They're really hammering home the whole SJW PC thing arent they? Not subtle about it at all. Typical preachy hollywood.

Lesbian. Check.
More than 1 black chick. Check.
Asian chick. Check.
Australian. Check.
Brit. Check.
Men who are idiots. Check.

Diversity: The Movie.

I originally thought this was just going to be Oceans 11 with women. But oh no, they had to go full-retard. You never go full-retard.

Reps blame evil games for violence.

Dems blame evil guns for violence.

Both forget about the individuals actually responsible.

Retard fight, GO!

-scheherazade

Knee jerk?! As if this wasn't beyond the 500th mass shooting in under 2 years, 1516 in 1735 days.
That's a total bullshit position, along with "this isn't the time" arguments. When mass shootings happen daily, pretending we must wait for a shooting free month, season, year before we can rationally tackle the issue is asinine. We can't make it 1/2 week without 3.
I agree, all those things you mention factor into the issue, but the easiest, simplest, most effective tool, proven effective in multiple cases, is gun control, and it is the best return for your investment, as it's by far the cheapest. (I own guns).
People intent on mass murder may not be deterred, but they are absolutely, unequivocally hindered by regulations from causing exponentially more damage. It's just retarded that some people don't grasp that fact and instead continue to advocate for fewer regulations....as if he wouldn't have purchased a Vulcan cannon if he could have.

In open warfare of govt vs people, drones don't matter, just like jets don't matter. I already covered this above.



Nowhere is an oppressive dictatorship - until it is.
[redacted]
I feel like people are too distracted with instagram and other B.S. to bother learning about how the world works.
History is long. The current peace is an anomaly. When things go bad, there is little warning. If you're lucky, a year or so of build up. If you're not lucky, weeks or days. Shit likes to spiral.
In bad times, you have only what you have on hand.


Most western countries with [regardless of gun ownership] don't have a population that's F'd in the head.
Nothing stops a German gun owner from taking his AR15 and shooting up a concert.
Storing his guns in a safe that he can open doesn't mean anything.
Paying for a new license card for every few guns doesn't alter the guns.

Gun laws, as proposed, are fluff. Nothing that makes people safer, nothing that prevents ownership, but plenty to crap on collectors.
* 10 round limit = 2 second pause to reload
* Gun show loophole is a misnomer.
* (re. above) Only private sales (gun show or not) don't require checks - but you still end up in court if the buyer does something bad.
* Assault weapons ban only bans pistol grips and threaded barrels. Cosmetics. Just google "California compliant AR15" (they already have a de-facto AWB).
* There's already laws against straw purchase.
* There's already laws against crazy people buying (already part of the background check)
* Registration is pointless as gun control. Doesn't alter the guns or who has them (background check already tells gov who, when, and where bought a gun).

(I'd sooner vote for mandatory roll cage and 6 point harness in every car. Could eliminate 90+% of car fatalities in one rule - if people cared enough.)


By the way, gun owners hate people like the Vegas shooter even more than anti-gunners hate people like him.
Precisely because assholes like that shooter make anti-gunners turn on their frustration on innocent gun owners.

The call to "do something" is the phrase that perfectly describes the sentiments that led to actions, that in turn became described by either "famous last words" or "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".





We had shit health insurance before Obama. We had shit insurance during Obama (only you're required by law to buy it, even if it's not a good value), we continue to have shit health insurance during Trump, and no matter what trump does, it will still be shit.
Problem is that the insurance company lobbyists draft the language of the law (no matter the party in charge), and it's not for our benefit.





Re. Minorities, most are living normal lives. The white eutopia that the few vocal people complain about, doesn't exist. At least I have yet to see it. Don't let a few thousand people in a nation of millions guide your thoughts about overall social norms.

I'm happy to see them protest. Frankly, I wish white people had the same solidarity that black people have. When a black gets shot by a cop, they come together. When a white is shot by a cop, other whites say "he probably deserved it". I wish the black community good luck and success.





Yes, I wish we weren't jailing more people than anywhere else on the planet, over things that harm nobody.
I wish we had the drug laws of Portugal (decriminalization)
I wish we had the legal system of Sweden (no jail before conviction).

Know how I said that most countries don't have as many people that are F'd in the head? Same applies for people in government.
None of this shit will get fixes.
Republicans are bible thumping retards that funnel money to defense contractors and campaign donors.
Democrats are buck-passing censors that funnel money to insurance companies and campaign donors.
And people just pick a team and bark at the other team, while each gets fleeced by their very own side.

-scheherazade

Fantastic.
Incredible.
Unbelievable.
Unreal.

