Language that COULD be construed as racist is not the same thing as language that IS racist.
Mocking someone's racism, but not using racist language in doing so, is not very racist IMO. If Obama said "yeah, that (N-word) Obama", it would be racist, even if it's said to mock racists, IMO.
If Duke said it, he would not be mocking or joking, but agreeing with the racist statement, that's quite racist.
Yeah, the CK thing was odd to me, and racist IMO, funny or not. Professional comedians get a 'pass' in certain situations like roasts or if they're just really funny, but it doesn't make their statements not racist, they are just accepted by most as comedy, which is NOT PC and may be intended to be offensive.
You said it, he said something horrifically racist. He must be some bit racist to even consider such a thing, somewhat more so to say it. Because he has 'black friends' that find it funny does not make it not racist, as I see it. Just because he doesn't mean it, doesn't mean it's not racist, nor does it mean HE's not racist.
Yes, intent and context mean a lot, but not all. If you are completely not racist, you wouldn't think to talk about blacks, Jewish, Mexicans, whites, etc. It's racist just to think of people as different races...there's really only one race, just different levels of melanin in people's skin. (EDIT: I forgot about aborigines which I've read are actually genetically different from non-aborigines, but are still not a different 'race', but are possibly a different subspecies.)
I learned it went Kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species, sometimes subspecies...no 'race' in there.
I think you misunderstand and are thinking binary, as in either you're racist (and a bastard) or not (and a good person?). I'm looking at it in shades, and very few are at either end of the spectrum, most live in the middle somewhere. Most people will act like you described, and infer intent and react properly based on that. I'm saying intent is not the only measure, it's only one variable in the 'what's your racist quotient' equation.
Yes, I would consider you SLIGHTLY racist, just as I consider myself slightly racist. On a 1 to 10, we're probably both well under a 3...but almost on one is a 1...or, fortunately, a 10.
No outrage here about it at all, I'm just trying to clarify that even seemingly innocuous, not intentionally hurtful racism is racism. (Please think, if a random black person overheard you joking as you described, would they not be upset and hurt by the racism? That's kind of my point, intent may be unknown, so can't be the only defining factor.)
Did someone say they would kill someone? That's not good. People don't normally say that jokingly, but fortunately they usually don't follow through on their threats either...that said, don't say it to Obama! ;-)

You tell me how this is racist...

Actual racist: "Black people can't be leaders."
Obama overhears it and responds: "Yeah, f'ing Obama!"

I'm pretty sure that despite Obama "playing around with" language that could be construed as racist, what he said would not be considered racist by pretty much anyone. It would be pretty damn funny actually because clearly Obama wouldn't sincerely say that about himself, nor black people, and it also pokes fun at that racist statement by pointing out there's a black person who is President of the United States, so clearly black people can be leaders.

Change Obama to David Duke, and yeah, it's now probably racist, and it's not funny at all.

Or this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gHz-l40FNQ

Louis CK is saying that in response to Patrice O'Neal's factual account for the origin of a racial slur against Jewish people. Louis CK was very good friends with the late O'Neal, and he's not racist. O'Neal knew that. If you listen to the video, as soon as Louis CK starts his bit before anything that's faux-racist comes out, everyone is immediately laughing, including O'Neal, because they know he's about to insincerely say something horrifically racist to the face of a black person that had he been sincere, it would have been absolutely horrifying, but that's the point - he's absolutely not sincere. That's why it's absolutely hilarious and not racist because everybody knows Louis CK doesn't actually mean that at all.

Intent and context means a lot. When you take that context away, (other things said in that conversation, who is saying it, your knowledge about what they believe, previous conversations that might be references, etc.), the words can appear to be extremely racist, even when they're not.

How do I react when someone jokes about something that involves race? It completely depends on the context, and what I interpret the intent of it is. If I'm joking around generally with my friends like the above, and they say something like, "You know why black people smell? So blind people can hate them, too." We're in a situation we're joking, we already have had actual sincere conversations about race, I know he isn't racist, I know he actually believes that's 100% not true. How do I react? If I found the joke funny, I'd laugh because I'm taking it to mean he's making fun of what some racists believe because I know for a fact he doesn't believe that.

