Yes....that.

If I were black, I would certainly feel that the police are people to fear and avoid at all costs, not there to protect or serve me. It's incontrovertible that there is NOTHING a black man can do to be safe. There is no level of surrender, clear lack of arms, absolute lack of movement, or ANYTHING they can do to ensure they won't be 'mistaken' for a perpetrator and shot....usually shot dead. It's also clear and incontrovertible that, even when they've done absolutely nothing wrong, and the police agree they've done nothing wrong and they are in no way threatening, the police will still shoot them...and then not give them medical attention, in fact they will handcuff them and try to think of a charge they can make up to excuse their inexcusable deadly actions.
When it's a life or death situation, civilized behavior and respect for authority hardly outweigh a drive for self preservation....it does one no good to have been civilized if that causes one's death. It's for that reason that I say that I would never convict a black man of murdering a police officer...it's reasonable to think it would be self defense under any circumstance just because it was a black man and a police man, just as much as if it was an armed Klansman. They should not have to wait to be attacked before defending themselves, they don't have equipment or training to withstand an attack and respond, their only option is to shoot first if they want a chance to live, unlike police.
Clearly, that's not the situation in every instance, and not all cops are killers, but enough are that it's reasonable for a black man to assume any random officer may well act murderously, and so reasonable to protect one's self from them pre-emptively. That is a horrendous situation, but one I put squarely on the doorstep of the police, and it's up to them to change that perception with actions, not excuses and deflections. They have failed miserably thus far, which is why I have little sympathy for their recent losses. If you pick a fist fight and lose a tooth in the fight, that's YOUR fault....the same reasoning goes for gunfights, IMO.

In normal circumstances, I would agree. These were/are not normal circumstances.
He sought out a store that would be the most hostile to his request intentionally with the hope that they would do something like this, no question about that.
In a more perfect world, I would mostly agree (except it literally IS their business). This is far from a perfect world.

It's a trap, because most liberals are against allowing businesses to deny service to those they dislike for religious/political reasons, even though they would really like to mimic them. That means that denying him service plays into their hands even more than making a snide subliminal addition to the interior of the shirt. This is the catch 22 they have put themselves in, where there's no good option.
I think they should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason....but those they refuse are allowed to make a public stink about it and 'boycott' (like this guy would have had they refused to make a shirt).

At this point, you have a point. The only way I see it working for Sanders now is if she's indicted, becomes seriously ill, or is killed. Otherwise, yes, her supporters would (and should) balk at nominating Sanders under those circumstances just as many Sanders supporters balk at nominating her today. It's an impasse on both sides that may lead to President Trump (hold on, I just threw up a little), and one with no clear solution.
Sadly, insanely, that seems to be where we're headed, to a coin flip for the most important position on the planet with no good outcome possible, just bad or terrible.
Time to build my floating island and move on.

What you think...is your problem. A mind can be a terrible, or banal thing.

It was an expression of the dislike or your insipid submission sufficient for me not to waste enough consciousness to finish watching it as is proper and mandatory for a downvoting which is what it deserved. I only gave it any attention as people that I like and respect gave you attention and thought to endeavor to give you a chance. No good deed goes....

You did provide the motivation to revisit the repulsive submission.

Your reactions, submission,...will not likely waste my consciousness again.

As to that individual being one sided in your view. You resemble your remark. He is intelligent, incisive, and predominately objective and even handed. Your perception to the contrary is as telling as, well,...doll.

There's a difference between oppression and privilege. As a straight white male you start with advantages over other people. These aren't advantages of talent or intelligence, they're purely socially constructed for no good reason other than one group hoarding power and influence for centuries.

It's perfectly natural, but that doesn't make it right.

Individuals aren't responsible for the social fabric, but people should at least acknowledge their place in the scheme of things.

Also, I think it's important to note that 99.9% of whites deserve equal or more than what they currently have. The system is wildly skewed by the ultra-rich vacuuming up a massive share of wealth and influence. It's just that we deserve to live somewhat better, whereas many minorities deserve far better treatment than they've had historically and continue to have.

