Can't but include the late Christopher Hitchens comments on Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11
To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

And a link to some more discussion from Hitchen's on Moore's complete willingness to ignore all fact and reality to produce crowd pleasing tripe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZdLiKGaw00

@newtboy and yes, woman can be crude.

On the whole though...

Unsolicited sexual talk from men. It's a real thing. (I reference you to all the street sexual harassment videos here on the Sift.)

Well, I say there's nothing wrong with watching gonzo porn in itself, unless you are so dumb you think that's how one should act in real life.
There's also nothing wrong with saying disgusting sexual things to your partner...if they're into it and in the heat of the moment, but not in regular everyday conversation, not even when trying to set up a booty call IMO.
The thing here is they omitted what the women were saying to the men to illicit those 'sexts'. I'm sure there were some that were egging the men on with similarly disgusting 'pillow talk', not all, but likely some. Being crude is not gender specific.

Basically he got tore up by a grizzly, managed to climb on it's back and start knifing it to death, and then fell to the ground when his companions finished it with rifles. The leader figured he was dead soon, so he told the other two guys to bury him when he died and catch up after.

The history is a bit muddled on whether they got scared by Indians or just stole his stuff and left, but either way they took all of his gear and hoofed it. When they caught up, they told the leader that he had died.

So Hugh came to, with no gear, covered in a fresh bear skin they had taken off the bear. He was suffering from a broken leg, the cuts on his back exposing bare ribs, and all his wounds festering. He was 200 miles from the nearest fort, with nothing to help him and surrounded by hostile Indians.

He crawled, surviving on roots, berries, and remains of animal kills. His back became gangrenous, so he lay on a rotten log and let maggots eat the dead and rotten tissue away. Later he was found by a friendly tribe that sewed the bear skin to his back to cover his exposed ribs and gave him some supplies. When he finally reached the Cheyenne river, he fashioned a crude raft and floated down the river to the fort.

Everyone thought he had died, but he recovered fully. Later he decided he would avenge himself on the two that left him behind, but he spared one because he was too young and one because he had joined the army and was kind of untouchable. The young guy was Jim Bridger, who became a famous mountain man himself as he got older.

Here is the basic situation. If you find her funny because she discusses women's issues in a way you find to be humorous, more power to you.

I personally don't think she is funny. In fact, I would go so far as to say that unless she is performing material that someone else wrote, she is extremely terrible at comedy.

Is it because I am a guy? Maybe. I mean I understood what she was doing. She was basically trying to use sarcastic humor to take pot shots at the magazine because they enforce a lot of stereotypes to their readers. I just think that she went about it in a lowest common denominator sort of way. It was crude and clumsy from my viewpoint.

But in the end, it really doesn't matter. You either find her funny or you don't. I can't throw stones at you if you think she is funny. I like Stephen Wright and Mitch Hedberg while a lot of people think they are terrible. Comedy is something personal to everyone, and you like who you like.

Yeah, but it is complicated on my end. Hence I find her brilliant.

I love that you picked that particular "joke". I didn't like it at first -- I thought it was crude and I was instantly uncomfortable. And in the very next moment, I got it. I got what she was doing. She was taking a woman's body and the way it works AND TAKING THE SHAME OUT OF IT.

Now, if you aren't a person who is in touch with the shame that most women have about how their bodies work, that is just a crude nothing of a nothing.

But I am a woman who carries that shame. She exploded it. She made it on par with the tired old joke of men and their skid mark underwear. She turned it into NOTHING.

It isn't a very good joke. I agree with you.

And it is brilliant for what it achieves.

And that is why I love her. She does this over and over and over again. She is de-shaming women about their bodies and their sexuality and their mistakes. Guys are really good at making fun of themselves. It is one thing I really admire about men, and as I get older, even before Amy came along, I have thought we should emulate that characteristic. Amy is doing that for us. Bless her, really really bless her.

But I don't think you get the joke. Many women don't get the joke -- they are stuck in the shame and think she is just crude.

It's okay. You don't have to get the joke. You also don't have to enjoy anal fisting. Ha.

