I think choosing who you want to make sweet love to is the one area where it's completely fine to discriminate in whatever way you want. Having a sexual orientation isn't sexism, not dating the elderly isn't ageism. Even more shallow things like preferring certain body types or certain races is fine, because the alternative is to lie about what attracts you, which is not actually a kind thing to do.

What really pisses me off is guys who somehow feel entitled to dates from women who aren't interested. Just find someone you're compatible with, there is no "correcting" people's sexual preferences.

As for the better point of women being hypocritical because they don't want to be judged on their weight, I think they're smart enough to know that happens, but it does seem crass to ask for exact measurements. The main difference is women believe most men don't mind being asked their height, and men know most women do mind being asked their weight.

So men, own up to your height insecurity whenever possible so that women will be more sensitive in the future.
( Γ˚Д˚)Γ

First impression is this looks shallow and outdated compared to say Overwatch.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video My Bloody Valentine - "Only Shallow". Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

No, I get it, I understand what humour is.

but I didn't laugh. I might have like, smiled a bit, I guess, but I didn't laugh. I'm not gonna say it was 1 or 2 or however dimensions is deemed shallow (i'm guessing the 3rd dimension is depth, so max 2?), but maybe one of those dimensions didn't sit so well with me.

Anyway. I prolly shouldn't have said anything. I basically agree with him, I was just out-loud analysing why I didn't find it funny, and that likely says more about my taste than his performance.

*Warning I've only gone and done yet another wall of text again! This may or may not get read by anyone on here (good god I wouldn't blame anyone for skipping it), but at the very least it's formed the backbone to a video script so it's not a complete waste of my time! (he tells himself)*

This is as much @bareboards2 as yourself, but he already made it clear he wasn't willing to engage on the issue, so you're getting it instead MWAHAHAHHAHA! *coughs*

I don't wish this to come across as over condescending (though I'm sure it will none the less as I'm in one of those moods). But pretty much every (successful) comedy premise operates on the same underlying principle of irony. i.e. there is an expectation or understanding, which is deliberately subverted, and what results is comedy.

In this case, amongst other things we have the understood premises that:
A. rape is a bad, often horrific thing.
B. that there is an established social taboo about praising such behaviour.
C. that there is a section of society inherently opposed to making light of things of which they do not approve (or in a way in which they do not approve)
D. most words and phrases have an expected association and meaning.

What Jim Jefferies (an accomplished and well respected comedies amongst his peers) has done here, is take these commonly understood premises and subverted the audiences normal expectations in order to evoke a sense of irony, from which the audience derives humour and amusement.

A simple joke might take a single such premise and perform a single inversion of our expectation. e.g. my dog has no nose, how does he smell?....terrible!

By subverting our assumed meaning (that the missing nose refers to the dogs implied lack of olfactory senses), the joke creates basic irony by substituting this expected meaning for that of the odour of the dog itself.

This is of course a terrible joke, because it is as simple as a joke could be. It has only one layer of irony and lacks any sense of novelty which, might tip such a terrible joke into working for any other than the very young or simple minded.

We could of course attempt to boost this joke by adding more levels of irony contextually. e.g. a very serious or complex comedian Like say Stuart Lee, could perhaps deliver this joke in a routine and get a laugh by being completely incongruous with his style and past material.

And herein we see the building blocks from which any sophisticated professional comedy routine is built. By layering several different strands or ironic subversion, a good comedian can begin to make a routine more complex and often more than just the sum of its parts to boot.

In this case, Jim is taking the four main premises listed above, layering them and trying to find the sweetest spot of subverted expectation for each. (something which usually takes a great deal of skill and experience at this level)

He mentions the fact that his jokes incite outrage in a certain section of society because this helps to strengthen one of the strands of irony with which he is playing. The fact that he also does so in a boastful tone is itself a subversion, it is understood by the audience that he does not/should not be proud of being merely offensive and as such we have yet another strand of irony thrown into the mix.

You know how better music tends to have more and/or more complex musical things happening at once? It is the same with comedy. The more ironic threads a comedian can juggle around coherently, the more sophisticated and adept their routines could be considered to be.

Naturally as with music there's no accounting for taste as you say. Some people simply can't get past a style or associations of a given musician or song (or painting or whatever).

But dammit Jim is really one of the greats right now. Like him or lump him, the dude is pretty (deceptively) masterful at his craft.

There are at least 4-5 major threads of irony built into this bit and countless other smaller ones besides. He dances around and weaves between them like some sort of comedy ballerina. Every beat has been finely tuned over months of gig's (and years of previous material) to strike the strongest harmonies between these strands and probe for the strongest sense of dissonance in the audience. Not to mention, tone of voice, stance, timing etc.

I think Ahmed is basically terrible too, but it is because the jokes lack much semblance of complexity or nuance. Jeff Dunham's material in general feels extremely simple and seems like it uses shock as a mere crutch, rather than something deeper and more intelligent.

Taste is taste, but I feel one can to a reasonable extent criticise things like the films of Michael Bay, or the music of Justin Beiber for being objectively shallow by breaking down their material into its constituent parts (or lack thereof).

Likewise one could take the music of Wagner and while not enjoying the sound of it, still examine the complexity of it's composition and the clear superiority of skill Wagner had over most of this peers.

I guess what all this boils down to is, Jim seems to me to be clearly very very good at what he does (as he ought after all these years). Reducing his act to mere controversy feels a lot like accusing Black Sabbath of just making noise and using satanic imagery to get attention (or insert other less out of date example here).

The jokes were never at the expense of victims, they are at the expense of our expectations. He makes his own true feelings on the matter abundantly clear towards the end of the section.

As as he says himself his job is to say funny things, not to be a social activist.

I take no issue with you not liking it, but I do take issue with the suggestion that it is somehow two dimensional, or for that matter using controversy cheaply.

