Funny thing is, I actually don't mind the anime eyes. They do look weird and unsettling, but I feel like that actually works in the context of the story (or at least, the little I know of it from the trailer).

I'll probably watch it on streaming if the reviews are good.

it's unfortunate, I agree.
We need government to set laws and restrictions because humans are shitty, and big companies will always make decisions based on money and short term solutions. Big business and corporations will cut corners on anything environment because it's not in their interest. their only interest is paying back the biggest dollar to their shareholders.

The funny thing is, the shareholders are people like you and me, and we don't have a say on how these companies are run. Our Retirement funds are invested in them, and our savings accounts are being used by the banks to invest in them. That's why our money grows over time.

So big corporate interests are our interests. It's a vicious circle, If we want our investments to be responsible, we're going to also need our governments to impose those rules on corporations so we can have a future for our children and live on a clean earth.

It was designed to reach death level G forces and maintain long enough to kill anyone who isn't wearing a g-suit. The funny thing is, it has been reported that some people are simply naturally resistant to G-forces. They are still researching why.

So technically it would kill like 99 percent of the people who rode it, but Urbonas factored in this possibility. Riders would be fitted with a biometric monitoring system. If one go around wasn't successful, for whatever reason, the coaster would not apply brakes to stop at the station and would cycle you through again before your brain had a chance to recover.

Top Secret was funny. This wasn't.

My give up point was the Narrator during the "punch a hole in a guy" scene. It just went on... and on... and on... Much of the movie was like that. "SEE??? HERE IS THE FUNNY THING!!! NOTICE HOW IT'S FUNNY??? IT'S FUNNY!!! HERE!!! RIGHT HERE!!! FUNNY!!! HAHA!!! IT'S A FUNNY THING!!! OK!!! I'LL DESCRIBE IT AGAIN BECAUSE IT'S FUNNY!!! YOU SHOULD BE STILL LAUGHING IT'S SO FUNNY!!! HOW FUNNY FUNNY FUNNY WE ARE!!!"

The funny thing was that after the genesis, they almost always neglected to have a solid library of games available for their hardware. The game gear was incredibly more capable than the gameboy, but they didn't support it with titles. Same as the nomad. If they could have managed to swing one of their portables into being a viable nintendo competitor, they might still be around.

I've seen a lot of funny things, but this one is amazing. So.. human.

*quality *doublepromote

funny thing is, they missed quite a few.

Funny thing is the old left is acting that extreme and downright lunatic, that the new right and new left are finding a lot of common ground now.

In Germany for example you can see that on Die Linke, a pure left party (links means left in German), which is actually well established. They are now suddenly talking about things that only the right wing would have talked about, so much that a new right wing party already offered some of them to join their party. Sure, they still have a lot of the old leftists among them who just keep raving in their delusions, but they are realizing reality and are leaning more and more to a policy of reality.

I said that before, if you act like extremists, you will lose the moderates and people who can still think for themselves, and thats exactly whats happening now. I considered myself more of a leftist than right winger too until a few months ago actually. Now, I would never go that far, because I know with what lunacy, hypocrisy I would be identified with. And that is actually making me mad, because there were a lot ideas from the left, that now have lost most of their credibility, throwing us all back decades, or more.

That's the funny thing about an anonymous vote, you don't need to be emboldened to be a bigot at the poll...

You need to be emboldened to come out on the street and wave awful signs around, but not to vote.

And bigots are the most motivated (along with authoritarian control types, many of which sit to the left of center). They are more likely to vote at every election even when the candidates don't necessarily fulfill their beliefs.

All things being equal, I'd hypothesize that Trump won because the centrists and disaffected Sanders voters ditched Hillary rather than embracing Trump. She didn't make mistakes, she wholesale spat in the face of many groups she just didn't give a fuck about, and it came back to bite her in the ass.

Funny thing about the wall is, whenever border security goes up, the number of illegal immigrants increases in America because they know if they go back home it's a pain to cross back in. It's a counter-intuitive, but well-documented fact, look it up if you don't believe me.

Right, the Russians who prop up a dictator whose almost immediate response to the Arab uprising was to fire on the protesters and who terrifies his people into submission with barrel bombs and chemical weapons - they're the good guys.

See here's the funny thing. You or whatever you're reading is stuck in the Cold War mindset of the US intervening to prop up murderous dictators against the perceived threat of communism. However now that it's Russia intervening on behalf of its favored dictators you're too stuck in your narrative to see the irony of your position.

Russia is only intervening against ISIS to the extent it props up Assad. The US still of course supports dictators when it is in its economic interests (see Saudi Arabia and implicitly supporting its war in Yemen) but the fact that it's largely avoided arming the government or rebel groups in Syria, neither of which have their hands clean should indicate a lesson learned from arming the mujaheddin against the Soviets in Afghanistan, not a mistake.

The funny thing is that we were all so willing to buy into the possible consequences of a "nuclear winter" but we easily ignore climate change.

