36 is not "almost 40". (I am trying to convince my 34 year old self something?!)

Melissa Joan Hart still has "got it" in my book!

I'm just going to give my opinion here, mostly because George Carlin is my hero, and because I'm interested in the topic:

Regarding things being offensive:
There isn't any topic known anywhere to human kind that won't offend someone. Whether it's daisies or pancakes or pinwheels someone, somewhere, can be offended by it. I guarantee it. This is just my opinion, but I don't think that anyone has the right to 'not be offended.'

Regarding comedians:
People mostly don't seem to realize the importance of humor in all of our lives. Comedians play a very important role in the collective human community that cannot be replaced. They help us deal with parts of ourselves that would otherwise be unacceptable for us to even sometimes think about. Just like the court jester who might otherwise get himself beheaded if he were a normal person suggesting the king was fat. Almost all humor, successful or not, makes people feel uncomfortable. The very best humor makes people really uncomfortable. Laughter itself is a response to these same situations and events that we just have a little-bit of a hard time dealing with. I think this is why comedians, while onstage, are given a free pass. Even their televised specials get edited for content, but the only time a comedian gets kicked off stage in a club is when no one is laughing. What they're saying implies a lot more about the people laughing than it does about the comedian. Follow me?

And it's important to remember that most comedians are artists who are immersed in their material. Most have specific routines that are worked out over and over again, tweeking the tone and meter until they become almost meaningless to the comedians themselves. This is why you rarely see experienced comedians laughing at their own jokes, they've just heard them too many times. And even when they are performing improvisationally, like Tosh was during the event in question, they aren't saying things that they think are funny, specifically, they are saying things that they think the audience will find funny. It may seem like a small distinction, but it can make a big difference in understanding why some jokes are made. Some comedians have a style based on saying shocking, offensive things, and it's they're job. They are paid to make an audience laugh, and whether you like him or not, Tosh gets paid.

And the particular incident and joke:
This whole thing was brought up by a woman who was at a show and heard something she didn't like. She retorted back from the audience that rape isn't funny. To which Tosh retorted back that it would be funny if the woman was "raped by like five guys." Now, according to the woman, that made her actually fear for her safety and she got up and left. I'm not going to debate her sanity, if she really felt threatened, then that's terrible and I feel bad for her. But there are a few things that need to be pointed out here:

1: Tosh didn't threaten anyone. Had he said: "you five guys over there should rape this woman," it would not only be offensive to many people, but it also could have been perceived as a legitimate threat that, maybe, could have been pursued legally.

2: Hecklers are always dealt with harshly. And so should they be. Complain all you want about a person outside of a show but when you go to a comedy club, you have agreed that it's that person's time to talk. And so has everyone else who paid money to listen to them, not you. They're up there making a living, succeeding or failing at the expense of their own ass, not yours. It should be noted here that the woman said she left the room to the laughter of the entire audience.

3: You do not have the right to not be offended, especially if you are at a fucking comedy club. There was a pretty famous incident with Joan Rivers when she was joking about deaf people on stage, and a man in the audience stood up and started yelling at her because his daughter was deaf and he didn't find her jokes funny. Well, Joan Rivers responded that her own mother was deaf, and that she'd had to deal with that on her own terms. Comedy was something that helped her deal with that (because comedy is a useful tool) and if he didn't like it, he could go fuck himself. And that's the thing, you never know people's story. The girl at Tosh's show couldn't know Tosh's experience with rape, just like he couldn't know hers. And if you don't think people who've experienced a major tragedy can joke about the horrible events in their lives, I invite you to go watch some Bob Saget material. Humor is subjective. Saying you don't think something should be allowed because it's not funny, is exactly the same as saying something shouldn't be allowed because you don't think it's funny. Whatever it is, you can bet that someone out there finds it funny, even if it's nonsense.

Rape jokes are hardly ever funny. Even Carlin's few never got much of a laugh. But jokes are thoughts, and I'd really rather people stop trying to police thoughts. If someone finds a joke threatening, then deal with the threat, not the joke. And if someone finds a joke offensive, well...

