TYT: Newark's Turkish-Armenian eternally banal poly-social-commentary hootenanny, found in the flame warrior's corner of Videosift...

(sixshot, we can't watch 10 seconds of Smugly Doright and his sister Canna Consternia ~ "Please make it stop!??")

Who gives a fiddler's fuck how many throw-back, redneck fucks there are in the U.S. OR nosy dipshits with their fucking iphones looking for them to shit themselves so they can rush home to upload the retarded garbage to YouTube?? Obviously too many fellow sifters, or these cretins would have moved on from inane editorializing to real fucking news fit to report...

You really haven't been paying attention if you think I'm not open to the idea of a god @shinyblurry. The very fact that I'm arguing I don't know, directly implies that I'm an agnostic, not an atheist.

I've seen that you have an openness to the idea, but you're also quick to take an adversarial position. Are you truly open to who God is? Are you okay with the idea of a God so long as it isn't Jesus?

I can also say that as a former agnostic, I understand where you're coming from.

There could be a god. But 1) there has to be proof of the it's existence

Logically, if there is a God, the entire Universe is proof of His existence. I don't know about you, but personally I find the idea of Universes spontaneously creating themselves to be an absurdity.

Imagine a painting with three black lines on it. You could come to all sorts of conclusions about what that is supposed to represent. You could draw philosophical ideas from it. You could see it as a social commentary, or a mathematical representation. You could measure it, sample the paint and paper, run many different tests. You could count the number of brushstrokes. You could do all of this and more, subject it to every sort of empirical inquiry, and you would be no closer to finding about the intention of the painter than you were when you started.

The only way you are going to see the signature of the Creator is if you realize you are looking at His Creation. The evidence is *everywhere*. Neither is poking and prodding it and subjecting it to tests going to tell you anything about what He intended. This is the only real question.

and 2) Religion and god are two separate things, just because a creator exists doesn't give any more credibility to religion.

I agree, and I've made this point to atheists in the past, mainly when I believed that no religion was the correct one. If you consider that everything is equally unlikely, then you are looking at 50/50 odds for special creation versus naturalistic means.

There are many many religions out there. Assuming one is right, that means many are wrong More than likely, all are wrong.

Why is it more likely that all are wrong rather than one being right? The question is, has God revealed Himself to the world, or not. If not, then all are wrong. If so, then one is right.

In all likelihood, odds are better that a creator would be more like Cthulhu then some caucasian, gun loving republican. You claim god made us in his image, when in reality, it's far more likely that you made god in our image.

The stereotype you are presenting does not represent anything Christians believe. Maybe some Christians act that way, but that isn't what scripture says about God. It says that as the Heavens are higher than the Earth, so are His ways above our ways.

If we were created, humans are the Creators crowning achievement. The "odds" are better that He made us like Him.

The simple truth though is that god is academic. Either he's always been here and it's all part of some ridiculously elaborate pre-destination plan so it doesn't matter what we do as it's all part of the plan, or he doesn't care, or he does, but he doesn't intervene. In each of those cases. The alleged fact of a creator's existence does not affect our lives, at least not any way we're aware of. Nor does a creator suddenly make any of the religions right or true.

Or, it does matter what we do, because God does intervene in His creation, and He has given us a standard of behavior which He is going to judge us by. The existence of God does not make any of the religions true, but it is positive evidence that one of them is true.

Or god doesn't exist and never has. Again...nothing changes. religion still exists in spite of this, they still get together and do their thing and that's fine. Religion is not inherently bad, it's what you DO with religion that is hurtful or helpful. Even if you removed religion from humanity forever. Humanity still has a ton of other things that we do that are part of our lives that have no rational basis in fact but we do it anyway. That's fine...it's part of what makes us human.

Man corrupts everything he touches because our nature is inherently sinful. Man can use anything as an excuse to do evil.

