Let me disabuse you of some of your assumptions...

I didn't do gamergate and I don't really give a fuck about feminism/anti-feminism as it pertains to how I treat women in the real world (that being egalitarian, everyone should be equal).

Now that that's out of the way, yeah, I am for fucking real. Whether it was a stunt or just a bunch of people turning up to a talk which they paid their money to get in to, it doesn't really matter. Sarkessian was the aggressor (unless you truly believe that threaten = criticise someone's ideas online then show up in person to let them have their say), using a position of power, backed up by a bunch of like minded people to abuse paying attendees who's only crime was sitting up the front and listening quietly, which they are entitled to do.

/shockfuckinghorror, never mind free speech, you can't even listen to people anymore without them wetting their pants in terror.

There is plenty of video footage of said event and you are more than welcome to point out to me exactly where in that footage any of the so called aggressors did anything actually aggressive. Aka, the point where my opinion of what went on is different to the reality. I don't need to convince people of the reality of the situation, I can just roll the footage.

She broke the code of conduct, and while other YT'ers were being ejected for being in public areas (a breach of the CoC), she was given an explicit pass by the Greens. Sargon and the rest of the so called aggressors were not ejected or banned from Vidcon which indicates to me that they did nothing wrong in the eyes of the organisers. The aggressors seemed to get along fine with other people they met that they ideologically disagree with, with no other incidents being recorded. Sark, on the other hand, also verbally abused Boogie2988, one of the nicest and most considerate people I've seen on YT, and someone who had gone out of his way not to offend her.

All this is a matter of record, not my opinion. So now comes the question of your integrity. Are you going to actually back up your claims with a little actual evidence, or are you just going to go back to calling names... ; P

I'm sure someone in Europe is offended by this thing so they better start dismantling it now. Don't want to trigger anyone.

Oh really? Care to share your hard data on that claim? I've never heard of cops getting a bonus for solving one type of crime over another. Oh, right, because it doesn't happen. Maybe you're a drug offender and just pissed because you got caught. If anything, locking up drug offenders is MORE EXPENSIVE, because we pay to process them through the system, and then we have to pay to keep them in jail, or pay to send them to rehab programs, which usually DON'T work, which means they'll be back in the system AGAIN, costing us even MORE money. There's NO PROFIT in locking up criminal scumbags, dumbass. This is not the case with missing persons, because once you find a missing person, they go back to their families (if they're alive) and the cops move on to the next case, and those cops get paid the same the entire time they are looking for them. What profit are you talking about? Engage your fucking brain before speaking, peasant.

As much as I love Steve Hughes, and as much as I hate taking a comedy bit seriously, he's pretty much wrong about every single point in this video.

Oppressive health and safety? Oh please can we return to when employers could order me to endanger my life just for a paycheck.

PC? Been down this road a million times, but it's really easy for a straight white dude to talk about not being offended.

Smoking? I give zero fucks if you want to smoke, just don't do it around me. Oh, and I was in Ireland when they banned smoking in pubs. It was fucking great, and yeah, it encouraged a bunch of people to quit.

Anyway, as I said, it's a comedy bit and it's funny. Just don't go actually believing it.

@Fairbs

look at what i wrote.

i totally agree with you,and the mounting evidence that:

russian intelligence may have attempted to influence our elections,but name a first world country whose intelligence agencies do NOT try to influence elections,or unduly influence legislators to implement legislation favorable to their interests?

the argument isn't that russian intelligence did what every ..single..intelligence agency does on a global scale,with US intelligence agencies being the biggest offenders.

the narrative being shoved down our throats is that the trump campaign COLLUDED with russian intelligence to install trump as president,of which there is NO evidence..zero..zip..nada.

is there evidence that trump may (and let us be frank,most likely)have engaged in some suspicious and possibly illegal financial and business dealings with russia?

considering that no american financial institution will touch trump with a ten foot pole,and his global credit is in the shitter.also considering his blatant abuse of his son in law to garner financial loans from china with the promise of "presidential favoritism" (which is soooo fucking illegal).

i think it safe to say that trumps business and financial dealings with russia are,how shall i put this?
colorful and inventive?(and possibly illegal).

but does this translate to collusion to install trump as president?
nope..just a crooked car saleman abusing his status to broker deals with crooked russians.

you mentioned the 13 intelligence agencies.
do you mean the SAME agencies that were POSITIVE that saddam had WMD's?

the same agencies who were CERTAIN that assad had used sarin gas on civilians?

the very same agencies who were 100% proof positive that gadhafi had killed his own people?

