@kir_mokum

what makes the irony even more grotesque is that:

1.look at who projectveritas actually IS.it was founded by that slug james o'keefe..yes..THAT james o'keefe,and due to CNN being such an absolute failure of journalistic integrity,they just made that repulsive man actually credible again.

2.CNN had to post a massive retraction,a formal editors note and a at least three correspondents had to fall on the sword.

3.the projectveritas video has a CNN producer openly admitting that it is about the ratings,and nothing more.the russia story makes CNN money....period.

4.there is STILL no evidence of the trump administration "colluding" with russian intelligence,but there IS evidence that the russia story is being pushed by the american "deep state" to discredit,and/or control trump.

*of course this is from independent media who are not part of the corporate media tentacled network of obfuscation,propaganda and gaslighting.

5.the only media still giving the russia story any credence is american media.the rest of the world has moved on.why? no evidence.

this whole situation stinks to high fucking heaven.

is no one seeing the spectacular irony? russia's propaganda news organization putting on over the top theatrics to revel in a non-story that they think blows the legitimacy of CNN wide open. talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

#irony

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.

The irony here being that I was not able to watch the original youtube video due it not being available world wide.....

@kir_mokum has a point.this is dennis prager,from the illustrious (sarcasm) prager university.

you are not entirely incorrect when you state that this appears to be "fact-based",and it is..up to a point,because those 'facts' have been carefully cherry-picked to lead you to a pre-determined conclusion.

this video,in a nutshell,is propaganda.

he uses the word 'evil" as if somehow it is representative of communism.this is a canard,communism is not "evil",those who wielded power in their respective communist systems,perpetrated those "evil" acts.

communism itself,is not inherently evil.
failed and ultimately destructive and oppressive,but not inherently evil.

we can apply pragers logic to our own economic system of capitalism and come to the exact same conclusion that he did with communism.capitalism also causes immense hardship and suffering,and also death.deaths by the tens of thousands.

is capitalism "evil"?
of course not.

he also states without evidence,or supporting sources,that the "liberal" intelligencia from our higher educational system refuse to admonish communism as "evil".of course they don't,because communism is not inherently "evil",but stalin and moa WERE despotic tyrants,who were responsible for perpetrating immense hardship,suffering and death.a.k.a=evil.

i find it interesting how prager will state,and with zero sense of irony,how communism is "evil" and yet ignore how capitalism,and america's neoliberalsm policies across the globe kill millions.how even here in america,we have cities and towns laid waste by these policies of capitalism.they are called "sacrifice zones",and they look like beruit more than an american city.

i mean,if you are going to blame an economic system for being "evil",at least be philosophically consistent.

but no mention of that at all.
because prager is an ideologue who prays at the altar of neoliberalism and capitalism.he has an agenda,and manipulates facts to fit his own narrative to convince you that his argument is righteous.

it is not.
it is propaganda.

@ChaosEngine
that article was utter shit.

"friend zone" is a term used to shame women?
how can that possibly be considered an even remotely true statement?

she makes a valid point in that women are not binary creatures,and are mutli-faceted,nuanced and complex.well of COURSE they are,but the "friend zone" is from the guys perspective,not a woman's!

do you know why the majority of some men end up in the "friend zone"? or should we just change that term to be more accurate "i am not interested in you because you put all your cards on the table in the first five seconds,so while i think that is sweet,i no longer am curious about you,because i already got you".

you know..the "friend zone",or as chris rock put it "emergency dick,just break glass".

the problem here is that while relationships are a long slog of compromise,negotiation and mutual respect to work towards a common goal.romantic courtships are akin to a game,a playful dance fueled by curiosity,intrigue and of course:lust.

the men who who get relegated to the "friend zone" do not understand this very basic tenant of courtship.they reveal all their cards up front,and while that may be the most honest approach,and one that women have been openly asking for,it ignores that underneath it all,a woman wants romance,mystery and a sense of discovery that will continually peak their interests.

they want to be woo'd,they want courtship and romance.
when a man shows all his cards he takes that way from the woman,and now that she knows she can "have" him.he no longer interests her.

and what the author of this article so callously ignores is that the "friend zone" is not really a friend at all,but a surrogate for a boyfriend.having a bad day?she calls her "friend".feeling bloated and unattractive? has her "friend" come over to make her feel better about herself.needs a date for her company christmas party and doesn't want to go alone? get her "friend" to come along.

so it should not be a surprise that some men find this hurtful and degrading.

but she has a point,the woman owes them nothing.the woman was honest and forthright and it is the man who has put himself in this position.

and let me be clear before i am accused of being a misogynist pig.

some men do the exact same thing,and i am guilty of it myself.

i grew up with three sisters,so i tend to be more aware and sensitive to women's choices,and i respect their space.i have never been one to push myself on any woman.i was never the one to pursue or as this article describes "persistent",because i saw that as a bit "stalky".

so if i was interested in a woman,and that interest was not reciprocated,i shifted to "friend" mode with no issue.to me it was a win-win.ok,so she was not interested in me in that way,but she is super cool,and interesting and now i have a really interesting and intriguing friend.