Again, I can't seem to pull up the full text of your article through google scholar. Even your summary though states an additional warming contribution of 0.3C by 2100. Sorry, but I don't class that as catastrophic. What's more, simply doing a google scholar search for articles on "permafrost methane climate" and taking the first four full articles give the following, with absolutely zero effort taken to pluck out ones that support my particular claim:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/4/045016/fulltext/
According to our results, by mid-21st century the annual net flux of methane from Russian permafrost regions may increase by 6–8 Mt, depending on climatic scenario. If other sinks and sources of methane remain unchanged, this may increase the overall content of methane in the atmosphere by approximately 100 Mt, or 0.04 ppm, and lead to 0.012 °C global temperature rise.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010RG000326/full
It's a more sweeping assessment so it doesn't have a nice short quotable for our particular point. It's most concise point is in Figure 7 which I'm not sure how to link into here as an image. You can check for yourself though that even the highest error margins on methane releases touch natural emissions till long, long after 2100, matching the IPCC millenial timescale statement I cited earlier.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018680/full
A detailed study of one mire show that the permafrost and vegetation changes have been associated with increases in landscape scale CH4 emissions in the range of 22–66% over the period 1970 to 2000.

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/36/14769.full
We attempted to incorporate in this study some of the latest mechanistic understanding about the mechanisms controlling soil CO2 respiration and wetland CH4 emissions, but uncertainties remain large, due to incomplete understanding of biogeochemical and physical processes and our ability to encapsulate them in large-scale models. In particular, small-scale hydrological effects (36) and interactions between warming and hydrological processes are only crudely represented in the current generation of terrestrial biosphere models. Fundamental processes such as thermokarst erosion (37) or the effects of drying on peatland CO2 emissions (e.g., ref. 38) are lacking here, causing uncertainty on future high-latitude carbon-climate feedbacks. In addition, large uncertainty arises from our ability to model wetland dynamics or the microbial processes that govern CH4 emissions, and in particular how the complicated dynamics of permafrost thaw would affect these processes.

The control of changes in the carbon balance of terrestrial regions by production vs. decomposition has been explored by a number of authors, with differing estimates of whether vegetation or soil changes have the largest overall effect on carbon storage changes (39–41). These results demonstrate that with the inclusion of two well-observed mechanisms: the relative inhibition of respiration by soil freezing (42) and the vertical motion in Arctic soils that buries old but labile carbon in deeper permafrost horizons, which can be remobilized by warming (3), the high-latitude terrestrial carbon response to warming can tip from near equilibrium to a sustained source of CO2 by the mid-21st century. We repeat that uncertainties on these estimates of CO2 and CH4 balance are large, due to the complexity of high-latitude ecosystems vs. the simplified process treatment used here.

And I was able to find the full PDF for your own original sink on the subject:
here
We conclude that the ice-free area of
northeastGreenland acts as a net sink of atmosphericmethane,
and suggest that this sink will probably be enhanced under
future warmer climatic conditions.

All of the above seem to fairly well corroborate my earlier citation to the IPCC's own summary of the current knowledge on permafrost and northern methane impact on future warming:
However modelling studies and expert judgment indicate that CH4 and CO2 emissions will increase under Arctic warming, and that they will provide a positive climate feedback. Over centuries, this feedback will be moderate: of a magnitude similar to other climate–terrestrial ecosystem feedbacks
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf
From FAQ 6.1

If you want to more simply claim that there exist studies, with noted high uncertainties, that under the worst case emission scenarios that show a possible significant release of methan prior to 2100 and possible catatrophic releases after, then I agree. If you want to claim that the consensus is we are facing catastrophe in our lifetime, as your first post claimed, then I most point to the overwhelming scientific evidence linked above that simply does not agree, once again chosen at random and with no effort to cherry pick only results that match what I want. I must note I lack surprise though as the IPCC had already been claiming the same of the literature and existing evidence.

Here is the thing, for it's time, the original Vacation was incredibly crude. Same for European Vacation and so on.

I mean think about it, in the original they were tagged by people in the ghetto, clark was continually trying to flirt and almost cheat on his wife, animal cruelty by tying the dog to the car and driving off, turning the aunt's body to the car and then dropping her off like a UPS package, and it culminated with a terrorist attack by clark on the security guard of wally world.

I hate to break it to you, but if you grew up during that time period, the movie was damn crude and damn funny. This, if it is done correctly is going to be hilarious as well. I figuratively laughed my ass off when I saw the Ferrari driver get creamed.

I don't mind crude if it's funny. This doesn't qualify.

too bad they opted for crude over funny

That's not what he's saying at all.

The bible, or the Quran, or many other texts, just like historical events as they were, or works of literature, or other even historical texts as complex as this often have contradictory ideas. The US constitution is founded on a set of beliefs and ideas that almost all of us subscribe to, yet there are Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Socialists, pragmatists, etc. all deriving very different ideas from the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and more. The reason this is true is because those values often come into conflict, and can outright contradict each other. Freedom vs security, equality vs prosperity, I could go on and on.