The dilemma is not for me to believe, the dilemma is for you and/or your god to prove why I should believe. Especially if you want public policy to be influenced. When public policy is not involved, you have the same freedoms everyone else does. And you can't use the bible to prove you're right. You do know what circular reasoning is and that' it's a fallacy right? You quoting the bible does absolutely nothing other than to show you don't really understand what reasoning and logic is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Except there is evidence in the bible which proves the bible is Gods word, such as the fulfilled prophecy. It may not prove that I am right, to you, but the evidence has convinced over 1/3 of the worlds population. That isn't even the question, in any case. I'm not trying to prove I am right to you. I don't believe there is anything I can do to ever convince you that God exists, or that His name is Jesus Christ. That's the work of the Holy Spirit.

That is what I was explaining to you earlier. It's not an evidence problem, it's a heart problem. God has already given you sufficient evidence to know that He is, and who He is. Only God can change your heart. What He charged me with is to tell you the gospel and give you an answer for the faith that I have.

Religion wants to say they're right and everyone else is wrong. That's nice. A lot of people think they're right and everyone else is wrong. I think I'm right and my supervisor is wrong. The onus is on me to show why I'm right.

I'm glad you've found happiness in your religion. I've found happiness in the way I live which does not require a god or a religion. Who is right? Maybe none of us are right. Maybe we both are right. The lesson is just simply that there are many ways to happiness. There is no single way. Your happiness is not better than my happiness and vice versa. Your happiness does not get to infringe on my happiness and vice versa. This is how we live and get along in the great melting pot. You don't get dominion. you never will. History is quite clear on what happens when a group of people come along and say, live our way..or else. Believe in the same things we believe...or else.

Christians are not called to have dominion. I will of course strongly disagree with immoral laws, but people have the right to govern themselves as they wish. Although this is still a strongly Christian nation, we have a strong secular influence in our government. I accept that as being the reality.

your happiness does not get to trump someone else's happiness. If you let people steal and kill you have a lot of unhappy, and dead people. That's not sustainable and you can't really survive that way. Again, simple morality that does not require a creator. Next question?


You said that it isn't sustainable yet if you look at history you will see that stealing and killing is what we have been doing all along. The point is this..Let's say that the Nazis won the war and conquered the world. Eventually, they won everyone over to their philosophy, and now there is peace on the Earth. The glue that holds everything together is that once a year, they torture a jewish baby to death on camera, which brings great happiness and unity to the entire world. One year the baby died before they could torture it, and there were riots and many, many people were killed. Is it therefore moral to torture that baby to death, since it brings peace and happiness to the entire world?

>> ^VoodooV

Thankfully the VAST majority of hip hop here (in my country) hasn't been infected with that stupid misogynist bullshit. Here hip hop and rap is still mainly what it was supposed to be, about social commentary and someone's dreams growing up in a shitty place. I mean... they'll sometimes rap about women and such, but it's usually in a much more respecful way, calling them dames and what not.

Social commentary with redeeming artistic value.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Such rich and ironic social commentary. They reject the violence of modern western culture, yet at the same time freely clothe themselves in the brands, designer labels and consumerism of their oppressors. They defy culture, whilst at the same time conforming to commercialized media standards of fashion and behavior. Such is the contradiction of being an activist hamster in contemporary American culture.


If its good enough for Japan its good enough for Hamsters.

Such rich and ironic social commentary. They reject the violence of modern western culture, yet at the same time freely clothe themselves in the brands, designer labels and consumerism of their oppressors. They defy culture, whilst at the same time conforming to commercialized media standards of fashion and behavior. Such is the contradiction of being an activist hamster in contemporary American culture.

first Matt Damon hits the nail on the head when addressing the problems of Sarah Pailin, now he completely destroys these libertarian ideologues while supporting teachers at the same time, Bravo Matt your are sorely needed for more social commentary.

You know what that tells me that I wouldn't make that joke at work? Because people I don't know may hear it, and telling jokes is not part of my job, since I'm an IT professional. This really isn't a hard concept to follow. You know what else I don't do at work? Talk about religion for the EXACT SAME REASON! But by your logic, I should never talk about religion to anyone, because someone might get offended! I don't talk politics at work because once again, it's not related to my job, and many people misinterpret things. Again, this is completely unacceptable in any other social setting? OF COURSE NOT! There are times and places for jokes, politics, and religion. Work generally isn't one of them.