Offensive initial premises are some of the most ironically rich in comedy. It's like deliberately choosing the brightest paints when trying to create a striking painting. Why would you avoid the strongest materials because some people (not in your audience) find the contrast too striking?

Eh, much love anyway. This was more an exercise in intellectual masturbation than anything else. Not that I didn't mean all of it sincerely.

Twice what my family eats...but yes, a small subsistence farm could also be called a garden, just as my orchard of 30+ apple trees could be called a back yard. That doesn't make it produce any less.

Not true. Some, (very few) still grow grain using old school methods, some even using old school grains (thank goodness, we will have them to thank for still having grains when/if the Monsanto grains fail). It's not even 99%, but it is 'most'.

Industrial farming describes a methodology, not a size, not an incorporation. The fact that a single person or two might farm thousands of acres means they are using the same industrial methods, because non industrial farming takes more people.

Clearly, natural farming takes more effort, and costs the consumer more, but does not require major ecological mitigation, so if you count ALL costs involved, it's not that much more expensive. You act like it's impossible, but it's how ALL farms operated prior to the mid century. If it wouldn't scale, please explain how it worked for thousands of years before industrial agriculture started, or how it continues to work in other countries.

It may not work for WEAK shallow root grain crops that can't compete for water and nutrients, like the one's Monsanto sells. It worked fine for thousands of years with more natural, long root crops that also held the soil together.

I didn't hear that in the video, but fine. Don't just repeat known BS and lies then. Roundup is only a pesticide in that it allows GMO crops that have modified genes to be pesticides themselves to grow without competition....and that doesn't count, and I think you know it.

No, I'm not trying to say the video is perfectly honest, it's clearly highly biased...I didn't say that. They do HINT that Monsanto's actions are "evil", but extrapolating and exaggerating from their already somewhat overboard, clearly biased but careful statements to make them insanely more overboard and biased is not helpful to anyone.

You mean this characterization..."You know, on account of them being evil and wanting to see millions of people dead because it gives their corporate heads joy. Just like it wanted to invent pesticides as a means of convincing the public to poison each other for giggles, and getting the state department to experiment on people."
Um...yeah....that's completely insane. I already explained why it's wrong in so many ways, and defy you to show where they said anything resembling that. You have to listen with quite a biased ear to hear that in between the lines of what they actually said, and one must be incredibly, clinically paranoid to believe any public company does things just to be evil rather than purely for profit. The evil they do is an accepted result of their business methods, not the intent of their business, and I think the video was fairly clear about that.

You may stand by that, as I stand by my summation of your comment...that it's insane and exaggerated hyperbole that ridicules an extreme paranoid stance no one actually took.

He has already established himself like few can do. I know this clip was edited for humor but to me the concept that is the Academy Awards is so shallow and arbitrary and fleeting that I can't imagine him feeling slighted. At his level it would be like feeling bad because he lost that coupon for a free car wash. But I'm not him.

Then again I did take a leak once in the restroom at the Shrine Auditorium and sensed some real Hollywood magic flowing through the plumbing, maybe there is something to it.

Pretty sift worthy.
I really couldn't believe it was going to happen that shallow. But bam there he was.

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.

Consider me odd but I'd rather hang with a woman with a pretty face than one with pretty tits. I'm shallow like that.
I certainly wouldn't like that nightmarish swap.

It's funny because although these are styles the fashion houses dictate, the people in general don't support the majority of them.

In addition tho that, most men have they're own preferences, and dictated body types don't always factor into men's tastes. Sure, they'll ogle what ever is presented, (they're men after all,) but only the really shallow of men choose their long time partners based on these flimsy ideals.

Yes, true that many people don't consider ex-convicts' plight, and this is sad, but if we so choose to think deeper than just the surface issue it's not philosophy from him, rather philosophy from us.

This video is a documentary of what has changed in society that might make people think about his/her needs upon egress from jail/prison (Unlikely since people are often shallow and stupid.) Is it nice to watch, and then apply our own reflections to the content? Absolutely. That's why I upvoted the video (After careful considerations.)

"The reason behind the phenomena isn’t very mystical. The movement is actually caused by root systems just barely underneath the soil. When a tree sways in high wind, it also moves the land around it."

“As I entered a patch of trees spared from clear cutting, I noticed the ground moving,” Brian Nuttall, who uploaded the video, wrote in a Facebook post. “I believe the larger trees are doomed to blow down but are currently spared, the smaller trees around them help hold each other up, as the wind pushes the trees into one another.”
http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2015/11/11/video-creepy-video-forest-floor-breathing/

From what ive found on the internets, seems the woods had been clear cut up to these trees, and without their protection, the winds, wreak havoc, uplifting the root system which grew more shallow, as (i assume)they never had to anchor themselves any deeper. Anyway thats what i took from the few things i could find on this video. Would love to hear anything else others might know about this.

From the video description :

"Disclaimer: These are not the actual responses of the athletes featured in these clips. These are comments or questions asked of female athletes that we’ve adapted to fit these news clips, in order to show how ridiculous it is that female athletes are asked these questions."

I'm confused. It really would have been nice to put the disclaimer stating this pretty important distinction in the video BEFORE it started.

I'm honestly trying to understand the point being made via the selective editing and not actually showing real world like-for-like comparisons. It muddles the message for those who do recognize that and almost lies by omission to those who don't.

Is this hashtag movement honestly trying to suggest that male athletes (especially those who embody some of the more rock-star aspects of professional athletic stardom, which is after all an entertainment industry first and foremost) don't get asked inappropriate, shallow, or prurient questions all the fricking time?

The ominous music is telling me I should be concerned though, so I'll just go with it and not ask questions.

That looks reallllly shallow in front of those waves...