But Dana White ( UFC president) is still on board the insanity train.

I presume he'll be lecturing a blackberry or something...

@enoch I agree with what you said (mostly) and agree with @Asmo even more.

The one thing not included in your pretty good analysis, enoch, is my main cri de coeur -- since the very beginning, feminists have been told not to call themselves feminists. From the very beginning. Using a lot of the same arguments that newtboy put forth, but way before there were third wave feminists.

It is a very touchy and real subject to those of us who have identified for decades as feminists despite an onslaught of reasons why that is a wrong thing to do.

I'm sorry that happened to you -- I hope I wasn't one who took you on. It is entirely possible I was -- turbocharged as a lot of us are about that "word." It doesn't take much to set some of us off -- it isn't pretty, it can feel terrible, and it is out of proportion due to the long history of having the very same conversation over and over and over again.

Because I hope I am now clear -- it isn't just a "word." The word has always been a battlefield -- the right to call ourselves that without being lectured, the right to define it for ourselves as women, the right to prioritize working for rights for a particular group and be clear about the subject.

Other than that, yeah, you are correct -- newtboy and I have the right to call ourselves what we will, for our own valid reasons.

Who is this "we" of whom you speak?

Because I have proudly called myself a feminist since at least 1976, if not before.

I started calling myself a Humanist also maybe in 1990? Somewhere around there? I am not giving up the term Feminist though. No matter who tries to co-opt it or suppress my use of it.

Or even "oppress" my use of it, if I might go that far. Why do I have to fight you to use a simple word to describe myself?

The scolding continues, by the way. Telling me that I am wrong to use a term I have proudly used for over 40 years. Because you and some of your friends don't like it and don't want to use it, for your own valid reasons.

Please stop telling Feminists that the word was never "descriptive of their goals" when in fact it is very descriptive.

Equality for women. Period.

I'm not telling you to stop labeling yourself only a Humanist. I was clear that I understood your point when I said that Humanist is an umbrella word that covers Feminist.

Is this going to be one of these long back-and-forths, where you try to talk me out of something? I really don't want to go there. It's exhausting.

Maybe the real question you might consider asking yourself is -- why is it so important to you that I hew to your definitions? Is it just an intellectual exercise, the fun of the argument? Well, it isn't fun to me. It feels lecturing and minimizing of my personal experience and knowledge and life lessons I have learned.

I know you don't intend that. However, I am telling you straight out, clearly, that is how it feels to me and I don't like it. I've been on the receiving end for FORTY FUCKING YEARS why it is inappropriate for some reason or other to call myself a feminist. The reasons change, but the goal always seems to be same: To stop me and others from overtly saying that we care about women and their place in society.

It's not going to happen. After 40 years, it just isn't going to happen.

I'm a feminist. I care about women and their place in society.

Nobody takes attendance at University 'round these parts. If students want to skip, that's their problem, so long as they do the work and pass the exams (which is much harder if you don't go to lectures).

"Letting them know that you're about to have a lecture on very sensitive material is totally fine. I mean, I've done that."

Then congrats, you're OK with trigger warnings.

And like most instances where people panic about them, Oxford hasn't made any sort of official policy. Professors are able to do so at will or ignore the use of the warnings all together. Much like they have been doing for years and years.

Curious how victims of sexual assault that often develop PTSD for periods following are somehow "coddled censors", yet the same doesn't apply for any sort of accommodation for other mental or physical ailments. We don't see people freaking out about warnings of flashing lights in various media for the epileptic, we don't mock the soldier suffering from PTSD who asks for accommodations, and we don't mock the migraine sufferers who avoid certain situations, food, etc to prevent attacks.

But somehow, the physical effects triggered by certain stimuli of a lingering sexual assault is different. Better alert the news media, the PC police rape survivors are here to ruin everything with their asks for "Hey, maybe consider my physical issues?"

http://videosift.com/video/Hugh-Herr-The-new-bionics-that-let-us-run-climb-and-dance

Good TED lecture about these bionic limbs. At the end there is woman who dances on one of them.

I

When you start off with heres the deal, it sounds like the follow up is gonna be an immutable law of comedy, rather than why you personally find jokes funny.

Bill does actually touch on something true here: a first lady/man is not elected to office, the president is, and yet is given a platform anyways (albeit an unintrusive and politically safe one).