THOSE agencies?

the very same agencies who are making the argument that russian intelligence colluded with the trump campaign and have not provided ONE lick of evidence besides:"trust us,we know".

sorry mate,you know i love ya,but i am gonna need some proof,because THOSE fuckers have lied to me more often than not.the term DEEP state is referring to the very agencies that have lied to us time and time again.

and i ain't buying it.

and for CNN to get pantsed in public by the likes of a slimeball such as james o'keefe and breibart..FUCKING BREITBART..they need to just walk out into traffic and end themselves.

not that i gave CNN much cred to begin with,but now they are just dead to me.a pimple on a syphillis infected rhinocerous's ballsack.

so much fail...but corporate bobbleheads do not experience shame,or guilt.

cuz they get paid to lie,obfuscate and gaslight you,and me.
despicable human beings...the lot of them.

Steve Hughes is great. His bit about being offended should be required material on day 1 for students going to University:

(been sifted before, but I think this ^ has the full short set)

The video pretty drastically oversold the benefits of Political Correctness, in my opinion. I do, however, completely agree that generic "politeness" is a far superior standard to hold yourself to or goal to aspire to.

PC vs politeness seems very highly analogous to perceiving things as either intrinsically "offensive" or being personally "offended". Humor is frequently a fantastic way of exploring those kinds differences, and SMBC comics did an excellent strip on offensive vs offended:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-02-23

The conclusion there is that "I'm offended" starts arguments (ie., it can create rational and beneficial dialog) while "offensive" ends them (ie., it stifles progress). I feel that it is equally accurate to say that politeness can help resolve problems while PCness really doesn't; it is possible to politely disagree, but in the realm of PC disagreement in and of itself is often deemed offensive and seen as something to be discouraged.

I think part of being an adult is learning that people will often disagree, and that is actually a good thing.

I look at it in a simple way: words having meanings; people have motivations. A conversation has a context, and in your example the passerby isn't aware of that context. If she chooses to eavesdrop and feels offended, well, while I do feel sorry for her...it's really not any of her business what you and your brother are conversing about. You might as well turn to her, give her a once-over and criticize her choice of pantsuit. She doesn't know you; she didn't ask for your opinion; and your retort probably made her upset.

Should people try to be aware of their surroundings and try not to say inappropriate things? Of course, but that's just common courtesy...like not commenting on a funky smell at a funeral visitation. Political correctness is fine if we all agree, but we usually don't. And therefore we get people who virtue signal over others because they refuse to kowtow to the newest linguistic fashion.

Now, I'm a fairly polite guy. I hold open doors, give up my seat, offer to carry heavy packages, smile, wave and nod greetings to many strangers, etc. Yet I still occasionally get someone who disagrees with my legitimate use of a term (as I understand its meaning). Generally, I still apologize...but I don't then re-evaluate my language ability. I'm not willing to let the connotations of words take on new, questionable-yet-popular meanings.

I've had a Native American friend laugh at me for asking what he preferred I say: redskin, indian, aboriginal, first people, etc. I've also asked a "retarded" person if they preferred if I said "intellectually challenged." He preferred retarded because...wait for it...he had a lot of trouble saying the other one. Now that's irony.

I think my heart's in the right place. I was taught to be polite, and I try to be at all times. But it gets under my skin to have a total stranger "chastise" me when they know nothing about me. Frankly, I find it more offensive to interrupt and belittle a stranger than it is to overhear some stranger's questionable utterance.

@Diogenes

I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying. Why should a reasonable person be pissed off at a third party calling out offensive language use? To use a hypothetical:

I jokingly call my brother a "retard" because he locks his keys in the car. We grew up in the 80s, so this this pejorative is something we are comfortable with and feel no inhibitions about using. My brother laughs it off.

Now let's assume this happens in a parking lot as we're standing outside my brother's car and a woman passing by overhears my comment and chastises me for equating stupid actions with people who have mental disabilities.

Should reasonable bystanders watching all this be pissed off, since my comment wasn't directed at the woman? On the one hand, my brother and I weren't offended by the use of the word "retard" to mean stupid. On the other hand, our very usage of the word "retard" in that particular way promotes and sustains a culture that already heavily looks down on mental illness and mental disabilities.

I'm genuinely curious about your answer to this. If I'm reading your comment correctly, the primary negative of PC language that you see is that some people feel smug when they call out other people on their language usage. But does the fact that some people are smug about it make them wrong in pointing out the offender?

I think most everyone knows how to be polite. A lot of people just don't put much effort into its practice. PC speech doesn't have to be a bad thing, but unfortunately it's most often used by people--to which any "offending" language likely wasn't directed--as a way of virtue signalling over the "offender." This is what pisses most reasonable people off.

Was gone for the weekend and it turned into word fights (almost)...

It is so hard to carry on a discussion... the heat too easily turned up. Sorry if I contributed in the heat.