now here is an interesting thing that happened maybe half of the time.my new friend and i would hang out,go to pubs,clubs,movies and sometimes just make dinner and watch movies.friends right? she was upfront and honest with me that she was not interested in me in that way,and i can respect that.

and then one day she would have her college friend over for dinner (this is a true story btw,one of many).her friend was cute,smart,witty and had a sick sense of humor.yep,i was digging on my friends college friend,and we were flirting up a storm.we were vibing hard,clicking like we knew each other for years.

now what do you think happened?
i bet you can guess.
and you would be right.
my friend,who was honest with me about not being interested,started to get real shitty with me.like offensive shitty and i really did not understand why.it came out of nowhere,and now she was acting like some jealous girlfriend.

so i pull her aside and i am like..what the fuck is wrong with you? you are being an asshole!

you know what she said to me? and i can remember this clear as day "watching my friend flirt with you,and seeing how much she is into you.i began to see you in a different light.i can see how she sees you,and that you are amazing but you are MY steve! not hers!".

and then she tried to kiss me,which was just awkward,because to me? she was in the "friend zone",and had been for over 6 months.i didn't want her that way.the irony here is that she could not handle that,and our friendship dissolved.which just fucking sucks.

this scenario has played out in my life quite a few times.so while anecdotal,i suspect women have had similar experiences.

so the "friend zone' may be considered a woman's thing directed at men,but in reality it is non-gender specific.most likely because woman are pursued more than men,but both men and women can be put in the "friend zone".

so what can we learn from this?
don't be a sap.
have some self respect and do not allow another person to use you for their own well being and sense of self.
if they are not interested? move on.
if they just want to be a friend? then be a friend,but do not expect anything more.if you cannot handle that,then move on.

pining away from a distance in the slim hopes that the focus of your affections will one day change their mind,is just pathetic.

and for fuck sakes,stop blaming that person for your heartache.
you put yourself in that position,and you can pull yourself out.

and the term "friend zone" is not used to shame women,that is just fucking stupid.the "friend zone" is a place that you put yourself in,because of flawed sense of romance,and you allowed yourself to be used for the betterment of another human being.so while you may be hurt and angry,you only have yourself to blame.

respect yourself yo.
/end rant

And diamonds...are not that rare.
It's a marketing hoax their value.

So it is really double irony.

*doublepromote the irony!

Protestants and Catholics spent a long time trying to kill each other for myriad reasons. Can you find a Catholic or Protestant leader in your area, or even your country that takes your view of things as accurate?

Poolcleaner simply observed that he appreciated being able to agree to disagree with diverse groups of people. He added a throw away comment that atheists can be the worst for disrespecting each others beliefs though. You took umbrage with that, and are still here proceeding to not only condemn theists for their beliefs, but are going beyond that and ADDING beliefs they themselves REJECT to condemn for those too.

You have to see the problem/irony in this, no?

Are you really blaming the debacle that is Trump on a small sect of the left wing, cos like, maybe its contributory...but you know, the straw that breaks the back is, afterall, still only a piece of straw.

Have you actually, personally, been pepper sprayed for just trying to speak?

If not...faux outrage? Irony detected.

Idk. I'm white, I'm male, I'm straight, but we clearly swim in different circles. The only person censoring me is me. I think the white, male, straight demo is heard from quite enough. He IS President afterall.

Not that I don't think there has been a tendency to stifle discussion through the abuse of "poltical correctness", but honestly, sometimes the "precious snowlflakes" thing seems like a more apt to description of the anti-SJW crowd that seem more butthurt that some people disagree with them than the people they offend.

Is it irony that this is region blocked?

radical islamic terrorism is the usage of a rigid fundamentalist interpretation as a justification predicated on abysmal politics.

ill-thought and short sighted politics is the tinder.
hyper-extremist fundamentalism is the match.

ISIS would never even have existed without al qeada,who themselves would not have existed without US interventionism into:iran,egypt and saudi arabia.

and this is going back almost 70 years.

so lets cut the shit with apologetics towards americas horrific blunders in regards to foreign policy.actions have consequences,there is a cause and effect,and when even in the 50's the CIA KNEW,and have stated as much,that there would be "blowback" from americas persistent interventionism in those regions.which stated goals (in more honest times) was to destabilize,dethrone (remove leaders not friendly to american business) and install leaders more pliant and easily manipulated (often times deposing democratically elected leaders to install despots.the shah and sadam come to mind).

see:chalmers johnson-blowback
see: Zbigniew Brzezinski-the grand chessboard.

or read this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

so to act like islamic radicals just fell from the fucking sky,and popped out from thin air,due to something that has been boiling for almost 70 years is fucking ludicrous.

radicalization of certain groups in populations have long been understood,and well documented.

and religion,though the most popular,and easiest tool to motivate and justify heinous acts of violence for a political goal,is not the SOLE tool.

nationalism is another tool used to radicalize a population.
see:the nazi party.

but it always comes down to:tribalism of one kind or another.