This is a fact that doesnt bother me in the slightest, unlike bill ( or perhaps bills character), but i still find the arguement pretty funny.

Bill's style of comedy is different from luois ck is finding the humour in an agruement against the audience, rather than one on the side of the audience. I think there is as much brilliance in this as any....

Comedy at its core is a performance, not an essay, lecture or real arguement. It may be, just as a performing art can be anything, but it does not have to have a bone of truth in it. Perhaps its patronizing to say thatcomedy is about laugh and everything else is optional, but people seem to have forgotten this.

I'm not sure I followed the full thread of his argument here, maybe because the clip's missing some context from the book or an earlier part of the lecture, but it seems to be just entirely founded on the Straw Vulcan fallacy.

haha..whats up drunky!
you nailed exactly why i post some of the more controversial videos in my que.

i have found that those of identify strongly with one politcial and/or cultural philosophy tend to stick in the same groups,the same spaces and receive their information from the same sources.

this applies to both the right AND the left.
we can use bobknight as an example when he regurgitates almost verbatim the current republican talking points.

but bob is an easy target.

the only thing i have truly been invested in of late is the greg elliot case.who was recently found not guilty and people have been saying its a victory for free speech.

but is it?
the man lost his job and is 100k in the hole for legal fees.

so while people can say this is a victory for free speech.i am less optimistic.some people could look at greg elliots case and decide to shut up if confronted.not make any waves and submit to the threat of legal prosecution.

of course there was a sifter who felt that because the video was from a right wing show,the content was worthless.which is a binary way of thinking that is very limiting,because it judges the speaker before the content and the discussion is ended before it has begun.

so my posting the rape game video was to bring awareness,not make a social commentary,and is also why i provided links to both a left and right take on the situation.

i would rather post a documentary or lecture on the subject,but most people nowadays want their information spoon fed to them in tiny,easy to consume,media bites no more than 5 minutes.

which is damn near impossible.
human interactions,cultures,religions and societies are complex and nuanced.it takes time to unpack all that information and digest the context.

ah well..what can you do...

anyways,
thanks for your comment and stay awesome brother!

Talks = "Debates, lectures and more"

I don't think it includes interviews.

...and your kinda stretching Religion too.

seriously dude?
that is a serious statement?
and why should i consider ANY criticism you offer with having any weight?

considering that on another video i posted you claimed the speaker was a nutter.thats it..no actual rebuttal or opinion..just "nutter",and when i asked for your actual reasons for your opinion.you admitted never having watched the video.

so let me guess.
ezra levant is maybe somebody you disagree?
(nevermind that it is lauren southern that has been following this case closely).
maybe he is right wing?libertarian?

maybe he is,i have no idea,but just by your knee-jerk and ill-thought out comment and your OBVIOUS bias.i think it is safe to assume that is the metric on how you judge the information you consume.

so let me ask you.
what information being presented here is false?untrue?fabricated? hell,even biased?

hmmmm?

you have done what you always do.
you do a drive by comment that attacks the speaker,poster or lecturer without examining the evidence and/or information.

and in THIS case you insult ME.
that somehow because i post a video from someone you happen to disagree,dislike or despise automatically translates to me becoming a bobknight wanna-be who worships at the altar of limbaugh.

so you dont like ezra levant.
who cares?
does that make ANY of the information in this video any less true? or pertinent?

nope.

so if you do not have anything of value to offer except for petty insults.i ask that you kindly take this cookie and go play outside.this is an adult conversation.

My Organic Chem 101 lecturer told me that no experiment ever fails if you can:

a) explain why it didn't work
or
b) you can use the results somewhere else

The abiding lesson was always to be vigilant during experiments just in case something was waiting to be discovered.

Kudos to them!

We lecture people endlessly about how stupid it is to drink and drive, but loaded firearms? Sure, what could possibly go wrong?
When they started allowing open carry in bars in Texas I wonder how many bouncers just quit, right there and then.

hmmmm...i see.
i took the description directly from the youtube page of the canadian association for equality.i really have know idea if she is actually a sensation but her lecture was pretty non-controversial.she was simply comparing the terms toxic masculine and toxic femininity by using historical examples.

she really didn't inject her own opinion or views.she just was offering differentiating comparisons by way of historical examples.

so i was simply,and quite sincerely,curious your take on her lecture,but i have a sneaking suspicion that you didnt actually watch this lecture and instead made a knee-jerk reactionary based solely on the description.