Thing is, I don't think any of us need to argue for God's omnipotent or his non-existence. God can select to do or not do anything he wants. He can choose to reveal Himself to a believer or a non-believer, or NOT to. What's the point. It has been argued for millennia and I doubt we are "The Chosen One(s)" to end this. And I think, most of us in our Western society, whether you're Christian or not, we know quite a bit about the Bible CONTENT. But the 99.99% of us non-Bible-scholars probably don't know the exact CONTEXT of the tough stuff. The churches avoid them too for obvious reasons.

For me the important things is, there are really horrible things done in history (and present) in the name of religion. Allow me to be a bit self-serving and consider these terrible, inhumane events as evil beings hijacking their religions so they can get away Scot-free. We can't allow that in this day & age. Hold the evil doers & hypocrites accountable, not the religion.

When I read the Bible, I see all the crap that makes no sense too, but I see the discrepancy as humanity making progress. There are so many years between us & the Bible's original writings (or oral pass-me-downs), words & meaning invariably changed (and not always for the better). Could it be the clear-as-day word "gossip" (its Hebrew equivalent) was not part of its language yet? Therefore Paul said those sexist things (in our modern eye)? Or just people speak funny in those days? I can't be sure.

So, I *try* to figure out the meaning of those difficult Bible verses by keeping the context of Jesus' teachings in mind. I mean, come on, all he want is us all having compassion towards each other, be respectful of God and oh, there's the promise of heaven. Like, THAT'S IT, that's the gist of it. Anything else is pretty secondary & incidental to me. The part that concerns between human-human interact? Yes, it's hard to put in practice. But it's not hard to understand what's needed to be done. E.g. If someone offends my religion, should I go on the defensive and then all Super-Saiyan retaliation mode? Or should put my focus into finding out why he offended me and try to understand the reasoning behind it, and if possible, do something positive about it? I believe Jesus asks of us the latter.

Thing is, as a Christian (granted, some Christian might not consider me one that much, maybe?), I'm OK to leave a lot of things in the Bible in the "gray zone"... because it is *I* that haven't the smarts to comprehend what's written fully. But I do think I understand its purpose enough to know what I need to do to be better. The world is full of hurt, we can't just standby and focus on sometimes pointless fights (ironically I'm typing this post, lol, mea culpa, but hope it's worth it), better put more energy on making things better -- like Jesus, arguably the most progressive thinker/doer of its time, wanted to make the world a better place. Jesus didn't spend his time setting up a religion, he was there for a peace & compassion revolution.

Seriously sad that when the topic touches on religion, there're way too much stereotypes & presumptions on every sides. I see the reality as far more nuanced. I can understand, and in fact conditionally support, a lot of the abolition of "Religion" with its ritualistic practices in today's society. I really don't trust anyone loudly proclaiming themselves "devout" but support sexist/racist/unjust policies. The smell of hypocrisy, ulterior motives & power corruption are too great. Don't sheepishly give them the political & God forbid... military power to do great harm to humanity. History has proven that time & again.

I don't think he cares so much about the hatred, he may even relish it.

I'm thinking that if he made it clear he's criticizing the bible, he would avoid the anger of non/less religious people that are offended by the verse, but garner the more dangerous hatred of zealots enraged at a slight against their belief system...he's unlikely to get them to critically examine it either way.
Thought about that way, he was being smart by being misleading. ;-)

And they didn't...ever. They intentionally blocked the road....for no reason...after the bike cut off traffic in the other direction by illegally crossing. To my eyes, that makes them the original offenders and the intentional assholes.
Honking at a douchbag walking in the middle of the road, seemingly oblivious on his phone, and yelling "move" seems quite restrained compared to most drivers here in America in the same position, imo.

I do agree, it seems overly convenient that they cross and turn around to be next to the puddle.

What a disgusting bitch. As if she isn't ugly enough physically, she has to display an even more sickeningly ugly personality publicly.

There's no way she would have paid him overtime for being there 15 min longer, and the fire dept might have fined them if he hadn't given them access, or just left and not inspected, closing the school and definitely costing the janitor his job for not letting them in.
Do they not have a punch clock? That should back him up completely with HR. I can only hope they're addressing Susan's inappropriate behavior and reprimanding her strongly.

He's better off. He'll get another job thanks to this video, a better one with a boss who's not using a pineapple for a butt plug.

I think you are going to be sorry....Mrs Susan Opferman of Alpharetta Georga, for this behavior. Someone's going to be offended and find you and/or use these overhanded, insulting, unfair and dehumanizing tactics against you and your children. I expect Webb Bridge middle school will be getting a large number of complaints about this woman working with children, maybe costing her job. Turn about is fair play...get ready for a shit storm.

A good question I have, why would a custodian's hours end at the same time school gets out? Do they leave the daily messes to dry and harden overnight until 6:30 am? It would make far more sense if he got off at 4.

Edit: oops. I made a mistake. I just realized this is normal and accepted behavior for a beachmaster. Carry on.