Ok? British man Chris Morris knows about it. British man Dan Stevens obviously knows about it. I don't think it's a US vs UK thing but a prude vs crude thing. Prudes don't get it and crude people do.

I downvoted the comment. With all my smarts in place.

It was an ugly comment that dismissed the aspirations of many people with a crude broadbrush denigration.

And so I downvoted.

If you don't understand why I downvote, please don't take me to task. Friends or no, yeah?

It's too bad and kind of sad that all the girls said they enjoyed it and would play it again. D&D came out what 30 years ago or more. Maybe this is a good sign that things have changed enough where there's less type casting and people can do what they enjoy.

I had a girlfriend awhile back who said that she probably wouldn't have dated me had she known I used to play D&D. Good thing I got my hooks into her first before letting that one out of the bag.

Final thought is that I bet if the girls continue to play, the crude humor would ramp back up. The girls might even like that too.

Dude, get a clue-EVERYTHING in the news regarding Israel and Palestine is fucking propaganda-Left?? Right?? All idiots will regurgitate their programed scripts and your view on the matter is no-less full of shit, tinctured with half-truths, and most importantly you have no way of having enough REAL information on the sit-rep to make an informed decision-It's the fucking Jews and Persians mate, they've been cunts to one-another for fucking centuries.

In the current stage of the paradigm, WILDCARD!~We've learned how to refine crude into all-manner of covetous bi-products. This ain't yer granpappy's, whose-god-is best-argument any longer.

@Trancecoach
once again you call me out on an old and dusty post.
this time to accuse me and (@ChaosEngine this time) of being socialists, narcissists AND knowitalls.when i have been very open and honest with you that economics is not my strong suit.

now why would you do that?
was it that we had the audacity to disagree with you?
the thing that tickles me is that i actually agree with a fairly large percentage of what you post.
my issue is with YOU,personally.

i have attempted to speak as humanly as possible with you.
and what have i gotten in return?
ridicule,accusations,harrassment.
a barrage of passive aggressive swipes at my integrity and intellect.

your childish and rather crude attempts to engage with people who have already made it quite clear you have lost their attention due to your own petulance is really what i find most interesting.

your attentions towards me have become more and more rude and spiteful,yet no apology has been forthcoming.

is this because you are unaware of your own callousness?
or that my feelings are irrelevant?
is it because this is this the internet so who cares?
is it possible i offended you in the past,because if that is the case i am totally unaware of any slight i may have directed towards you and will be happy to make amends.

i know that i have made myself quite clear in regards to how your commentary is perceived by me.so there should be no confusion.

i will not apologize for not giving your words the weight that you may possible feel they deserve for the simple fact you have been exposed on multiple occasions plagiarizing the works of others and attempted to pawn them off as your own.

so if that is the reason...well..sorry...but you are responsible for that perception.has nothing to do with me.

i find it interesting you accuse people of using tactics you,yourself use often.

but to me,in my world..it is the WHY of things that i always find most interesting.

why do you continue to keep calling me out when you obviously find me to be an inferior specimen to discuss your passions?

i may find economics moderately interesting but it is most certainly not a passion of mine.

i have never tagged you in a discussion on the Epistemology and theosophy of the radical jesus and subsequent resurrection mythologies.

no apology for rudeness and passive aggressive swipes at my character,yet you consistently tag me in posts to ridicule and berate.

this is what i find most interesting.

or am i being narcissistic?

Generation 96.

Red crudely implied having sexual relations with green's mom.

And, with foresight and expecting more of the same lame bullshit from the cheapest of seats upon my return, a much lamer attempt at an apology for what anyone would construe as as a personal attack upon my character at the most egregious of levels.

Pathetic. I post a comment on my personal profile of my hiatus and you in your nothing-else-better-to-do predictable manner, return to your own vomit in an attempt to pick a fight, pour gasoline on a bonfire, or how ever many more analogous quips I could belch forth to describe your fundamental character flaw.

You simply hate that which you do not understand chicco, is the bottom-line of this whole dance.