I think I saw an article a while back that started listing words like this. It's actually more rare to see them used with their original meaning than with their newer metaphorical meaning. I think that's just what happens to language. It's like all our words for stupid. Many of them were technical. Dumb means you couldn't speak. Idiot and moron meant certain low IQ levels. My favorites, because of the current transition, is how the word Retarded is being abandoned and people are now using Autistic (often shortened to Autist). People like to use emphasis in their language. They *real-ly* like to.

Loved this site once. Finding the best recent videos here without much effort was its definition.
People actually did a good job posting them here and often times I visited VideoSift to watch videos while eating dinner. Great memories.

Nowadays most videos posted here are political videos. Not objectively making fun or criticizing both sides, no. Only leftist videos with literal fake news content that have no value at all for making the world a better place. Before I found at least 7-10 videos a day that I enjoyed watching. Now? Not even one. NOT EVEN ONE! WTF happened to you?

You just see these political videos with just childish and retarded attacks, thinking if some pathetic and unfunny celebrity tells it, it is somehow more credible. This site has become a propaganda outlet for these extremist people, and if you dare speak up against it, you get voted down into oblivion and personally attacked (not your points you made).
To put it in a triggering word: Sad!
Good riddance.

@ChaosEngine

i am trying to unpack your comment.

so you AGREE that attacking people you disagree with ideologically is wrong,but only if they are not self-identified nazis?

because 90 years ago these guys kinda cornered the market in nazism? and well..we don't wanna see a repeat of THAT now do we? so let's punch them in the face....

and that somehow punching them in the face will somehow magically halt any further encroachment of those dirty nazis!!!!

because it was so effective in the 1930's?

ok..how about this...

how about we daydream about cockpunching these knuckleheads,because it brings a smile to our faces but NOT actually punch them?

instead...we allow these cunts..who came to this gig LOOKING for a fight..to bluster and foam at the mouth.to spew their vile and vulgar message of racism dressed up as nationalistic pride,so EVERYONE can see.

and i bet you dollars to donuts one of them knuckledragging retards,who came all gussied up for a rumble...is gonna make a mistake...that inbreeder is gonna just HAVE to use his home made mace,or his shiny new gopher poker on someone...

probably one of dem darn "libtards".

and in this age of cell phone vigilantism,this is gonna get caught on video,posted to youtube and KABOOM!

white nationalist racist nazi party is forced back underground.

because you CANNOT fight fascism with a different flavor of fascism.

fascism is fascism yo,just because one flavor may taste better to your buds don't change that very simple truth.

the problem in this setting is you have TWO groups who are addicted to identity politics,and BOTH are convinced of their own righteousness,and BOTH groups suffer from a horrid case of groupthink.

and this ideological stand has them both certain of their righteousness,and this gives them a moral certitude that violence is an acceptable answer.

because they are the righteous.

sound familiar?

you mentioned 100 years ago,
i will match your 100 years and counter with the previous 5,000.

ideology homie..
the cancer of the deluded.
just ask any fundamentalist christian,or muslim,or jew.....

they will be perfectly happy to tell you how RIGHT they are,and how WRONG you are.

and this shit?
^ this psycho shit?
this is just a puss pocket,erupting from the internal corruption feeding on my countries soul.

economic collapse ain't gonna bring my country down.
nope..
it is gonna be the polarized politics that finally takes this country out.

i hate this..i seriously hate this...

everybody in that video is completely fucking retarded.

Paused it and made a simple one in C# https://dotnetfiddle.net/3KMm3i

Tests like these are fine, as long as you don't put people on the spot in an interview - that's retarded, because no one works like that in real life. If you have like 20 minutes on a computer to do it, sure, but say writing it in hand or anything like that is a bit of a waste of time, and will eliminate people who would otherwise be much better than the "exam performers".

"Politically correct language is allegedly designed to solve this bullying problem and its etymological by-product. The practitioners of political correctness adopt the strategy of periodically replacing the words used as insults with new terms in an effort to avoid negative connotations imbued—or allegedly imbued—in existing terms."

I disagree with that. I don't think PC (god, I hate that term) is designed to "solve the bullying problem". It's simply to stop the normalisation of terms like "retarded".

@Diogenes

Thank you for your detailed answer. I do agree with you that context matters and that words are neither inherently good or bad by themselves. However, I think you’re looking at the situation from a more microscopic point of view as a simple joke between two people. I prefer to take a more macroscopic view of the situation. Allow me to explain.

Going back to my hypothetical example, it’s true that I didn't mean any harm when I used the term "retard" towards my brother. I think all people like to think of themselves as "good" people. For example, I would never in my life point at person with Down Syndrome and scream "Retard!" at the top of my lungs or attempt to belittle someone with an actual mental disability. The problem, however, is that by using the word in the way I did in the example I am tacitly--and quite publicly (remember this is happening in a parking lot)--endorsing the equating of people with mental disabilities to stupidity. I may be making a joke towards my brother but it isn’t just my brother that winds up being the butt of the joke.