Very well done. Kudos to your researchivity.>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^ChaosEngine:
Aside from the fact that you have provided no citations for this data
Since he was kind enough to copy/paste the typo ("10 Divorce, in turn") it was extremely easy to track his source down.
http://www.troubledteens.co
m/information-and-statistics/troubled-teens-statistics-teen-help-for-troubled-teens.html

And they got it from "Heritage.org (A conservative / Republican "Think Tank")" to quote directly from that page, who got it from Joan R. Kahn and Kathryn A. London, "Premarital Sex and the Risk of Divorce," Journal of Marriage and the Family. Shame they didn't finish reading the paper they cited, or they would have seen this conclusion:
"However, when the analysis controls for unobserved characteristics affecting both the likelihood of having premarital sex and the likelihood of divorce, the differential is no longer statistically significant. These results suggest that the positive relationship between premarital sex and the risk of divorce can be attributed to prior unobserved differences (e.g., the willingness to break traditional norms) rather than to a direct causal effect. "
Booyah! Research sources ftw!

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Aside from the fact that you have provided no citations for this data
Since he was kind enough to copy/paste the typo ("10 Divorce, in turn") it was extremely easy to track his source down.
http://www.troubledteens.co
m/information-and-statistics/troubled-teens-statistics-teen-help-for-troubled-teens.html


And they got it from "Heritage.org (A conservative / Republican "Think Tank")" to quote directly from that page, who got it from Joan R. Kahn and Kathryn A. London, "Premarital Sex and the Risk of Divorce," Journal of Marriage and the Family. Shame they didn't finish reading the paper they cited, or they would have seen this conclusion:

"However, when the analysis controls for unobserved characteristics affecting both the likelihood of having premarital sex and the likelihood of divorce, the differential is no longer statistically significant. These results suggest that the positive relationship between premarital sex and the risk of divorce can be attributed to prior unobserved differences (e.g., the willingness to break traditional norms) rather than to a direct causal effect. "

Booyah! Research sources ftw!

or perhaps simply a draw string.

>> ^dag:

mmm... lose vaginas. What about ball lifts?

i have a much higher opinion of Joan after smoking with Joan.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

I have a much higher opinion of Joan Rivers after seeing "Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work" which chronicled her beginnings on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson to today.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'marijuana, dispensary, joan rivers, pot, weed' to 'marijuana, dispensary, joan rivers, pot, weed, cannabis' - edited by Boise_Lib

I have a much higher opinion of Joan Rivers after seeing "Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work" which chronicled her beginnings on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson to today.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Hilary duff, joan cusak, john cusak, want to blow you up, war inc, movie, cinema, puke' to 'Hilary duff, joan cusack, john cusack, want 2 blow you up, war inc, movie, cinema, puke' - edited by Barseps

It featured the vocal talents of Zero Mostel, Joan Rivers (who narrated the segments), and Gene Wilder (most of the time).

I recognized Joan Rivers instantly, so of course went to Wikipedia to find the above info.

good try.
>> ^Boise_Lib:

Siftbot?

The Hate-GOP Machine
By Brent Bozell
7/27/2011


The latest polls show the people are not happy with President Obama's handling of budget matters, but Republicans look even worse. And yet, while the GOP delivers one idea after another, Obama has offered nothing, instead just attacking, attacking, attacking, blaming everyone but himself in utter denial of the reality that no man on the face of this Earth is more responsible for our debt catastrophe than he.

Why then is the public blaming Republicans more? It is because of the ceaseless, shameless and oftentimes utterly dishonest attacks on them coming from Obama's media hit men. A day doesn't go by without a leftist "news" media outrage. They come in all shapes, too.

First, there is the asinine. Think MSNBC anchor Mika Brzezinski. There she was broadsiding the Republicans for having refused Obama's proposal. "I think the Republicans look stupid and mean," she declared. "This is stupid. This is a no-brainer in terms of a deal. This is a no-brainer, and they look mean, and they look difficult, and they're going to lose this." But what is "this"? What was Obama's proposal? There was none, just nebulous language about the "wealthy" needing to pay their "fair share," of "revenue," which in the English language means a massive tax hike, which the GOP, correctly, rejects.

