Hasn't SHE also been filmed mocking Trump at her rallies...another person with disabilities, but his are purely mental.

EDIT: Also, is his mocking a disabled man really the most important flub he's made? Wouldn't disputing some of his policies be more to the point and make more of a difference. I mean, we already know he's a douchebag, and that's a selling point for most of his followers, not a deal breaker. Explain how his tax plan doubles the national debt, raises taxes on all non millionaires, and ends all social programs many of his followers use to live, while drastically lowering tax rates on millionaires and making it easier for them to hide money and move businesses out of the country, contrary to what he tells them in his rallies. I see this as a huge part of the problem this election, it's become all about personality, nothing of substance at all, because neither main candidate wants to discuss their plans or history.

EDIT: The following statement has been found to be inaccurate.

Um...keep in mind that she's NOT the nominee yet, people. It's another lie from her campaign, repeated by all media organizations.
A candidate needs 2383 PLEDGED delegates to win the nomination. She has 2184. Because there seems to be some question among Clinton supporters, 2184 < 2383. She's 199 short. That doesn't mean Sanders has much chance, it means the claim that "she won the nomination" is a BOLD FACED LIE that apparently 90% of Americans are gullible and ignorant enough to buy. Don't be a sucker and fall for then repeat another lie. Wait for the convention before calling her the nominee. She didn't win yet.

Congratulations! Your comment on Losing a Point for Mocking Opponent's Grunting has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 15 Badge!

Congratulations! Your comment on Losing a Point for Mocking Opponent's Grunting has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

The ref apparently called hindrance. The USTA defines hindrance as being hindered in playing the point by an opponent's deliberate act. I think one could reasonably argue that the opponent's scream--mocking or not--was a deliberate act that hindered the other player.
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/06/tennis-grunts-robin-haase-gonzalo-lama-imitation-penalty

https://tennis-column.blogspot.com/2011/09/hindrance-rule.html

Your video, Losing a Point for Mocking Opponent's Grunting, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

WTF?!? How exactly does he determine it's 'mocking' and not his own grunt at a hard swing?
That's some ol BS right there. If one can grunt, the other can grunt back. If grunting is a problem, guy in blue should lose.
No wonder these judges get hit with tennis racquets.

Where to start……
The forced laughter when someone’s buddy is filmed wiping out - AH hahaha AH hahaha

99.9% of “selfies”, I despise that word. I don’t want to see your pasty bloated pimply mug so close-up like we’re jammed in a fuckin elevator and I can count your nose hairs. Wearing either the blank dumb look people have when looking at their computer screen or camera phone, or the overly gleeful shit-eating ventriloquist dummy look, All it takes is a camera lens to make people go ape-shit, like a baby making faces in a mirror. When did that shit become normal?

Any kind of rambling monologue with the subject weighing in on the stupid shit of the day, like they are some wise head of state being interviewed on some crisis. Or filming themselves narrating at the scene of some non-event, like they are Edward Murrow reporting on the London Blitz.

The vast majority of trend videos, like “Things New Yorkers Say”, etc. They generally have high production values but ZERO talent on the actual writing. The “punchlines” are usually weak or non-existent, apparently there’s no such thing as out-takes anymore. It’s usually weak material followed by long pauses, which I guess if you drag it out long enough it somehow becomes funny. “Modern Family” and “The Office” have beat that non-punchline pause to death. “Spinal Tap” was the only mock-umentary that ever worked, everything else is just weak.

Idiots who edit videos and who don’t have the basic sense to accommodate people who haven’t seen the material. I’m watching a video on YouTube of vacation snaps from someone’s trip to the mountains of Chile, and they leave each photo onscreen for about 1.2 seconds, with the editor’s goal to use every single transition available in the editing palette to move on to the next picture. It’s amateurish.

Someone else mentioned videos with overly long intros\titles and I agree. It's not "Gone With the Wind", it's a video of your dog pissing in your living room, just get to it.

Back in a few, going to pour my second cup of the day. :-)

"Letting them know that you're about to have a lecture on very sensitive material is totally fine. I mean, I've done that."

Then congrats, you're OK with trigger warnings.

And like most instances where people panic about them, Oxford hasn't made any sort of official policy. Professors are able to do so at will or ignore the use of the warnings all together. Much like they have been doing for years and years.

Curious how victims of sexual assault that often develop PTSD for periods following are somehow "coddled censors", yet the same doesn't apply for any sort of accommodation for other mental or physical ailments. We don't see people freaking out about warnings of flashing lights in various media for the epileptic, we don't mock the soldier suffering from PTSD who asks for accommodations, and we don't mock the migraine sufferers who avoid certain situations, food, etc to prevent attacks.