@transmorpher

so when you use this "ISIS themselves, in their own magazine (Dabiq) go out of their way to explain that they are not motivated by the xenophobia or the US fighting wars in their countries. They make specifically state that their motivation is simply because you aren't muslim. You can go an read it for yourself. They are self confessed fanatics that need to kill you to go to heaven. "

to solidify your argument,all i see is someone ignoring the history and pertinent reasons why that group even exists.

you may recall that ISIS was once Al qeada,and they were SO radical,SO fanatical and SO violent in their execution of religious zeal..that even al qeada had to distance themselves.

because,again...
religion is used as the justification to enact terrorism due to bad politics.
but the GOAL is always political.

you may remember that in the early 90's the twin towers were attacked and it was the first time americans heard of al qeada,and osama bil laden.

who made a statement back in 1993 and then reiterated in 2001 after 9/11 that the stated goal (one of them at least) was for the removal of ALL american military presence in saudi arabia (there was more,but it mostly dealt with american military presence in the middle east).

but where did this osama dude come from?
why was he so pissed at america?
just what was this dudes deal?

turns out he was already on the road to radicalization during the 80's.coming from an extremely wealthy saudi arabian family but had become extremely religious,and he saw western interventionism as a plague,and western culture as a disease.

he left the comforts of his extremely wealthy family to fight against this western incursion into his religious homeland.he traveled to afghanistan to join the mujahideen to combat the russians,who were actually fighting the americans in a proxy war.and WE trained osama.WE armed him and trained him in the tactics of warfare to,behind the scenes,slowly drain russia of resources in our 50 year long cold war.

how's that for irony.

osama was not,as american media like to paint the picture "anti-democratic or anti-freedom".he saw the culture of consumerism,greed and sexual liberation as an affront to his religious understandings.

this attitude can be directly linked to sayyid qtib from egypt.who visited the united states as an exchange student in 1954.now he wasnt radicalized yet,but when he returned to egypt he didnt recognize his own country.

he saw coco cola signs everywhere,and women wearing shorts skirts,and jukeboxs playing that devils music "rock and roll".

he feared for his country,his neighbors,his community.
just like a southern baptist fears for your soul,sayyid feared for the soul of his country and that this new "westernization" was a direct threat to the tenants laid down by islam.

so he began to speak out.
he began to hold rallies challenging the leadership to turn away from this evil,and people started to take notice,and some people agreed.

change does not come easy for some people,and this is especially true for those who hold strong religious ideologies.
(insert religion here) tends to be extremely traditional.

so sayyid started to gain popularity for his challenge if this new "westernization",and this did not go un-noticed by the egyptian leadership,who at that time WANTED western companies to invest in egypt.(that whole political landscape is totally different now,but back then egypt was fairly liberal,and moderately secular).

so instead of allowing sayyid to speak his mind.
they threw him in prison.
for 4 years.
in solitary.

well,he wasn't radicalized when he went IN to prison,but when he came OUT he sure was.

and to shorten this story,sayyid was the first founder of the muslim brotherhood,whose later incarnation broke off to form?

can you guess?
i bet you can!
al qeade

@Fairbs ,@newtboy and @Asmo have all laid out points why radicalization happens,and the conditions that can enflame and amplify that radicalization.

so i wont repeat what they have already said.

but let us take dearborn michigan as an example.
the largest muslim community in america.
how many terrorists come from dearborn?
how many radicals reside there?
how many mosque preach intolerance and "death to america"?
how many imams quietly sanction fatwas from the local IHOP against american imperialistic pigs?

none.

becuase if you live in stable community,with a functioning government,and you are able to find work and support your family,and your kids can get an education.

the chances of you become radicalized is pretty much:zippo.

the specific religion has NOTHING to do with terrorism.
religion is simply the means in which the justifications to enact violent atrocities is born.

it's the politics stupid.

you could do a thought experiment and flip the religions around,but keep the same political parameters and do you know WHAT we find?

that the terrorists would be CHRISTIAN terrorists.

or do i really need to go all the way back to the fucking dark ages to make my point?

it's
the
politics
stupid.

It seems odd to suggest that people shouldn't take life lessons from someone that happened to end their own life.

That said, I don't disagree on the video. On top of that, he doesn't seem to be connecting much of what he's saying to Wallace in any direct way. Based off of one quote that I googled and am now drawing too many conclusions from (link below), Wallace seemed to think that irony was a very valuable backlash to the 50's and 60's but that it ran its course.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/165289-irony-and-cynicism-were-just-what-the-u-s-hypocrisy-of

It seems odd to suggest people take life lessons from a person that intentionally ended their life.

I totally disagree. Irony is a useful tool to force people to self examine their own thoughts and beliefs, find flaws, and hopefully work to improve. It seems the voiceover guy is conflating irony and cynicism.
Even cynicism has it's usefulness. We need cynics to critically examine our prejudices, debunk them when appropriate, and set us straight. If we didn't have people who were cynical, we would all just accept whatever we're told without anyone ever checking to see if it's true (a HUGE problem with people today).

He also compares being sincere with being cynical. They are not opposites by any means. One can be sincerely cynical.

I find the ending confusing. Again, he takes a life lesson from DFW about how to be "human", "be unavoidably sentimental and naïve and goo prone and generally pathetic"....since that mindset led to him commit suicide, it seems to be terrible advice to end on.