Mr. Oliver is by far my favorite [wish I could afford HBO!]. I find Seth to be on the snarky side in his delivery ... which is something that has always tickled my fancy for some unknown reason. [my mean streak is showing]

You're correct about the jokes writing themselves. There's been more than a few times I've had an obscure retort pop into my head after seeing something on the news. I'll even repeat it to a few close friends and, sure as shootin', it appears in a monologue or in some discussion within a day or two. Blows me away every time. Well, sigh, at least I can laugh again ... most days

Mr. Whiskers, it's time to up your game: they send one of yours to the hospital, you send one of theirs to the morgue!

Whatcher gonna do is sneak into Hipster McFuck-Face's room when he's lying on his back, sound asleep. Then you're ever so gently going to lay a deuce right along the gap between his upper lips and his nose. After that, you're going to tickle his nostril with your whisker so that he reaches up to rub his nose with the back of his hand . . . and he learns a valuable lesson in why you don't fuck with cats.

"Vengeance is thine," sayth the Cat God. And then he licked himself and had some Friskies.

Jesus, why would you open your doors to a mob? You've got to meter that shit and shut it down if people can't be respectful. I'm pretty sure the last couple of years haven't been this bad. Not like the dark days of Tickle Me Elmo.

My interpretation was wrong, and your right about pointing out truths or untruths. It is something I will have to remind myself. I apologize for not understanding, and thank you for your response.

I asked about your posting because I was interested in, well, lack of a better way to say it, tickles your fancy. I've learned some interesting new things from your comments, even looking up a word or two, so I imagine your posts would be the same.

I agree with your last paragraph as well. Discussion is positive, something I enjoy. I like to see and understand a persons point of view, it's how I learn so much. I think I can't quite read the tone of some comments, and it is something I am working on, to ask more questions than jump to conclusions. I couldn't agree with your last sentance more.

In my mind I imagine you to be a writer, journalist, or maybe even a college professor. It is silly, I know, but I like how you turn a phrase. I also know I need to ask more questions to gain understanding, instead of doing it all wrong by assuming. Thanks for answering me Harlequinn, and I hope to run into you again on a comment thread soon! Have a great rest of the day.:)

I'm tickled that she test fired it into the ground.

*promote

Yeah... but it tickled me, and I couldn't wait another 9 months.

I want to watch Lemmy's show now.

I've never understood the fascination with people wanting to watch other people act more ignorant than normal (all of reality TV), but there's something different about the tone in this that just kills me. I feel like it's the same philosophy as reality TV, but something about that presentation, the subject and patient, sad, lack of mockery and silent sympathy that accompanies Lemmy's confusion that ropes me in. Too tickled not to say something positive about that.

That's a *woman*! Rock on, sister!

Crazy about the arm snap. I'd never arm wrestle again after that. You could hear it in the video (though I couldn't spot where it broke).

edit- Also, I'm super tickled that it's matriarchal thing for them. Fucking awesome.

no mistaken assumption my friend.
just looking at the bigger picture is all.

was the "company" really disgusted by this mans behavior?
or were they performing damage control?
i suspect the latter.

which is why i brought up the PC police and the inherent dangers within.i even referenced a case in canada which had gone too far.(in my opinion).

does the company have a right to fire him? short answer? yes.
but nobody is asking about this mans rights,and if they are honest with themselves it is because he is a grotesque example of a human being.

so you try to further your point by doing a thought experiment,and i hate thought experiments,but ok..lets play:
what if he was advocating the legalization of sex with prepubescent children?

ah my friend.
this is easy.
the answer is arrest and convict.
but why you may ask?

here is where i think you may be misunderstanding my argument and your thought experiment reveals this quite plainly.

to YOU.this example of child sex and our racist turdnugget here are the same.

they are not.

because advocating to legalize child sex is an "intent to harm".the adovcating will result in actual harm of actual children.see:child pornography.

while turdnugget here has actually harmed no one.
nobody was actually harmed.
maybe disgusted.
maybe a feeling or two.

lets try another thought experiment.
what if this man was filmed not being an ugly racist but rather smoking weed with some buddies.

should he be fired?

another one:what if he is filmed at a sanders rally (unlikely) and the president of the company is a die-hard trump supporter?

should he be fired?

look,it is easy to view this man losing his job as some kind of justice,but we need to be honest why we are ok with THIS man getting fired and that reason is simply that he is grotesque and offensive.

but he did not actually HARM anyone.he was just offensive and IS offensive to our sensibilities.

i agree that there is an irony in this situation.the man verbally attacks a perceived threat to his livelihood,and then loses that livelihood.