Now maybe from your perspective, it’s just one person saying a joke. Look at the context, you might say. It’s a distasteful joke but no big deal, right? And I could agree with that if it was just some off-color joke limited to a single individual. Unfortunately, and I think we can both agree on this, the use of “retard” to mean “stupid” is a relatively common occurrence in American vernacular. You couple that with the stigma against mental illness and mental disability and I think it becomes fairly plain to see that on the macroscopic level (i.e. society) we have a problem: a group that is socially disadvantaged and historically discriminated against is even further marginalized by the language people use in their everyday lives. Now, if you don’t agree this is a problem, I’m afraid the conversation has to end here since the logical conclusion of such a stance is that people should be free to say whatever they want and be immune to criticism, damn the consequences.

But if you do agree it is a problem, how are we going to solve it? My take on the situation is that doing absolutely nothing when witnessing a situation like the one I've described is unlikely to improve society in any way. The status quo will be maintained if people are not confronted about their language use.

That being said, people often say things without fully comprehending the implications of what they are saying. They often talk the way they were raised and never once questioned whether what they were saying was actually harmful or not. I don’t think people should be pilloried for that, but in the event that they are unaware of how they are contributing to the discrimination and oppression of others they certainly need to be educated.

This necessarily entails confrontation, although that confrontation might be very low key. Continuing the example above, I think a good way for the woman in the example to “enlighten” me about my misguided use of the word “retard” would be something along the lines of this:

“Excuse me. I really wish you wouldn’t equate having a mental handicap with stupidity. My nephew has Down Syndrome and even though, yes, he can’t do everything that a person without an intellectual handicap can do he is most certainly not stupid.”

Now, all of that said, I see nothing wrong with publicly shaming those who clearly understand the implications of what they are saying and out of either stubbornness, a need for attention, or actual spite willfully continue to use language that is degrading or oppressive. A white person frequently using the N-word in public to describe black people, for instance, is a situation where I’d be completely fine with them getting verbally eviscerated. We don't always have to be polite, even when being politically correct.

As a final note, I want to make it clear that I believe in free speech in the sense that everyone should be free to say whatever they wish. However, as a caveat to that I also believe that free speech comes with the responsibility that people must own everything they say. If someone wishes to use offensive, degrading, or oppressive language that is their choice. Free speech in no way gives them a free pass from criticism of that choice, however.

I look at it in a simple way: words having meanings; people have motivations. A conversation has a context, and in your example the passerby isn't aware of that context. If she chooses to eavesdrop and feels offended, well, while I do feel sorry for her...it's really not any of her business what you and your brother are conversing about. You might as well turn to her, give her a once-over and criticize her choice of pantsuit. She doesn't know you; she didn't ask for your opinion; and your retort probably made her upset.

Should people try to be aware of their surroundings and try not to say inappropriate things? Of course, but that's just common courtesy...like not commenting on a funky smell at a funeral visitation. Political correctness is fine if we all agree, but we usually don't. And therefore we get people who virtue signal over others because they refuse to kowtow to the newest linguistic fashion.

Now, I'm a fairly polite guy. I hold open doors, give up my seat, offer to carry heavy packages, smile, wave and nod greetings to many strangers, etc. Yet I still occasionally get someone who disagrees with my legitimate use of a term (as I understand its meaning). Generally, I still apologize...but I don't then re-evaluate my language ability. I'm not willing to let the connotations of words take on new, questionable-yet-popular meanings.

I've had a Native American friend laugh at me for asking what he preferred I say: redskin, indian, aboriginal, first people, etc. I've also asked a "retarded" person if they preferred if I said "intellectually challenged." He preferred retarded because...wait for it...he had a lot of trouble saying the other one. Now that's irony.

I think my heart's in the right place. I was taught to be polite, and I try to be at all times. But it gets under my skin to have a total stranger "chastise" me when they know nothing about me. Frankly, I find it more offensive to interrupt and belittle a stranger than it is to overhear some stranger's questionable utterance.

@Diogenes

I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying. Why should a reasonable person be pissed off at a third party calling out offensive language use? To use a hypothetical:

I jokingly call my brother a "retard" because he locks his keys in the car. We grew up in the 80s, so this this pejorative is something we are comfortable with and feel no inhibitions about using. My brother laughs it off.

Now let's assume this happens in a parking lot as we're standing outside my brother's car and a woman passing by overhears my comment and chastises me for equating stupid actions with people who have mental disabilities.

Should reasonable bystanders watching all this be pissed off, since my comment wasn't directed at the woman? On the one hand, my brother and I weren't offended by the use of the word "retard" to mean stupid. On the other hand, our very usage of the word "retard" in that particular way promotes and sustains a culture that already heavily looks down on mental illness and mental disabilities.