Who is impotent? The only damage to be seen from your completely off-base analysis of the comment in question, is that you have serious problems relating to anything resembling a real community.

I'd like to say go fuck yourself but that would be quite crude and I might be accused of breaking some bullshit rule. So I won't.

By the way, the statement "Everything you know is wrong" google it or someone for him please, it's a quote (Firesign Theater) man, not a personal attack directed at anyone. I was however, as politely as I could, calling-your crude actions (spamming my posts) out in as polite a way as I chose to without breaking any rules.

Yeah, some folks live in L.A. County, Baltimore, Miami, we all who live in the U.S. under varying levels of the same bullshit either see the slide into oblivion, or refuse to.

By the by newtboy, I don't really appreciate you taking license with another user's alleged geographical location in the public forum:
Not being paranoid, it's simply a crude, rude, passive-aggressive discourtesy.

I consider it a knee-jerk reaction to you having to read something you'd rather either berate or deny. Not very fucking cool, DUUUUUUDE!

Exactly, you didn't get the point. It isn't about punishing people for being hypocritical idiots, it's about calling them out for it and making clear that behaviour isn't ok.
Let's stick with the wedding cake example for a moment. It's not about forcing somebody to make a shitty cake a dozen other people can do as well or having them pay damages for percieved (by lawyers or pissed off grooms) emotional trauma. I would be perfectly fine with it if a judge ordered those kind of businessowners to just hang some Westboro Baptist style posters on their storefront and call it a day. At least then everybody knew with what kind of people they're dealing with.
The problem isn't that people with shitty opinions exist, they'll be always there, the problem is if we let them act as if it's normal and fine and not adress it.
You would crucify them if they'd say that sex with children is ok, you'd call them out if they were telling you black people should be glad their slave ancestors were treated so well. Shit, just try to open a mosque one block away from ground zero and someone will talk to you about that too.
Why is it wrong then if you confront them when they put gay relationships on the same level as people fucking their dogs or tell us that two fathers can't raise a son?
I was serious when I said I admire the Phelps familiy for their honesty. They're horrible, disgusting people but at least they made up their minds and stick to their beliefs. They won't come to us calling homosexuality a "controversial lifestyle" where you can have "differing opinions" than all the "gay friends they have". You fuck a bloke in the ass you go to hell, that's it. No cures, no dicussions. It's antisocial, cruel and stupid but at least, they very least, it's honest.
Those anti discrimination laws are just crude tool to protrect yourself from their stupid hatred. Not everybody lives in San Francisco where you call your transgender girlfriends for a protest sit in at the local homophobic bakery. Some people have only big brother on their side in their hometown.
It's not about getting your way, it's about stopping others from continuing taking a shit on you.

Look MilkmanDan, it was not the intention to offend you in particular, we merely leapt like a robot at an opportunity to snub a nose at rules-of-engagement relative to rules in-general and some of the more didactic pet-peeves some but not all have with regards to what we personally regard as insignificant, but that some folks seem to get bent-sideways about and begin these tiresome pedantic, didactic dull-ass comment threads.

Who cares if it's tagged incorrectly, who cares if it's marked long when it's really short? Who cares obviously some folks do and it bothers the shit outta them. There is no 'why', simply the questions of how what, when and who had a part in creating these inconsequential concerns in some people that it matters at all?

That you wanted to down-vote a comment suggests perhaps someone thought someone else was crude, mean, rude, or too direct or forward in their protest. We can live with that, as well as the supercilious reasoning for your not voting this video up, in our LTHO.

At the end of the day, you got yer cute kitty dragging someone's be-bootied -with-shoe-cover foot being dragged up close-in to a mischievous, playful cat's clawing with head-banging glee, and it's AS cute, as that slammin' chick's back-side in the screen-shot, unless you are from some other planet where rippin' asses don't stir your loins a bit, be you male or female, gay, straight or otherwise.

Glad you dug the misdirection as much as myself an we thank you for your sincere feedback.