There is the inaccurate. MSNBC daytime anchor Thomas Roberts loudly complains that the party of the "super-rich" is to blame. "We haven't had tax increases over the last 10 years. We've had a recession; we've had two wars to fight. Why do you think the top 2 percent of America has a chokehold on the other 98 percent?"

That's almost exactly upside down. The Tax Foundation has estimated that the top 1 percent pays 38 percent of the entire income-tax burden, and the top 5 percent pays 58 percent. The bottom 50 percent pays nothing in federal tax. With these numbers, it could be argued that the bottom 50 percent has a chokehold on the top 5 percent.

There is the "I've lost all sense of sanity and class" crowd, and yes, we're talking Chris Matthews here. On "Hardball," Joan Walsh of Salon.com said the Republican resistance to new taxes is "deadly and it's wrong and it's hostage-taking, and you shouldn't negotiate with hostage-takers." Matthews had a chance to step in with a gentle, "Whoa, cowgirl." Instead it just carried him away, and he could only add: "I agree. It's terrorism!" A pundit who looks at the debt talks and sees deadly terrorism doesn't need a math class. He needs psychological help.

There is the obsequious. Obama is painted as the perfectly reasonable negotiator who has bent over backward. NBC's Matt Lauer wants to know, "Where is the shared sacrifice going to come from on the Republican side?" CBS's Bob Schieffer insists Obama talks compromise, but "I don't hear any concessions from people on the other side. They just say no taxes, and that's their negotiating posture."

No one, but no one in the media (outside of Fox News, of course) is calling this double-talking president of ours on the carpet. This president who now tells us we must raise taxes to save the Republic is the same president who just seven months ago was telling us that everyone agrees the worst thing one could do during a crisis is raise taxes. Republicans agreed then and hold to that position now. That makes them unreasonable, unbalanced.

And where did this sudden spurt of media fiscal discipline come from, anyway? Where were they when America needed someone to ask Obama, Pelosi and Reid how they were going to pay for TARP? Where were the media demanding to know where the trillion bucks for the anti-stimulus program was coming from? How about the trillion for Obamacare?

They went along for the ride on all these budget-busting disasters. And now they have the temerity to lecture us on fiscal discipline?

There is the oblivious. Some journalists refuse to acknowledge that spending has soared under Obama. When Grover Norquist factually noted Obama's binge, CNN anchor Ali Velshi erupted in protest. "Wait a minute! 'He created with his spending'? You didn't just suggest that our budget problem is because of President Obama, did you, Grover?" Norquist said yes, he wasn't kidding. Velshi dismissed this concept as unreasonable: "OK, we're going to pass by that question because that's an unreasonable position."

In round numbers: In fewer than four years, Obama has increased the debt by $4 trillion. He proposes we raise it another $2.3 trillion. This makes Obama responsible for almost half the debt of the United States. But it is "unreasonable" to say so.

The leftist news media aren't coming to this debate to be an honest broker. They're just trying to break one side apart, and never mind that it's their vision that is driving us right over a cliff.

The Hate-GOP Machine
By Brent Bozell
7/27/2011


The latest polls show the people are not happy with President Obama's handling of budget matters, but Republicans look even worse. And yet, while the GOP delivers one idea after another, Obama has offered nothing, instead just attacking, attacking, attacking, blaming everyone but himself in utter denial of the reality that no man on the face of this Earth is more responsible for our debt catastrophe than he.

Why then is the public blaming Republicans more? It is because of the ceaseless, shameless and oftentimes utterly dishonest attacks on them coming from Obama's media hit men. A day doesn't go by without a leftist "news" media outrage. They come in all shapes, too.

