Upvote for the guy skiiing and showing his *skills, but the people recording the video hoping for him to fall are jerks.

@C-note

i am trying to unpack your comment to formulate a response,and then i realized that the reason i was struggling is because your comment makes no sense.

it just a generic,and lazy mish-mash of of inflammatory jargon slapped together to appear well-thought out and salient.

but in reality,it is gibberish,in my opinion.

your comment is a stream declarative statements based on nothing presented in this video.

1.o'neill is racist....to which there is no evidence.

2.o'neill is a misogynist....to which there is no evidence.

3.o'neill is a troll....while this may be a true statement,i see no evidence that what he is postulating is for the single and simple goal to get a rise out of the audience.

4.o'neill is using false equivalencies to justify rhetoric......i suspect you do not understand what "false equivalency" and "rhetoric" actually mean.especially in the context of this particular video.

5.o'neill is debating the right of hate speech in a civil setting.

no he is not debating someone "right" to hate speech,and here is the point where i suspect that you simply did not watch the video.you did not listen to mr o'neill's argument.you did not consider his points and the inherent problems when we begin to restrict language (because you didn't watch the video).

now you are certainly within your rights to disagree with mr o'neill,but you need to at least listen to his argument in order to formulate a cohesive and viable response.

i suspect you read the title,had an emotional,knee jerk reaction and responded in a very generic and lazy fashion.in fact,your comment actually makes mr o'neills argument.

instead of listening to his argument,you responded in the very manner that mr o'neill addresses,and criticizes.

you accused him of:racism,misogynism,troll and using false equivalencies to justify a point he never made!

and when you react by name-calling an insults you diminish the conversation,and shut down all interactions.

now i do not know you,so please take my comment in the humanity it is written.
if you disagree with mr o'neills argument,than can you please express your points and clarify why you feel his argument is flawed or outright wrong?

i am sincerely interested.

Anyone, as long as they make jerk off motions at the end of their set.

It was actually better than the Obama one. That's about as surprising as a racist, sexist, unhinged jerk being within striking distance of winning the Presidency with less than two months to go!

I was waiting for the jerk to tell him "drink up!"

Right, but most of them aren't going to be on dating apps and wotnot, at least, not the ones who aren't jerks...

Oh well, all my ex's were attractive, naturally, because if I hadn't thought so we wouldn't have been. And naturally they all turned out to be jerks or else we'd still be. Therefore attractive=jerk. Unless they are with somebody else ofc. Hmm.

The flaw I also see is with the "distribution". I question the equal spread of good-looking & nice, good-looking & jerky, etc...I think on one hand, we would qualify more people as jerks, while on the other hand every one of us has adequately qualified as a jerk in someones eyes at some point.

Also, we tend to over-emphasize the negative with the less-than intimate/familiar, much like how 99% of the News is really sucky stuff.

How about jerks are jerks and some of them happen to be good looking.

Standing in line before being transported, my biggest laugh was from the "warning" video playing in front of you.

It talked of all the people who shouldn't ride, and when it came to pregnancy, the man and woman on screen looked at each other, looked all "awww, darn it!" then she walked away and he turned around and got back in line.

What a jerk.

Yeh, fuck that Tarantino guy - its as if he wants to be some kind of Tarantino or something. What a tryhard jerk.