@ChaosEngine

i do not see anyone here defending anything.

now maybe we can view stephen's commentary "dismissive and belittling" as @entr0py pointed out,but i think the deeper issue was prefaced quite succinctly by stephen in his characterization of american,and western societies,as being "infantilized".

where words have become the final bastion of totality in communication and are judged strictly on a word by word basis.so much so that some on the left have been pushing harder and harder to have certain words removed from our lexicon,because they represent negative thoughts/feelings/actions or they may represent a trauma,or horrific violent memory for some people.

but this is the wrong approach.
excising words will not erase those feelings/thoughts/emotions.this will just force people to come up or use different terminology to express those feelings/thoughts.actions that once had words to at least to attempt to express those horrors and/or offenses.

which will just equate to a whole new slew of verbiage being found offensive and in dire need of being castrated from our collective vocabulary.

yet the left (extreme left i grant) appears hell bent on not only attempting to control speech but to also judge those who DO use speech that they find offensive.

this is censorship with prejudice and to claim otherwise is the lie.

just look at your first comment.
you "used" to like stephen fry's opinion,until he became callous and dismissive with what?

words.

but do you REALLY think his attitude and compassion towards those who have suffered emotional trauma is truly dismissive?

well..i do not think so.i have spoken to you enough times to have a modicum of understandings in regards to you,as a person,that you have far more depth of character.

yet it is the WORDS that have hung you up.

look man,words are inert.they are things that are only given life,meaning and context when we add our own subjectivity to them.

words are inadequate.they will ALWAYS be inadequate.
which is why we admire and praise those of us who have a command of words that can reach into our own understandings and extract meaning in a way that blossoms like a spring flower and can create worlds in which we can play,and even share with other people.

i am intimately aware of this deficiency.i do not have an economy of words,and only on rare occasions can i relay,convey and express with ANY form of reductionism.

i struggle to express not only my opinion,but the intent,humanity and compassion of my opinion.

if the extreme left gets their way,the tools we have to express ourselves becomes lesser.

and in the process,WE become lesser.because the tools for dissent,debate,discussion and even..ironically..to expose the more venal and bigoted of our society,will have been reduced to words that offend nobody.

there is danger here,and no good will come from it.no matter if the intent sounds just and the goal compassionate.

freedom of speech is the right to speak freely.
to espouse our opinions,philosophy and yes,our bigotry and prejudice,with legal immunity,but NOT social impunity.

so while we have a right to free speech.
we do not have a right to not be offended,and maybe we need to be offended sometimes.to shake us from our own self-induced apathy and our adoration of digital hallucinations.

so when the westboro baptist church says the most hateful,vitriolic and disgusting admonishments,all in the name of god.
we can be offended by them,and then ridicule them relentlessly.

would stripping words from the english language prevent this group from espousing their own brand of hate?

of course not.they would just find new words.

so what do we do then?
make words illegal?
criminally libel?

so don't judge mr fry too harshly.
he is just pointing to the dangers of controlling speech and the new trend of the perpetually offended.

the extreme right attempts to control morality,and there is serious danger in that practice.
the extreme left attempts to control how we communicate,and hence how we interact,and there is great danger in that as well.

"Doing these things as a prelude to proselytizing means they aren't altruistic..."

Altruism isn't the right word. When people help others to their hurt, that is called agape love, a word the Christian community has owned for 2000 years. You're right of course, that more than a few churches out there are always trying to figure out how to get more members, more money etc. But that isn't all the churches, or even nearly so. For instance the churches in this community dont care who goes where; they all work together and no one is taking the credit for it. This is just one counter example to the broad brush strokes you're painting here.

I think you need a little more nuance here too, newtboy; for instance, would you say it is wrong for atheists to do good deeds in the name of atheism? Or, for the red cross to air commercials showing their accomplishments so they could raise more money to expand their mission in the world?

"And yet, here you are calling attention to yourself (and them), so you proved your statement wrong by stating it publicly. Oops! ;-)"

I didn't mention what I do newtboy, but I have no problem calling attention to the righteous who glorify God through their lives.

"Churches are for profit institutions.."

The church according to the bible is a non-profit organization. Whether churches in America reflect that or not is another question entirely. I know for my church, and almost any other church, you can request to see how the church spends its money year by year. None of the churches I have dealings with are making "profits"

"Once again I would ask, why do you question your god's clear wish that I (and others) not believe in him..."

Jesus Christ died for our sins, yours and mine. God already demonstrated His love for us while we were sinners, now the only question is, will you reciprocate? The insanity of the question posed to Stephan Fry, ie what would you say to God, is exposed by the answer "How dare you!" by Stephan. It seems that people believe God is a man who needs to explain Himself, who has something to hide. Yet, Stephan and every other human being have a lot to hide; the brutal and ugly truth of how we have all lived our lives here.

It's easy for a man to say to people who know nothing about him that he will shake his fist at God when they meet. Yet, what will he do when all of his lawless deeds are exposed and the secrets he has kept from everyone are brought to light? All the fight will go out of him immediately, this I guarantee you. Yet, this in itself is still ridiculous, considering that even merely being in Gods presence is enough to make the most hardened sinner fall to his knees and weep uncontrollably. But people won't be weeping because God loves them on that day, they will be weeping and gnashing their teeth after being confronted by the fact that they have missed the boat for eternity.

