Meh, He's not bitter... I watched a helldesk guy rip his headphones off. Open the bottom drawer in the desk. yell in to the mic "You're in the penalty box!" slam the headset in to the drawer and slam it shut and walk out of the building... He had spent an hour trying to help a lost cause.

We called those type of customers the 12 O'clock flashers. People too stupid to be able to set the clocks on any electronics in the house so they all flash 12:00.....

Every IT guy has his stories. They almost always end the same way.....
He's the person leaving the liquor store with the two cartons of cigs and the daily supply of JD...

after 6 months on the phone the only other job he's qualified for is Hostage Negotiator.

The bright blue bandana gets me. I've heard of wierd shit being used to identify yourself in an attempt to avoid getting fragged, but that thing just yells "shoot me".

On the other hand, I'm sitting in an office and she's not even shaking after this close miss, so...

That said, does anyone know what that orange plate on the PSO1-M2 (?) is, right on the elevation adjustment knob?

And they didn't...ever. They intentionally blocked the road....for no reason...after the bike cut off traffic in the other direction by illegally crossing. To my eyes, that makes them the original offenders and the intentional assholes.
Honking at a douchbag walking in the middle of the road, seemingly oblivious on his phone, and yelling "move" seems quite restrained compared to most drivers here in America in the same position, imo.

I do agree, it seems overly convenient that they cross and turn around to be next to the puddle.

Not at all.

They two pedestrians should have moved over for the car in the first place.

Why didn't they? Can't be sure.

Was there a giant puddle they were avoiding? That's not clear. It looks like there was a sidewalk, but still no bike lane for the cyclists who starts the video avoiding other traffic on a narrow road.

One thing that is clear is that it's not the pedestrians who started yelling. Even if the pedestrians were in the wrong for not yielding to the vehicle (they should have moved over) it was the driver who escalated the situation. This makes the driver the biggest jerk.

(I still think it looks staged.)

I don't recall him ever saying that he wished Hillary would lose to the Oompa Loompa, they said Hillary was likely to lose to him because she was a weak candidate. Nobody took it seriously of course, because pretty much everyone thought the Orangutrump would lose and this was a slam dunk. To be fair I didn't really think he would win either.
So everybody was pretty much blindsided by this and I think the shock of it all is still coloring people's emotions. But four years from now if the majority of the Left has learned nothing and simply continues the strategy of yelling at people and shaming them into conforming then all I can say is get ready for another shit show.

This looks like one overconfident sailor who had planned to bring friends with modest sailing experience out for a day on the water and refused to let high, gusting winds hold him back.

They couldn't control the boat enough to keep the mainsail up in gusty winds, and if they had the boat would likely be leaning and flagging soo far over in choppy seas that the passengers would be right to be scared of the boom taking one of them out. It doesn't look like there is an outboard motor, so I guess they somehow got out of the slip and away from docks on just the jib, then hit the real wind gusts.

And now the video starts with mainsail down and getting in the way, jib not fully up but providing some pull, and that pull being lost to waves and poor steering. The sailor is messing with lines up front while the tiller is manned by someone who is waaay out of their element, and who begins to just jack-knife the thing from 0:20 onwards, halting all forward momentum. I don't want to come down on that person too hard, because none of them should have been out there that day, and the sailor should have been manning the till or at least yelling very specific orders at the top of his lungs well before the situation got this bad. No idea why they don't have an outboard motor, maybe they lost it. If its a rental, that rental agency should not have let them go out there.

(grammar edits)

I'm trying to point out(and failing obviously lol): If we feel so bad for this poor dog, why do we turn a blind eye to farm animals that are mistreated and killed? They all feel pain and have emotional responses just the same.

We all like eating meat and butter, but is that worth the animals suffering and dying for it? (especially when there are some great alternatives. Nut butters, coconut butters, cashew spreads you name it, margarine at worst case) That's a decision for you to make. :-)

If a dog beater told you that "animals kill each other in nature all the time" would you accept that answer? Would that stop you from feeling bad for the dog?

When someone at the Yulin dog festival says "it's my tradition" or "I like the taste" do you accept that?

Then why do we make the same statements for cows? (don't worry, I remember yelling "lions tho" at vegans, so I'm not pointing fingers)

I just want to raise awareness about the horrors of animal agriculture and it's knock-on effects to the planet. And that we have a choice, and the power to change the world. We don't need to wait for governments or laws, we can make this change now, ourselves and there are no down sides, only wins.