*Warning I've only gone and done yet another wall of text again! This may or may not get read by anyone on here (good god I wouldn't blame anyone for skipping it), but at the very least it's formed the backbone to a video script so it's not a complete waste of my time! (he tells himself)*

This is as much @bareboards2 as yourself, but he already made it clear he wasn't willing to engage on the issue, so you're getting it instead MWAHAHAHHAHA! *coughs*

I don't wish this to come across as over condescending (though I'm sure it will none the less as I'm in one of those moods). But pretty much every (successful) comedy premise operates on the same underlying principle of irony. i.e. there is an expectation or understanding, which is deliberately subverted, and what results is comedy.

In this case, amongst other things we have the understood premises that:
A. rape is a bad, often horrific thing.
B. that there is an established social taboo about praising such behaviour.
C. that there is a section of society inherently opposed to making light of things of which they do not approve (or in a way in which they do not approve)
D. most words and phrases have an expected association and meaning.

What Jim Jefferies (an accomplished and well respected comedies amongst his peers) has done here, is take these commonly understood premises and subverted the audiences normal expectations in order to evoke a sense of irony, from which the audience derives humour and amusement.

A simple joke might take a single such premise and perform a single inversion of our expectation. e.g. my dog has no nose, how does he smell?....terrible!

By subverting our assumed meaning (that the missing nose refers to the dogs implied lack of olfactory senses), the joke creates basic irony by substituting this expected meaning for that of the odour of the dog itself.

This is of course a terrible joke, because it is as simple as a joke could be. It has only one layer of irony and lacks any sense of novelty which, might tip such a terrible joke into working for any other than the very young or simple minded.

We could of course attempt to boost this joke by adding more levels of irony contextually. e.g. a very serious or complex comedian Like say Stuart Lee, could perhaps deliver this joke in a routine and get a laugh by being completely incongruous with his style and past material.

And herein we see the building blocks from which any sophisticated professional comedy routine is built. By layering several different strands or ironic subversion, a good comedian can begin to make a routine more complex and often more than just the sum of its parts to boot.

In this case, Jim is taking the four main premises listed above, layering them and trying to find the sweetest spot of subverted expectation for each. (something which usually takes a great deal of skill and experience at this level)

He mentions the fact that his jokes incite outrage in a certain section of society because this helps to strengthen one of the strands of irony with which he is playing. The fact that he also does so in a boastful tone is itself a subversion, it is understood by the audience that he does not/should not be proud of being merely offensive and as such we have yet another strand of irony thrown into the mix.

You know how better music tends to have more and/or more complex musical things happening at once? It is the same with comedy. The more ironic threads a comedian can juggle around coherently, the more sophisticated and adept their routines could be considered to be.

Naturally as with music there's no accounting for taste as you say. Some people simply can't get past a style or associations of a given musician or song (or painting or whatever).

But dammit Jim is really one of the greats right now. Like him or lump him, the dude is pretty (deceptively) masterful at his craft.

There are at least 4-5 major threads of irony built into this bit and countless other smaller ones besides. He dances around and weaves between them like some sort of comedy ballerina. Every beat has been finely tuned over months of gig's (and years of previous material) to strike the strongest harmonies between these strands and probe for the strongest sense of dissonance in the audience. Not to mention, tone of voice, stance, timing etc.

I think Ahmed is basically terrible too, but it is because the jokes lack much semblance of complexity or nuance. Jeff Dunham's material in general feels extremely simple and seems like it uses shock as a mere crutch, rather than something deeper and more intelligent.

Taste is taste, but I feel one can to a reasonable extent criticise things like the films of Michael Bay, or the music of Justin Beiber for being objectively shallow by breaking down their material into its constituent parts (or lack thereof).

Likewise one could take the music of Wagner and while not enjoying the sound of it, still examine the complexity of it's composition and the clear superiority of skill Wagner had over most of this peers.

I guess what all this boils down to is, Jim seems to me to be clearly very very good at what he does (as he ought after all these years). Reducing his act to mere controversy feels a lot like accusing Black Sabbath of just making noise and using satanic imagery to get attention (or insert other less out of date example here).

The jokes were never at the expense of victims, they are at the expense of our expectations. He makes his own true feelings on the matter abundantly clear towards the end of the section.

As as he says himself his job is to say funny things, not to be a social activist.

I take no issue with you not liking it, but I do take issue with the suggestion that it is somehow two dimensional, or for that matter using controversy cheaply.

Offensive initial premises are some of the most ironically rich in comedy. It's like deliberately choosing the brightest paints when trying to create a striking painting. Why would you avoid the strongest materials because some people (not in your audience) find the contrast too striking?

Eh, much love anyway. This was more an exercise in intellectual masturbation than anything else. Not that I didn't mean all of it sincerely.

Funny thing is, the company that is suing him probably didn't even create the patent, they bought it.

Also, the judges in that court get a ton of money on the sly.

I noticed at the end of the video it briefly came up with Romans 14:19. I wonder if he'll do a "Smarter Every Day" on the absurdity of religion.

The funny thing about that passage is that, like most religious passages can mean almost anything you want it to. To me it ironically means to give up religion, yet to someone else it could justify a nuclear war.