It's not racism wrapped in a joke. Period. Definition of racist:

1. the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by *hereditary factors* and that this endows some races with an *intrinsic superiority* over others
2. abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief

My joke was that society tends to unfairly assume blacks commit wrongdoing just because they're black. Does that imply distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors? No. Does it say one race is super to others because of hereditary factors? No.

It's not racist. It is a social critique of inherent racism in society, mainly of people who are racist by assuming "the black guy did it" because he's black.

FYI, there are plenty of things I could say that aren't racist that are inappropriate for work. At work, you are to avoid doing or saying anything unrelated to your job that unnecessarily inhibits productivity. I really don't understand how you're having a hard time grasping this. It would be inappropriate to come to work wearing a clown wig in my job. Is that racist? NO! Is it wrong to wear clown wigs generally speaking? NO! You're being ridiculous.

HR departments exist to promote productive workplaces, period. Their gripe would be that I made a joke that could have been interpreted as racist, even though it wasn't. Sorting out whether it was racist or not is a waste of company time.

In summary, you're being ridiculous if you think all those comedians and I are racists for telling a joke that is social commentary speaking out against racism.

On to Bachmann...



You lose. She recounted her husband saying, "Now you need to go and get a post-doctorate degree in tax law." You're wrong, period, end of story. There's no "maybe" in that. He said "you need to", and she did it. According to her own words, her husband told her to do this, and she did it because the bible says "wives must be submissive to their husbands." Don't try to weasel your way out of this. That's a sexist view, period. Maher didn't mischaracterize her here in the slightest. He called out what he considers an idiotic stance that is sexist in nature. And he's right, it is sexist. Does he call her a bunch of names? Sure, but understand this - he never once implied that Bachmann or Palin are stupid or anything else BECAUSE they are women. They're stupid because they say stuff like, "I got a post-doctorate degree in law because my husband told me to, and after all, that's what the Bible says!" And guess what that means? His rant wasn't sexist. Biased? Rude? Sure. But let's call it what it was.

Calling both of them bimbos isn't sexist. He's stating they're both females who lack intelligence. He never implied all women are dumb, or dumber than men, or anything of the sort. Ditto every other joke he made, save the poll dancing, which was implying that's all she was capable intellectually of doing (not women generally), or he was being absurd juxtaposing an extreme conservative with pole dancing as a hobby, or perhaps pointing out that those so bent on "traditional values" are often the ones who commit acts that violate them repeatedly (see several high profile conservative leaders being busted for sexual harassment, homosexual encounters illegally in public places, etc). Not sure which of those, but it never suggested women are dumb because they're women. Unless of course, you're a conservative intentionally trying to misinterpret him, which in that case, kudos!