With the Bible, you have Catholics, Protestants, subdivided into a plethora of different religions in their own right under the umbrella of Christianity. You have the running joke even within Catholicism that American Catholics aren't really Catholics at all. Not only do different Christians interpret the bible differently, the amount they count on the bible varies between fundamentalists like Jehovah's Witnesses who take the bible extremely literally to extremely secular Christians who have absolutely no problem discarding any part of Christian doctrines when scientific evidence proves otherwise.

You have Christians who act as saintly as Mother Theresa to mobsters.

That's just Christianity. There are extremist Islamic groups that sound more like the Westboro Baptist Church than other Muslims.

But within Christianity, there's "honor thy mother and thy father" and "thou shall not kill". What if your parents are murderers?

That's a crude, and obvious example of conflicting values, but the 10 commandments are simple rules that don't completely resolve every situation.

What's stupid is to believe that you can know about a person's specific ideology just by their religion. Does their religion play a role in their ideology? Absolutely, but how it impacted their ideology has much more to do with their experiences, their natural tendancies, etc. than necessarily their religion. If you grew up in a mob family, honor thy mother and father was more likely the lesson you took from the Bible than thou shall not kill.

And if you look around you, this is plainly obvious. Even look within yourself. We're all a melting pot of lessons and ideas we've learned from school, personal life experiences, our religious beliefs, our parents, our socio-economic backgrounds, our friends, etc. That's why you are different from everyone of your religion, your friends, who you went to school with, your socioeconomic class, etc.

To quote the great Wittgenstein "meaning is use". Language and meaning are nuanced and complicated, but most of all, subjective and instrumental (by which I mean something we make up). This is why we frequently use otherwise restrictive and oversimplified analogies to illustrate specific points, and sometimes arbitrary (and always artificial) terms to sum up otherwise much more expansive phenomena.

In this case @Babymech used one to quite neatly surmise the different ways we interpret accidental puns and double meanings. Crude vs Prude was just a succinct way of labelling the two predominant archetypical responses to a potential double entendre.

One is to tend to overlook or ignore it (Prude)
One is to recognise and even call attention to it (Crude)

There were no value judgements implicit in the way @Babymech did this. You brought those yourself, projected them outwards and rather rudely set about insulting Babymech for the perceived slight/prejudicial remark.

The fact you got a rude response back was not validation, it was retaliation. You called him/her a dick basically without provocation!

"In some countries / regions, saying someone is crude is quite the insult."

A term charged with historical prejudicial hatred indeed! Absolutely no room for interpretation or innocent intention there. (And God forbid anyone anywhere ever be offended by something because they might have different associations with a words meanings and associations)

But let's just assume @Babymech was making a value judgement anyway. "Prude" and "Crude" create wildly varying emotional responses. From pride to shame. Who takes prescient? Who's right to not be offended counts most?

Much like considerably more sensitive words (like ones beginning with N and F for instance), context is absolutely everything. Words have no meaning outside of their context, they are entirely relativistic things. Even the cold hard definition in a dictionary is a contextual arrangement (in this case the dictionary & the linguistic paradigm which is documents).

If there was hatred in Babymech's heart when he/she made their comment I certainly did not recognise it. The same point made in a different way might have raised my ire too, but here I can only see a slight you brought to the table yourself so to speak.

I've done it myself before, but then I've also apologised for starting shit that wasn't really there before too

You would be correct if you detected a slightly snotty attitude in my reply, it pops up mostly when people start throwing around unsolicited abuse (or say unspeakably dumb things but I'm certainly not accusing you of that here, just a needless conflict). You'd be amazed how fast it can disappear though!

Much love.

Oh my.

Gets it = crude - usually a negative connotation
Doesn't get it = prude

How about "smart, understands both uses, but something tripped his giggles and he was gone". I don't know Dan Stevens, I guess you do if you know he is fairly crude. In some countries / regions, saying someone is crude is quite the insult. Especially in regions where there are lots of prudes.

Anyway, must dash, pizza man is here man, and I'm completely shagged.

(ooh, another one - is it shagged = fucked, or shagged = tired? Discuss.)

Have fun. Man.

whu... now, what are YOU even talking about? What label? On who? On British men? Chris Morris, Dan Stevens and I all immediately understood what beating off meant. Because we're fairly crude. The two first are British men. I'm not. What label are you even talking about? How high are you, even?