But somehow, the physical effects triggered by certain stimuli of a lingering sexual assault is different. Better alert the news media, the PC police rape survivors are here to ruin everything with their asks for "Hey, maybe consider my physical issues?"

yeah...this dude really misses the point,and plays right into some peoples fears.

how did he ever think this was a good idea?
"hey,let's make a video revealing people's bias by mocking that bias AND the trans people they are so hopelessly afraid of".

but the fact that he called his trans friend,absolves him of any responsibility i guess.i have a few black friends and a number of teh gays,and even a long time trans friend.guess that means i can be as racist and homophobic as i want to be right?riiiight?

this just makes no sense...
accomplishes nothing except for being trite,shallow and offensive....to everybody!

this morning a fellow minister posted a meme in regards to this on how it is a mans job to protect the females and any transitional male should be beaten.

for what,he does not clarify.

most likely because americans have become sissy pant bed wetters at the thought of a penis using a female lavatory.

look..my gelatinous blobs of fear,that delusionally call themselves "strong" americans.here is the simple truth:trans people have been using your bathrooms for...well...ever.

you didnt know,and really didnt care,but now that there is a law in place you and your gaggle of sissy prude-police have convinced yourself that all trans people wanted from that law is to bugger your little johnny,or brittany.

no.
they just want to pee.

I agree with the general idea -- we should continue to spend, and spend MORE, on getting lead out of the environment (especially in homes and public utilities like water, etc.).

But I do have a semi-minor nit to pick. Oliver mocked the lead industry shill guy from the '70s for suggesting that better general health across the population at the time was because "we must (have been) doing something right", and therefore lead paint must not be dangerous. Yet one of his own major argument points comes from referencing a "study" that shows that every dollar invested in lead abatement ends up returning 17+ times that much in societal gain due to lower crime rates, lower medical bills, etc.

That's a problem because BOTH of those arguments are making a correlation equals causation error. The lead industry shill was wrong -- general population health was higher in the '70s than ever before because of advances in medicine. Lead was holding it back -- but to be fair, only to a tiny degree compared to the gains made in general health care.

I'd argue Oliver's cited study is equally wrong (or at least misleading) -- OK, crime may be lower, but I seriously doubt that spending more on removing lead contributes to that much at all. And total costs of health care spent on caring for people with lead poisoning are almost certainly lower now than they have been previously, but the lion's share of that (legitimate) financial gain undoubtedly came from banning lead paint and then leaded gasoline -- as seen in Oliver's graph of "average blood lead levels of children aged 1 to 5" which dropped incredibly fast between 1980 and 1990, and then much more slowly since then.

So any financial return on further investment in getting rid of lead is very very unlikely to live up to the same rate that it did in the 80s. I doubt that the study accounted for that, if it is also including tenuous things like crime rate to trump up its numbers...

Oliver is right to later suggest that "not poisoning children" is a better argument for getting rid of lead than "17 times financial return on money invested into lead removal". Just stick with the poisoning argument instead of the dubious correlation vs causation study.

You're right, they often get either just the flavor or just the texture, but not often both at the same when it comes to mock foods. Although it seems like every other week a new company is coming up with products that get closer and closer to real thing. Gardein "chicken" tenders for example. I actually find they taste better than the real ones(yeah I didn't think it was possible for chicken to taste any better either!) And hey no cholesterol

I don't see it as a sacrifice, not when I'm the one reaping all of the benefits. The knowledge that I haven't doomed a sweet piggy like the one in the video to stand in a 2x3 foot cage until it collapses is more satisfying than the flavor of the best bacon . Not to mention health benefits, environmental (and some asshat farmer gets less money too is pretty satisfying too haha)

Lions in a cage most certainly wouldn't eat you. They would attack you and kill you out of fear and protection of their territory, perhaps even out of the fun of it, being feline. Assuming they were well fed of course which most animals in captivity are. But they would not bother wasting the energy to eat you when they are fed much tastier and healthier food.
There are also plenty of documented cases were a lions maternal instincts take over and they protect an infant animal. such as this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRUXU172vGg (there is a similar few where leopards save monkeys by returning them to trees etc)
It goes to show that even carnivores with strong killer instincts are able to see compassion, and that they only kill out of necessity to survive. When survival isn't factor anymore the rules are completely different.

Wait, how is the combination of words "Dwarf shortage" uttered within the bounds of a comedy show offensive to anyone? Why? Wtf?

Its not a joke that carries much meaning, besides the fact that it might be mocking the political correctness brigade a bit.

The second sentence might be the one that breaks the broadcast code, because basically anything you might happen to say to a dwarf can be theoretically deemed to be insulting.

Dwarves are fierce warriors, so I would definitely err on the side of caution there and cross the road if I see a dwarf coming.

It is as easy to claim being offended as it is for a soccer player to fall. How many of those offended were even real dwarves?

Yet another "science/learning/how-to" video that talks down to its audience.
Telling people to go back to kindergarten, and mocking them for being unable to test a theory, is not going to improve the outlook of anyone, and will only piss-off those you should probably be trying to reach out to.

As a Canadian I would just like to say this is a bunch of bullshit. We have a lot of fucked up laws up here that they don't have down in the states. You can be sued for defamation and slander for mocking public figures here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_defamation_law

One of our Crown prosecutors tried to prosecute a man for disagreeing with some feminists on Twitter and northern Alberta has been turned into a toxic waste dump.

Our new Prime Minister is a sock puppets with a SJW's hand up his ass.

So if you see one of my smug countrymen telling you how much better it is up here you have my permission to kick him in the balls.

Funny how they think people mocking them is "hateful"

words matter.

And because they whined about it instead of just ignoring it, they just guaranteed that people will send MORE bags of dicks...not less.