Personally, I vote shit up based on the fact that the original submitter enjoyed the video enough to embed it, and at the end of the day it makes folks happy about contributing to the site and therefore the entire sift community benefits.

What really IS an affirmative vote anyway, but a gesture of goodwill and kindness directed outward from the wealth of consideration one has for oneself?

Do unto others, then run away as fast as you can...to paraphrase the rule.

Oh and the ass-wiping analogy was meant for all the OCD retentive types, the kind of people where everything has to be just-so or their fucking heads will explode....perhaps I should check a mirror??

Whoa... What?!

I thought they were going to play a crude prank on him where they take off all his clothes and he'd be naked and alone on the dirt when he came to. That would have been bad...

But jerking him off? That's in a whole other realm of WTF.

How the hell is this guy a popular academic?

Maybe he's too deep for me, but I don't get what he's saying. I can't see how he is so popular and has such a following.

He seems to always talk about sex, says crude jokes, uses himself and the people around him as supportive evidence to support his anecdotal insights...

The guy who made this video really failed to give a thoughtful analysis of the situation. Before I comment, I will clarify that I do not agree with the thought or spirit behind Phils comments. I think they were crude, and fundamentally wrong on a few different levels. I do agree with Phil, however, that homosexuality is a sin. However, so is stealing and lying and cheating on your taxes, and so I do not single out homosexuals for their sins in particular. To do so would be hypocrtical because I fall short of the glory of God daily and I need Jesus just as much as they do.

My comment is that this situation has little to do with Phil or Duck dynasty; it is simply acting as a vehicle for a lot of pent up outrage and angst against the media and the politically correct culture. It's an overreaction, basically, because conservatives in general and Christians in particular feel marginalized by the current cultural climate.

It's an interesting cultural milestone because while Chick-fil-a was popular, it was never in the spotlight of the media or very much in the national consciousness. As a money making and ratings juggernaut, Duck Dynasty is right on the main nerve of it all, and so its fans, typically conservatives and Christians, cannot be easily ignored. Greed has given them a voice because the threat of a boycott is seen as a clear and present danger to many different bank accounts.

So we see two forces now pitted against eachother; one is the real motive of the corporation, which is to milk duck dynasty for every dollar it can. The other is its obligation to appease the politically correct establishment by blacklisting all who have violated the new cultural norms. A&E had no choice in the matter; they clearly had to do something. But, it is all just a facade; they dearly wish they had 100 Phils with 100 hit shows instead of just 1.

So, it is interesting to me because greed is taking the air out of the politically correct atmosphere. Because of Duck Dynastys popularity, the right actually has a louder voice in the culture than the left on this issue. If Duck Dynasty was just an obscure show, Phil would be history. Yet, because it generates so much wealth for shareholders, Phil is pretty much invincible. It all comes back to the bottom line, an idol to which seemingly anything can ultimately be sacrificed, even the progressive agenda itself.

I kinda don't know what to make of this vid. At one point, she makes an appeal to others not to be apathetic to anonymous Internet comments, but I don't see how starting a flame war every time someone makes an inappropriate comment solves the underlying problem.

Plus, I don't see a person who makes those kinds of comments seriously reconsidering them after watching this vid. And if, as she says, those kinds of comments are a small minority of the feedback she receives I'm not sure exactly what the problem is.

She equates it to bullying, but that reminds me of this Sift where the reporter did the same thing after receiving a single email about her weight (a vid which produced a pretty extensive VS debate thread on the topic):

http://videosift.com/video/News-Anchor-Responds-to-Viewer-Email-Calling-Her-Fat?loadcomm=1

So... yeah. Some people are mean/clueless/crude/outright insulting/sexist on the Internet. She seems to think this is preventing women from keeping vlogs about STEM topics, but doesn't really offer any evidence to support this.

In fact, if her supposition were true wouldn't you see that trend across YouTube? Basically if it were true, YouTube vlogs would be dominated by men since the women are too what... delicate? Afraid of dealing with negative comments? In a way, her hypothesis itself seems kind of insulting to women, suggesting that they wilt in the face of these kinds of comments and just give up.