First, there is the asinine. Think MSNBC anchor Mika Brzezinski. There she was broadsiding the Republicans for having refused Obama's proposal. "I think the Republicans look stupid and mean," she declared. "This is stupid. This is a no-brainer in terms of a deal. This is a no-brainer, and they look mean, and they look difficult, and they're going to lose this." But what is "this"? What was Obama's proposal? There was none, just nebulous language about the "wealthy" needing to pay their "fair share," of "revenue," which in the English language means a massive tax hike, which the GOP, correctly, rejects.

There is the inaccurate. MSNBC daytime anchor Thomas Roberts loudly complains that the party of the "super-rich" is to blame. "We haven't had tax increases over the last 10 years. We've had a recession; we've had two wars to fight. Why do you think the top 2 percent of America has a chokehold on the other 98 percent?"

That's almost exactly upside down. The Tax Foundation has estimated that the top 1 percent pays 38 percent of the entire income-tax burden, and the top 5 percent pays 58 percent. The bottom 50 percent pays nothing in federal tax. With these numbers, it could be argued that the bottom 50 percent has a chokehold on the top 5 percent.

There is the "I've lost all sense of sanity and class" crowd, and yes, we're talking Chris Matthews here. On "Hardball," Joan Walsh of Salon.com said the Republican resistance to new taxes is "deadly and it's wrong and it's hostage-taking, and you shouldn't negotiate with hostage-takers." Matthews had a chance to step in with a gentle, "Whoa, cowgirl." Instead it just carried him away, and he could only add: "I agree. It's terrorism!" A pundit who looks at the debt talks and sees deadly terrorism doesn't need a math class. He needs psychological help.

There is the obsequious. Obama is painted as the perfectly reasonable negotiator who has bent over backward. NBC's Matt Lauer wants to know, "Where is the shared sacrifice going to come from on the Republican side?" CBS's Bob Schieffer insists Obama talks compromise, but "I don't hear any concessions from people on the other side. They just say no taxes, and that's their negotiating posture."

No one, but no one in the media (outside of Fox News, of course) is calling this double-talking president of ours on the carpet. This president who now tells us we must raise taxes to save the Republic is the same president who just seven months ago was telling us that everyone agrees the worst thing one could do during a crisis is raise taxes. Republicans agreed then and hold to that position now. That makes them unreasonable, unbalanced.

And where did this sudden spurt of media fiscal discipline come from, anyway? Where were they when America needed someone to ask Obama, Pelosi and Reid how they were going to pay for TARP? Where were the media demanding to know where the trillion bucks for the anti-stimulus program was coming from? How about the trillion for Obamacare?

They went along for the ride on all these budget-busting disasters. And now they have the temerity to lecture us on fiscal discipline?

There is the oblivious. Some journalists refuse to acknowledge that spending has soared under Obama. When Grover Norquist factually noted Obama's binge, CNN anchor Ali Velshi erupted in protest. "Wait a minute! 'He created with his spending'? You didn't just suggest that our budget problem is because of President Obama, did you, Grover?" Norquist said yes, he wasn't kidding. Velshi dismissed this concept as unreasonable: "OK, we're going to pass by that question because that's an unreasonable position."

In round numbers: In fewer than four years, Obama has increased the debt by $4 trillion. He proposes we raise it another $2.3 trillion. This makes Obama responsible for almost half the debt of the United States. But it is "unreasonable" to say so.

The leftist news media aren't coming to this debate to be an honest broker. They're just trying to break one side apart, and never mind that it's their vision that is driving us right over a cliff.

>> ^bareboards2:

So here is how the femme channel is described:
From Joan of Arc to Shirley Manson to June Cleaver, a collective dedicated to the other 15% of the sift.
Seems like this vid is dedicated to the other half of the population, doncha think?
nochannel
anatomy timeshift sexuality
That covers it nicely, yeah?


Stop ruining all the boobs.... ehh fun!

So here is how the femme channel is described:

From Joan of Arc to Shirley Manson to June Cleaver, a collective dedicated to the other 15% of the sift.

Seems like this vid is dedicated to the other half of the population, doncha think?

*nochannel

*anatomy *timeshift *sexuality

That covers it nicely, yeah?