It's just a matter of changing a few ingredients
https://www.forksoverknives.com/recipes/?recipe_type=wraps-and-burgers

1. You don't speak for all trans/POC/gays etc, so you can only describe your personal experience. There are a number of documented trans people who agree with Peterson and don't want the state strong arming people in to mouthing the words...

2. Peterson does not promote transphobia, he resists being forced to speak certain words. They are not synonymous. If the fuckwits yelling their heads off spent the time to listen, they'd understand that.

3. Peterson was fine with the idiots at the event chucking a trantrum because it showed them up to be the intolerant idiots, not him. He was calm and reasonable, and if they had listened to him then put questions to him, they may have advanced whatever cause they claim to represent. Instead they came across as a pack of morons. /shrug

4. You talk about drawing lines around things, lines that should not be crossed, but without people daring to propose going outside those lines, gay rights would not be a thing... You see? It takes a brave person to step outside the lines and propose something that may be offensive to some. Same with women rights, transgender folk etc.

5. You have the right to be offended. You do not have the right to not be offended.

6. Mobs strongarming people in to silence has far more to do with Nazi ideology than resisting being forced to speak certain words. It's okay to punch Nazi's right?? \= )

Wasn't there, but I'm sympathetic to their cause.

I would say, like the people quoted in the article linked by Scud, these people aren't against "stepping out of their comfort zone" to learn. But there are certain norms and boundaries to ideas we hold in both every day discourse and academic discourse.

Some of that is how we don't entertain the idea of bringing back phrenology or that the earth is flat in serious discussion. But, unlike those antiquated ideas, other sorts of ideas lead to real and harmful consequences to marginalized groups. Ideas like entire classes of people either not being worth basic human rights or specifically targeting them for dehumanization/harassment.

I think people who shut down events like that or ones where Milo Yiounappolos specifically singled out trans individuals are weighing whether giving a larger audience to ideas like "these people aren't normal/don't deserve basic rights" is worth the real harm and harassment that follows. People see it as essentially saying, "Hey now, lets hear what these National Socialist fellows have to say about Jewish people without all the whining, ok?"

And these things aren't really as cut and dry "they don't want to hear differences of opinion" when every single trans person, person of color, gay person, etc has had these "differing opinions" yelled at them or forced into their life on a daily basis.

Don't most of you know, especially those who grew up in Christian homes, that Christians are commanded by the Lord Jesus Christ to proselytize?

Mark 16:15

And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation

Christians who don't proselytize are actually in disobedience to the Lord.

Second, what kind of people would Christians be if they didn't proselytize? Knowing that people all around them are headed towards eternal death, and keeping the only way to escape it to themselves? Penn Jillette understands this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6md638smQd8

I understand why people are uncomfortable being proselytized to, especially when people yell at them or try to make them feel bad. That isn't the way you're supposed to do it. The bible says to speak the truth in *love*. If you don't fundamentally care about the person you are talking to and have a genuine concern for their soul, it isn't going to be fruitful.

There's definitely a joke in there about a director yelling "CUT!"

"Japanese pool players gives great interview"!?!?!?

More like "idiot Englishman imposes a bloody terrible interview to fellow human being, perpetuating bigotry and lack of cultural awareness as acceptable behaviour for a professional communicating adult.

I'm sorry for yelling.

There are some valid points here, but I think there are multiple interpretations to these issues and it's not so clear cut.

I'll just pick an easy one. Trigger warnings are no more a restriction of free speech then calling a movie rated R VS PG13, it's just more specific, so lets get that out of the way. Take a read of a classic like John Stuart Mills “On Liberty”. He does a great dissemination of freedom and balancing it with causing harm developing the harm principle and the offense principle. It's well thought out and addresses these very issues. There is a recognition that free speech should be regulated depending on if it causes harm. For instance it's illegal to yell “fire!” in a crowded movie theater since it could cause harm from a stampede of people trying to leave. I apologize if I get things wrong, but the following is my understanding here, but look here if you're interested. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill#Theory_of_liberty)

It's a difficult concept to define what is an act of harm. In general this is highly related to concepts of political correctness and has it's very roots in classical liberal thought. In my understanding, Mill would say not to restrict free speech in the case offense only in the case of harm. However, psychology and neuroscience make this line less distinct in caseses of trama or deep internalized concepts where we might see words leading to genuine harm of an individual, not just offense. This means that harm is less universal and depends on the individual and it leads to the idea of separating spaces based on the line between offense and harm. My understanding is the idea of rating systems, red light districts come from this. Also, now, a newer concept of safe spaces. It's easy to say that people should just suck it up, but it's not always that clear cut and there is historical precedence for this idea.

Ha, what did you do? Yell? Fight?