My father-in-law is a different story, because I know the guy, I know he's like a 5-6 on the racist scale, so I don't know if he actually believes black people generally stink or not, and generally inclined to believe he actually believes most or all black people smell. At the very least, I'm uneasy. I'm certainly not going to laugh at it. I'd probably show some kind of disapproval at the least. Completely different context because now, and here's the key, that may have been intended as an actual racist statement about black people. Once you go there, that's not funny.

So, if you consider me slightly racist because I make ironic racist statements as jokes, which I mean as mocking towards racists themselves, rock on. But you better be consistent in your outrage when someone exaggerates they're gonna kill someone when they get frustrated over something insignificant as an example. After all, that's playing around with words that are murderous and violent, so they must be a psychopath or homicidal!

Please note, that was sarcasm.

I waited tables while in college. At least half the servers were racist against black people and any other racial group that stereotypically tipped poorly, including black servers.

And I absolutely never avoided a table or gave someone poorer service because of their race, and I never had "racist banter" with people as a means to complain about them. If I ever did make any racist joke about that, it was in mocking fashion against anyone who actually acted in a racist manner.

There's no justification for racism, period. And yet, you just tried to make one.

Oh to be foolish and young.

I remember beating my fear of heights by moving on the under-structure of freight bridge.

Sure I would have dies or drown...but to understand that your heartbeat and the sense of slow-mo is what evolution gave you.

Only the young tap in to it truly and we should not mock them because we all played dangerously in our youth.

No upvote though despite my charming banter of not being judgmental. I succeeded in not being judgmental but it lacked the entertaining aspect.

This is too deep for me. I don't even understand what point they are trying to make. Or who they are mocking.

He further mocked the seagull by chanting "Mine" while chasing him around.

Pre-Alpha, it almost certainly is a mock-up.

I'm not liking the way the enemies appear to be just flying around in formation on a pre-determined course. This seems like a mock-up rather than actual gameplay though, so hopefully it won't be like that when it's done.

I'm amazed is was actually cheaper and easier to build and film with three actual working full sized trebuchets than to just use mock ups and CGI. They're probably going to have to do a lot of that anyways to fill the area in with soldiers and cavalry and stuff. I approve of this. I also approve of filming on location in China instead of just pretending British Columbia or California is China.

My understanding is that the song is what ISIS uses in various "here's us doing something incredibly horrible" videos. I've not watched any to confirm.

My take on the video is that it's mocking fundamentalists - if their deity were real and actually cared about people believing, it would make sense for things like in this vid to happen from time to time. "Fuck you, scientist!"

I wanted it to kick back

Or take a photo and post a mocking tweet... that would be funny too.

Respect??
Show respect for Royalty that can't respect the people enough to show up and shake people's hands personally.

If anything this is a slap in the face to the people/dignitaries there, who are too scared to not go through with the scam.

They deserve to be mocked.

Her question of 'how did the Saracens count seconds' may be a little mocking but it's also incredibly apt. The idea of 'seconds' or even 'minutes' would have been completely foreign to them. The first clocks to measure seconds were invented in the late 17th century, and wasn't a common feature in clocks for another century +.

I completely agree with her about Lars on many points. He often (very often actually) makes his technique seem "the best in the world" when compared to ANY other technique (as there are A LOT of shooting techniques; some that need different bows, materials, and setups).

Kind of like being able to shoot through plate-mail... Lars would NEVER be able to pull that off (of course no one, with a shortbow and the wrong arrow--or tip--will be doing it either; the crossbow is as close as you can get to being small and puncturing plate) as it requires a huge amount of pull force to puncture plate (even heavy English oaken wood shields). The type of bow is a big issue, because that is where you get your draw strength. But, what type of tip you have on your arrow will determine whether or not it even goes into or just bounces off the armor...

However, for the most part, archers didn't try to puncture plate armor--because to be honest about it: it was HARD, it required a VERY heavy bow and expensive tips (of course the bows were also expensive, because they would not be made out of normal material--it might be a specially imported type of wood that could hold up to extreme forces; the string may also be made of something a bit different than normal). So, you didn't have very many people walking around with the innate ability to puncture plate. BUT, what most archers trained a VERY long time to accomplish was extreme accuracy, for one reason alone: armor.