it may have a certain poetry to it,but is that justice?
no.

the larger argument is this:when is it considered normal or acceptable to hold people to a company standard when they are:
not working.
not in uniform.
not representing the company in ANY way.
are not getting paid for this off time.
are engaging in activities which are harming no one but may be viewed as contrary to company standards?


where is the line drawn?
and who draws that line?
who enforces it?

while the company has a right to fire you for any reason it wishes,does it have a right to impose behavior,activities,personal life choices when you are not on the clock?

with the PC police engaging in ever more draconian and bullying tactics to impose their own sense of morality upon others,based on what THEY feel is righteous and morally correct.i feel this will get out of hand very quickly,and the canadian example i used is only one of many.

here is one thing i do not understand.
how come when the religious right uses tactics very similar to this,we all stand up and shout "fuck you buddy",but when the PC police behave in an almost identical fashion....people applaud.

that is just NOT a morally consistent stance.
it is hypocritical.

so maybe in the short run we can view this ugly example of a human being and think to ourselves that some form of justice was served,but that is a lie.it may make us feel good and tickle our moral compass as somehow being a righteous outcome to a reprehensible piece of shit,but it is no way justice.

in the larger context and taken to its logical conclusion:this moral calculus could be a future metric to impose obedience and compliance from,not just turdnugget,but EVERYBODY...and that includes you.

and THAT is something that i find extremely disturbing.

the PC police are having a real impact,with real consequences and even though they may have the best of intentions,the real result is social control,obedience and compliance.

i would rather i keep my liberty and freedoms to do as i wish.the PC police can suck a bag of dicks.

I always thought I would do this if i ever had a bike. Glad I am not alone. Who doesn't need a good tickle while flying down a freeway?

I absolutely love how he sums up becoming an adult as "whatever's nutty about me, was nutty about <whoever raised you>..."

That tickles me more than I can describe; living in an era where if you have problems with your childhood you go to a therapist about them.

Yeah I totally thought it was a troll video for probably the first half of it.

"Tickling is torture" sounds like some kind of parody you would hear from Colbert.

Can't work out if they're supposed to be fighting each other, dancing, tickling each other? Weird.

There's no intent from either of them. When Björnsson get hold of hi at 15 seconds in he just does nothing and then lets go.

"What if I told you that tickling them was like torture?"

Then I'd say: "please explain why this is and how you worked it out so I can contribute meaningfully to the issue."

Genuinely had to check after watching that this wasn't a hoax/satire. I'm not sure it could have come across as much more patronising and manipulative if they had tried.

Really reminded me of G.E.F.A.F.W.I.S.P. thing from brasseye in it's style and presentation. (Poe's law etc.)

Not that I disagree with the underlying point being made (most exotic pets have massive hidden costs to the animals well being), but I think they made it very poorly indeed.

If tickling is indeed torturous to them, then maybe make the flagship advert for your campaign do more than glibly announce "they don't like it!" whilst showing a video of what, to uneducated human sensibilities, appears to be joy/pleasure.

I'm not suggesting they are wrong, but even their website provides no materials or evidence to back up what they are saying. With a term as emotive and loaded as "torture", that comes across as rather disingenuous and makes me naturally somewhat suspicious as to their motives.

i.e. that they are likely ideologically opposed to most/all animal trafficking already and will happily muddy the facts & manipulate emotions if it furthers their higher purposes.

^ I don't want the above to come across as support for the Slow Loris pet trade, their unsuitability to domestic life and the need for pretty specialised knowledge to keep them healthy is reason enough (same as the vast majority of exotics). Chris Packham is one of the supporters and I have a great deal of respect for the guy's knowlage on such subjects.

But this, if anything, makes that advert seem all the more distasteful. YOU HAD EXPERTS! Persuade me better!

I also don't want to come across as suggesting that tickling definitely isn't deeply unpleasant for them for whatever reasons, but a cursory google and inspection of their own campaign site yielded nothing of any substance on the subject either way. (maybe my search-fu was lacking today?)

Again, I'm willing to accept the premise. If it will stand on it's own merits then I would like to understand. I will even advocate for the movement myself! But I'm not going to endorse anything I either can't or don't yet properly understand myself.

For every level headed campaigner with a basic sense of discernment and empathy for other creatures, there seems to be a mob of authoritarian ideologues eager to beat us around the head until we see things exactly their way and deny and semblance of nuance (i.e. PETA).

Reach right up my ass and tickle my heart http://videosift.com/video/The-Venture-Bros-Season-6-Looks-Awesome