I'm genuinely curious about your answer to this. If I'm reading your comment correctly, the primary negative of PC language that you see is that some people feel smug when they call out other people on their language usage. But does the fact that some people are smug about it make them wrong in pointing out the offender?

Incoherent to you maybe. Rambling no (my comments should roughly match up line for line as replies to your text - I didn't use quotes). Struck a nerve? No. But it looks like you've got a lot to say for someone who doesn't care for religion.

Almost nobody can remember all they read. This is not a unique claim. I'm guessing you aren't familiar with more than one major denomination - so don't speak on behalf of the others. You're pretty hung up on me needing to have remembered this thing in particular? Sorry but I didn't know this - that's why I asked (ffs). In this regard you're weak at being compassionate. I'm sorry, what is it you think I'm defending? My words? They don't need defence mate. They stand on their own.

I'd have to have some bullshit to quit it. I didn't try to shut down @newtboy (pointing out a truth of his own admission is not shutting him down - got that Mr. Reason?) and I certainly haven't been shut down myself (surprise motherfucker - I'm right here). That you can't understand the fairly straight forward last post shows a lot about you.

"To answer in all seriousness your subsequent questions:"

You missed several questions. Four in fact. I expected as much.

"The back bone of my religion" You're at it again. The retard is strong in you.

I'm not explaining away God's omnipotence. I'm making a fairly straight argument that he's not omnipotent (as in all powerful). I've used the straight forward translation of the word (the simplest argument is that omnipotent also means greatly (not all)) powerful and the refutation of your defence that he is in fact all powerful. This isn't some apologist thing, or defence of some fucked up part of the bible. I'm taking what you believe is a fundamental part of Christianity and attempting to take it down a notch. Hey, why do you think that is? (come on, say the opposite of the obvious, do it, show me how retarded you can be)

It's only a house of cards if you're not willing to give it even the slightest credence (which with your rabid atheism is unfortunately self-admittedly true). That's a great pity. Thousands of years of human culture dismissed in an instant because you're too headstrong (or butt-hurt) to give it a second thought. So much for reason.

Maybe you're not familiar with the 20th century and the clusterfuck of death that surrounded governmental experimentation (of which rejection of religion was a fundamental tenet). Look, I'm happy for you to attempt a no government society where your reason and compassion will lead everyone into quiet nirvana. But you'll be one of the first to be taken advantage of by some cold ruthless cunt who doesn't possess those abilities.

No, I seriously doubt you wish me the best. Your tirade against me demonstrates that. Hopefully you'll realise soon that you're not an Übermensch. And almost everything you now know is wrong (I sincerely hope you know that - it's a fundamental scientific tenet that we are always getting closer to the truth - wiping away the untruths we know - and yes there is research on this).

I do thank you for at least attempting to overcome your own obvious cognitive dissonance in sincerely wishing me peace at the end. It reminds me so much of people who claim to have a religion of peace after their brothers blow some people up. Lol.

Next up. SDGundamX with what he's sure will this time be the final blow as all bow before him with his unassailable reason and compassion that nobody else can possibly challenge.

Bye for a while. I've literally got work now and won't be back for about 28 days. I will be back though. Talk then.

My biggest complaints about Covenant:

1. David killed ALL the engineers? How? Why would that be the only city on that planet? Makes no sense though I guess it can be implied that all life was *eventually* killed by the black spores.

2. The chestbuster morphing into a mini-xenomorph so quickly was retarded and looked so out of place. Also the gestation period was ridiculously fast.

3. No hazard/bio-suits when landing on an unknown planet with almost your entire bridge/command crew? Come on...

4. The stupid back/throat-bursters. I almost laughed when the first back-burster was revealed. Why even introduce them at all? More time could have been spent with David getting someone impregnated by a facehugger.

5. The whole premise of Alien is that no one really knows what the hell it is or where it came from. That mystery and uncertainty lends more weight to the terror of the xenomorph. Why do movies always have to try and explain every detail - leaving it up to the viewer's imagination can be so much more effective (e.g. see explanation of "The Force"...f.u. George Lucas lol...)

6. David creating the xenomorphs just doesn't make sense either. Why would he create something that requires a host when there is no life remaining on the planet and he couldn't have known that a ship would arrive carrying people to impregnate?

7. Having the xenos walk around in bright lighting doesn't make them appear very menacing. Alien and Aliens were all about claustrophobic environments, dim lighting, and surprise attacks.

8. Yes, let's do exactly what the clearly scheming android told us to do and walk right up to that slimy egg that just opened. You would think that these people should be smart, right? They are the custodians of over 1000 colonists, starship pilots, and scientists and clearly hold high ranking positions yet frequently make some of the WORST choices possible. Ripley might have just been a lieutenant of a simple cargo hauler but the idiots of the Covenant make her look like a genius.