Yeah. Isn't he the guy who got rich, in part, by exploiting the poor who are denied welfare and forced to work two minimum wage jobs which still puts them below the poverty line and because they're forced out of their houses because they can't afford rent on the shit wage he pays them they end up living with their drug-dealer brothers where their six-year-old kid finds a gun and murders a classmate while mom is away since six AM working at Dick Clark's restaurant?

Sorry, but I have little in the way of pity for that douche. He lived a long life, high off the hog and helped to create suffering and misery through his exploitation and his lack of empathy.

The problem we have now is that science has advanced so far that the average person just doesn't understand it. Science is progressing faster than our education of science, so we're running into Arthur C. Clark's third law that any science sufficiently advanced enough is indistinguishable from magic.

There is a scientific pathway that takes you from Newton's apple all the way to the most advanced computers and medical knowledge. The problem is, you can't fit that pathway into one easy to read book. You can't explain complex things in sound bites. We're talking the cumulative efforts and trial and error of human beings over the course of thousands of years that takes us from the discovery of fire to the interwebs.

You can't summarize that shit into a few simplistic parables and stories.

It's hard to understand. It takes time to understand. Not everyone *will* understand it. Not everyone wants to understand it. More XKCD goodness: http://xkcd.com/154/

but it happens whether or not you believe in it or understand it. Because someone else DID do the work.

Yeah, Tony Stark and Clark Kent are two very different individuals. Clark always puts others first, to the point that he won't use all his strength and power to its full extent, because he knows he could cause more damage than the villain he's trying to stop. Yes, he's a boy scout, but there's a bit of a lesson in a story about an alien who tries to act more compassionate towards humans, than most humans.

Also, he's THE superhero. period. I don't care if they make his powers and villains not realistic. I'm so fucking tired of lex luthor. He's a great villain, but geez, give it a rest already. There's a bunch of other great villains in the superman lore, and it's about time we see him be matched physically and not just intelectually. Zod is one, Darkseid is another. I would also love to see Doomsday or Brainiac.

I don't think we need another Iron Man. I love Iron Man, but Clark Kent is not Tony Stark.

If you want funny read a Deadpool comic.

Superman has other weaknesses - a quick example is his compassion. Superman may be nearly invulnerable but the people he loves are not.

"Clark, you clumsy idiot!"

Tags for this video have been changed from 'cards, tricks, spencer clark' to 'cards, tricks, spencer clark, odd man out' - edited by xxovercastxx

At the point where it was probably largely exaggerated or embellished by Tom Hanks

>> ^Quboid:

At what point does hitting your child with a frying pan go from child abuse to funny anecdote? After 22.3 years?

Congratulations! Your video, Tom Hanks Tells Michael Clarke Duncan Anecdote at Clarke's F, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 1 Badge!

>> ^Quboid:

>> ^Hive13:
>> ^Quboid:
At what point does hitting your child with a frying pan go from child abuse to funny anecdote? After 22.3 years?

I'm guessing you don't have kids in a dangerous, ghetto neighborhood. That frying pan to the head is infinitely more valuable to a kid in that situation than ignoring it and burying him with a bullet in his head.

That's not my point. Regardless of whether or not she was right to do this (and there are other ways to get a point across), it strikes me - no pun intended - that we now laugh at what was a really horrible situation that they were in. As it was MCD who originally told the story, evidently he was OK with it being told and no doubt grew to understand why it happened but it's still odd that a funny anecdote can be made out of a child being beaten up by a gang twice and hit by his own mother.
If someone was caught doing today what his mother did then, they'd be charged with child abuse and I very much doubt the reasons given would get them off the hook. I didn't mean to say she was necessarily wrong to do this (although I did rather imply this), just that this wouldn't be acceptable today - were we wrong then, or are we wrong now?


I think your last paragraph is what makes laughing at the shit we used to get from our parents back in the good old days so funny. Anyone over the age of 30 can relate to getting a serious butt whooping. I don't think it is wrong at all, personally, now or then. All parents have their own way of discipline and their own breaking point. I would never hit one of my kids with a frying pan, but then again I have never been confronted with one of them joining a gang either.

>> ^Hive13:

>> ^Quboid:
At what point does hitting your child with a frying pan go from child abuse to funny anecdote? After 22.3 years?

I'm guessing you don't have kids in a dangerous, ghetto neighborhood. That frying pan to the head is infinitely more valuable to a kid in that situation than ignoring it and burying him with a bullet in his head.


That's not my point. Regardless of whether or not she was right to do this (and there are other ways to get a point across), it strikes me - no pun intended - that we now laugh at what was a really horrible situation that they were in. As it was MCD who originally told the story, evidently he was OK with it being told and no doubt grew to understand why it happened but it's still odd that a funny anecdote can be made out of a child being beaten up by a gang twice and hit by his own mother.

If someone was caught doing today what his mother did then, they'd be charged with child abuse and I very much doubt the reasons given would get them off the hook. I didn't mean to say she was necessarily wrong to do this (although I did rather imply this), just that this wouldn't be acceptable today - were we wrong then, or are we wrong now?

>> ^Quboid:

At what point does hitting your child with a frying pan go from child abuse to funny anecdote? After 22.3 years?


I'm guessing you don't have kids in a dangerous, ghetto neighborhood. That frying pan to the head is infinitely more valuable to a kid in that situation than ignoring it and burying him with a bullet in his head.

Your video, Tom Hanks Tells Michael Clarke Duncan Anecdote at Clarke's F, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Tom Hanks Tells Michael Clarke Duncan Anecdote at Clarkes Funeral' to 'Tom hanks, Michael clarke duncan, funeral service, anecdote, story' - edited by BoneRemake

>> ^ReverendTed:

I'm not sure I understand the last question. Unpublished vids can be invoked dead, right?


http://videosift.com/video/Tom-Hanks-Tells-Michael-Clarke-Duncan-Anecdote-at-Clarkes-F?loadcomm=1#comment-1524895

>> ^raverman:

@siftbot but it's number 8 on the frontpage of the site. How can it not be published?


Because it hasn't reached 10 votes yet.

And also, it's not 'viral', or 'news' or worldaffairs or philosophy or wtf... man read the guidelines for channel placement!
*nochannel
*comedy