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I'm smart enough to know I'd never make a joke like that at work.
That should tell you something about it, should it not? If you wouldn't dare tell such a joke at work, why is the implied racism suddenly OK elsewhere? Racism and prejudice are not solitaire, or economic theory. They are cultural poison.
There's an entire section of culture that has been positive in this regard, and you don't see this?!
As I said - I see it. I just do not accept it as valid. I do not consider racism "OK" just because someone is being a racist while winking slyly. I do not accept prejudice as less vicious just because someone wraps it in a joke, or song, or some other form of entertainment. In fact, I think that sort of racism is (if anything) more subtle and therefore more pernicious and harmful. To me cloaking prejudice in entertainment is a cheap dodge, and I consider those who do it to be cowards of the lowest order.
It's therefore NOT RACIST!
And yet you admit you would not dare do it at work, even among your friends. Something "not racist" would be safe at work. The only difference is that at work there is an HR department that can punish you. Therefore you admit your comment IS racist, and your HR department would FIND it racist. But at home since there is no HR department around to punish your private conversations so it's all OK, ha ha ha aren't race jokes funny?
You've never heard of a christian husband telling their wife to do something and then she did it simply because he told her to? Uhhhh, Michelle Bachmann is on record saying that her husband told her to become a tax lawyer, and she did it simply because he told her to.
That's pure Bill Maher (I.E. BS). Bachmans said "the Lord" guided her to get a legal education, and her husband said "maybe you should go into tax law". Bachman has said that she was guided by her religious faith, and all her husband ever did was encourage her to follow her promptings. Her huband did not spank her, sit her down, and "order" her to be a tax lawyer, woman.
So according to Maher, a husband supporting his wife and encouraging her to follow her spiritual impressions is "sexist"? Really? As "sexist" as these wonderful gems?
"Michele Bachman's husband commanded her to become a tax lawyer? Guess she had already mastered pole dancing."
"Sarah Palin... Speaking of dumb tw&ts... (roar of audience laughter)"
"Bachmann, along with former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin would make two bimbos and then there’s Mitt Romney, a millionaire, Newt Gingrich, a professor. We just need a Skipper and a buddy and we got Gilligan’s Island."
And on and on. Oh - but it's 'funny', so that makes it OK, doesn't it?

So, the guy installed his own software on other people's computers, used it to spy on them and their customers and broadcast the video of these people using those same computers.

So because he calls it art or social commentary, does that suddenly mean he hasn't violated multiple laws?

They even make tongue in cheek pokes at their own formula. House almost always has an epiphany moment, they have a close shot on his face and you see his expression change to eureka. A couple of times other characters have commented on it.

>> ^kasinator:

>> ^RFlagg:
I haven't watched since the first or second episode of whichever season he got out of the mental hospital. I got tired of the make wrong diagnoses 3 or 4 times then solve it formula. But a few clips of late have been making me think I should watch again.

Watching house for the mysteries is like watching The Dukes of Hazard for the plot. House is more about social commentary than medical drama. It's about how people deal with their pain weather physical, or emotional, one way or another. The whole undertone theme of House (other than "everyone lies") is pain as a whole is unavoidable. It governs our lives in every aspect of life, and even house, a man whose job is to pretty much make the pain go away has no way to avoid pain any more than anyone else. Everyone faces pain, and everyone lies. That is what House is about.

>> ^RFlagg:

I haven't watched since the first or second episode of whichever season he got out of the mental hospital. I got tired of the make wrong diagnoses 3 or 4 times then solve it formula. But a few clips of late have been making me think I should watch again.


Watching house for the mysteries is like watching The Dukes of Hazard for the plot. House is more about social commentary than medical drama. It's about how people deal with their pain weather physical, or emotional, one way or another. The whole undertone theme of House (other than "everyone lies") is pain as a whole is unavoidable. It governs our lives in every aspect of life, and even house, a man whose job is to pretty much make the pain go away has no way to avoid pain any more than anyone else. Everyone faces pain, and everyone lies. That is what House is about.

>> ^rottenseed:

Who the fuck is this broad speaking on behalf of? Every fucking woman I know has a reasonable expectation for her own body. Sure they might be unhappy about this or that, but nothing that makes me think that there's this fucking epidemic of depressed anorexic, bulimic women walking around and wishing they looked like the models in the ads.
Yea we get it, ads are ridiculous.


I know this is contrary to the comment I just posted, in a way, but I agree with you. I would think the issues would be more pronounced in an LA/NY type of environment though. Areas that are constantly under the scrutiny of social commentary, as it were.

Its an absurd-ist parody mocking the typical way that "expert" commentators with conflicting opinions are chosen to present the pros and cons on political news shows, and never agree on any point by the end (think Bill O'Reilly). In this show they've kept the aggression, but highlight how they are in total agreement on one-another's remarks; the absurdity of this acts as social commentary on how odd the real news shows are (and what attracts viewer-ship to one news show over another).



>> ^marinara:

sorry dont get the joke and downvote