his outlook.


I wrote out the 3 stories of his above because they seemed to be the ones that had the most emotional impact on him. To me, it was interesting that a lot of stuff outside of combat hit him the hardest. He also had more traditional "war stories" stuff about victories and bravery, like when his unit captured / accepted the surrender of a young German pilot in a Bf-109 who deserted to avoid near certain death from flying too many missions after the handwriting was on the wall that the allies were going to win. But by far, he got more choked up about the other stuff like having to knock that French girl off her bike and seeing starving civilians and being unable to help them much.

Like you said, more banal stuff side-by-side with or against a backdrop of horror. I think it's pretty much impossible to imagine what those sorts of experiences in war are really like and what being in those situations would do to us mentally. And then WW2 in particular just had a massive impact on the entire generation. Basically everybody back home knew multiple people that went away and never came back. Then when some did come back, they were clearly different and yet reluctant to talk about what happened. Pretty messed up time to live through, I guess.

That's been my point all along, they don't need special coddling, they're better than men in this arena.
Jebus Christ.
In conclusion: You don't support inclusion by advancing exclusion.

No.

That's like saying the worst thing to happen with going out with friends for a drink is to be shot dead by a guy who didn't like you checking out his girlfriend.

A date doesn't end in rape. If your meeting with a person ends in rape, it never was a date to begin with. To say it was a date assumes the victim made a wrong choice at some point. Or worse, that the shitball would have allowed a different outcome.

Sexual assaults may have shades of gray, but I believe rape is rape. The idea of "date rape" would be laughable it it wasn't so moronic.

Dates and rapes are mutually exclusive.

Your video, Exclusive Super Troopers 2 trailer drop, 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 231 Badge!

Yeah, I've got to agree, that cannot be a coincidence. It is creepy on the same level as a hooters or any other business that hires exclusively hot women to do a job that should have nothing to do with looks.

It's not so much that I worry about the average female gun enthusiast going without work, but that it's hard to imagine that sort of workplace culture isn't rife with sexual harassment. Any time a woman looking sexy is a job requirement, it's a fair bet that her boss wants more than to look at her.