Instead of trying to puncture plate or even chain, archers instead aimed for gaps or areas were there was no coverage (basically anywhere you bend or connect the armor to another piece or tie/connect itself together; so places like under the armpit or along the side of the body were the armor is pulled together and tied shut). Then they may not have to go through anything at all, or they will only have light leather or heavy cloth armor in the way--either way they will penetrate, and they will slowly kill their target by slowing them down and immobilizing them, then moving in for the finishing blow OR if they hit the right place they can just let blood loss finish them off...

But, this requires extreme accuracy, especially in battle AND especially so if you are firing from a horse (if you were lucky you were able to ride behind someone and concentrate solely on firing your shots, then you could add a bit of speed as well). This is the one place that Lars has horribly mislead people--OR he has made a really great breakthrough. But, if Lars never bothers to really demonstrate this stuff, we have no idea how great an archer he really is.

His entire video is one gigantic edit. Every shot and "trick" has been setup with the camera in the right place. The biggest problem is we don't know if it took Lars 1000 attempts to accomplish some of these feats (he makes it sound in some areas that it happens VERY fast, however...but due to the editing, or how he edited it, we actually have no idea if his claims are true) or if he did it in ten...or right off the bat...

That is why I said we needed to wait for Lars to actually talk to us about this whole thing, and to clear various areas up (records and competition). Because he has set a very high bar for himself, and from his own video he seems to be amazing--but, I like many know that if you edit enough and try something over and over again, you can make yourself look like an expert *whatever* whenever you wish to do it...

I agree heavily with her about his historic claims (and also mocking him on his "super clumsy" shots and setups to make fun of "modern" archers); she also points out, correctly, how wrong he is on some of those claims. Like everyone shooting from the left side; which somehow Lars, in ALL his studying completely and utterly missed. Which tells me one thing: she knows more about archery history than Lars actually does.

But, is Lars actually a great archer? Would Lars be a good archer in a battle, or more specifically his "technique"? Lastly, is he really an unique archer more than worth praising? We won't know until Lars does what I mentioned above; he must meet these criticisms head on.

If we allow Lars time to learn how to ride a horse; or it might be a bit more fair to just allow him to ride behind someone controlling the horse, which was a common practice even in battle (then make sure Lars knows how to also fire properly from a horse, since it requires controlling a horse--if you're alone--and staying on the horse using your thigh muscles...which is actually a pretty hard thing to do...and requires expert horsemanship; asking Lars to accomplish this is laughable, as this type of thing would have been a lifetime achievement in the past AND any archer that could fire fast, accurate, and ride a horse by himself...would have been a horrific force on the battlefield; then give him a sword/melee skill--make sure they have a lot of upper body strength--and a very well made, thick steel buckler and he'd be godlike; and then enough armor to protect from arrows...BUT this means you have to be very strong...otherwise you will never be able to accomplish ANY of the feats with the bow mentioned above; BTW, I'm mentioning a superhero right here, there "may" have been a few people like this in history, but they would've been very few and far apart...and more than likely used sparingly).

Mounted archers are extremely powerful against all units that are mounted yet slower than them and of course those on foot and without a long range means of attacking them (at least shorter than the mounted archer's range), this I will always agree with. We already know that mounted archery units could create absolute havoc in the past, see: Alexander The Great. However, eventually people figured out how to deal with this type of threat as well... But, horse mounted archers do have their "nemeses", namely foot archers--since they can take some time (if an arrow comes their way, they block it--it is much harder for a horse archer to carry around a big shield or at least just have on sitting nearby--or you can aim for their horse, which is why above I said that "superhero" like warrior would need a melee skill, because eventually they WILL be on the ground).

So, again, we have to wait and see if Lars bothers to respond to this video and to ALL of the others that have also been made (he did make a lot of people angry; as he did make some stuff up and possibly "overshoot" the mark on other claims and possibly even his own abilities...). I won't hold my breath though.

I think we can all come to a fairly logical conclusion on this. If Lars NEVER responds to anything, then we will have to assume that a lot of his "super-speed" with "accuracy" was due to one thing alone: editing.

Phew, I think that covers everything...it certainly was long enough!!!!