"Shirley.."

My name isn't Sherlock..

"Doing 100 good deeds and one incredibly evil deed makes one evil. No church in history has ever reached that level of goodness. Churches are evil. I hope that clears things up."

I'm glad you understand what I have been trying to explain to the sift for years; a relative goodness is no goodness at all. If you set fire to someones home, and then built 27 orphanages, would people call you good? Why is it then that people think that all of our good deeds should cause God to forgive us for a single sin? This is the reason Jesus died for us, because we can't earn Gods forgiveness and our good deeds can't erase our bad ones. Could you ever go to court and say "your honor, although I commited this crime I have done over 1000 hours of community service in my lifetime, so please dismiss the case; will that ever happen? That wouldn't be justice, and if God threw out our case without true justice, He wouldn't be a just judge.

What would I say about churches who have done evil? These are institutions; the true church is the body of Christ, of which every born again believer is a member of. That is what is happening in my community, is that no one cares about the institution of the church; they are just being the church. The reward is simply this, to serve God honorably by living a sacrificial life predicated on sacrificial love.

Yeah, I really can't wait for that.
There's no good outcome for her for this that I can see....either she said things she doesn't want public, or she used military grade crowd control hardware against reporters (and an innocent neighborhood) for no reason at all.
That's not a good look.

[author flagged as a spammer - redacted]

I can't agree with that. It might somewhat address the environmental factor but it doesn't satisfy the ethical reasons (or the health reasons if you care for yourself). There is also no reason why you can't do both. Being vegan and not having kids is not mutually exclusive, and it would address the immediate problem, until the long term (population) problem is resolved.

Meat is never healthy in any amount, just like cigarettes aren't, I came to that conclusion after reading the above mentioned books. Regular doctors get their nutritional advice from organisations formed by companies that sell meat and coincidentally the drugs that treat the chronic illnesses the meat causes. It's a great business model that's for sure. Make money from the cause, make money from the treatment.

Something that does not exist will never be aware of it's lack of existence. Therefore it cannot be sad that it is not existing, since you need to exist to experience the concept of loss.

Like I said. No GOOD reasons to eat animals
Hedonism doesn't usually count as a good reason.

I'll eat a bloody raw steak on youtube if you can think of a good reason

There will always be foolproof software alternatives for encryption but the aim of the FBI here is clearly to be able to decrypt the lowest common denominator. They know that most criminal or even terrorist suspects will simply have the default level of encryption.

The fight here is really against Apple turning on encryption by default which is something it only started doing after the Snowden NSA revelations. If I recall right, previously Apple would unlock iPhones at will for law enforcement. The change was to protect their reputation given the pervasive assumption that US based tech companies were all in collusion with the NSA. Also they would have probably been miffed that while co-operating with them, the NSA was also hacking trans-continental cables to get access to communications more directly.

I also think that Obama had a point when he recently said at a tech conference that it is likely some ugly law will be rammed through Congress with very little debate after the next major terrorist attack, and that it will be much more draconian than anything proposed now. However, that doesn't really get past the fact there is no good software solution here. Encryption is math. You can no more build a foolproof backdoor than you can make 1+1 equal 3.

Haven't done this before...please, I need some help on this having spent time on this to no good effect.

I mirror your frustration and was tempted but....

No good reason for it. But Psy's videos make me happy, and that's plenty good enough.

edit: One criticism, didn't have enough happy pelvic thrusting man. That never gets old.

Yeah its getting too long and youre putting words into my mouth and I cant stand people that cant even do a simple Google search on their own. It means they are not objective at all.

Anyway, you made a huge post, but most is just completely beside what I actually said and thus worthless, because I dont see a point going on with someone who obviously knows very well I am right, but then just put on his blindfold and pulls stuff out of his ass to save his ego...
For example I never said its exacly like slave labor in the past. But it is a good analogy and what you said are no good point in any way. I also didnt say they had a much better life 500-1000 years ago. I only said they had more free time, didnt work as hard and were happy considering those times.
Whatever... Keep downplaying problems for the whole worlds because someone proved you wrong.

Sweet zombie Jesus! What an insanely violent douchebag.
That is the official response to a child sitting quietly?!? That this behavior is sanctioned by the force is another glaring piece of evidence that there are no good cops anymore, a good person would not work for an organization that supports this behavior.

I hope this girl never has to work a day in her life, and that officer friendly never has another dime to his name when the lawsuit is over.

It seems daily we are given more evidence that, when confronted by an armed thug on a power trip, the only right thing to do is defend yourself with force as if your life depends on it, because it just may.

This crap boils my blood.