You know, politics happen even when the presidential election is not happening. Start small and make this much noise in your local government -- you can actually have a voice there.

And fuck Jill Stein for the same reason. Start small. Gain traction in the local governments. Don't just pop up your head every 4 years and say, "Hey! See! I'm a 3rd party candidate!"

Go to city council meetings. Find a candidate for governor or mayor that you like and help them out both financially and with your feet and mouth.

That's how we got here. We wait 4 years until we decide to get political, as though that's the only time to do so. Even if Trump gets elected (which is seeming more and more plausible every week) that doesn't mean you have to stop making noise.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by chicchorea.

@Chairman_woo

"Presumably it's the other thread that's proving challenging, i.e. the masochistic idea of enjoying ones abuse?"

I scanned the comment thread and didn't see anything about this. Are you saying that is what the comedy bit is saying?

I would suggest that you misunderstood his comedic point, like, entirely. Not that I thought it was funny, but I thought he was trying to point up that rape is terrible and that it is "funny" to give different types of rapes grades to bring that point home.

After all, he says repeatedly, I hate rape. I believed him.

I thought it was poorly constructed and not "truthful" like Louis CK gets to the truth of horrible things. But whatever. Not everyone is as brilliant as Louis CK.

However. If you think the joke was some women actually enjoy being digitally raped because they like the idea of being taken against their will in their sexual fantasies, then, to me, you are proving my point that this bit doesn't work.

Of course, it is possible that was indeed the "joke." If it is, then I actively detest this bit and how it actively supports rape culture in our society.

I'm not judging sexual fantasies -- they are what they are. There is, however, a deep difference between sexual fantasies and sexual play and actually, literally, being raped. (I recommend reading Dan Savage's sex advice column. This topic comes up a lot.)

I don't think that is what he meant though. I think the joke is just poorly constructed and he needs to work on it more.

Theoretically, science works great. However, as has already been noted, in the real world in certain fields, the pressure to publish something "substantial" combined with the inability to get grants for certain experiments because they aren't "trendy" right now causes scientists to self-limit the kinds of research they undertake, which is not at all great for increasing human knowledge.

Another problem is the "expert opinion" problem--when someone with little reputation in the field finds something that directly contradicts the "experts" in the field, they often face ridicule. The most famous recent case of this was 2011 Nobel Prize winner Dan Shechtman, who discovered a new type of crystal structure that was theoretically impossible in 1982 and was roundly criticized and ridiculed for it until a separate group of researchers many years later actually replicated his experiment and realized he had been right all along. This web page lists several more examples of scientists whose breakthrough research was ignored because it didn't match the "expert consensus" of the period.

Finally, in the humanities at least, one of the biggest problems in research that uses a quantitative approach (i.e. statistics) is that researchers apply a statistical method to their data, such a as a t-test, without actually demonstrating that whatever being studied follows a normal distribution (i.e bell curve). Many statistical tests are only accurate if what is being studied is normally distributed, yet I've seen a fair share of papers published in respected journals that apply these tests to objects of study that are quite unlikely to be normally distributed, which makes their claims of being "statistically significant" quite suspect.

There are other statistical methods (non-parametric) that you can use on data that is not normally distributed but generally speaking a test of significance on data taken from a normally distributed pool is going to be more reliable. As is noted in this video, the reason these kinds of mistakes slip through into the peer-reviewed journals is that sometimes the reviewers are not nearly as well-trained in statistical analysis as they are in other methodologies.

If Fox has it I'm sure every media outlet has it. Time will tell. The main stream leftest media,( you kind of news) is in the tank for Hillary.

Yes I know Fox is biased but to lie like this - nope. Leave that to the Dan Rathers, Peter Jennings and Katie Couric.

Live in you bubble bubble boy.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Dan-Savage-discusses-bible-at-High-School-Journalism-convent

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by eric3579. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

hey, you:) happy birthday! vse najboljše za rojstni dan!

@newtboy - I suspect that the reason you haven't seen it in print that Dems who support Clinton will vote for Sanders is because you don't read anything but Sanders stuff. Dan Savage has even said in print he will support Sanders -- and yet what you repeated was the fact that he supports Hillary. You missed that he will gladly vote for Sanders. How could that be?

We all have our biases. And we all are, more or less, trapped in our own echo chambers.

What bothers me most about the attacks on HIllary is that the vast majority are bogus that were ginned up by the REPUBLICAN SMEAR MACHINE. And nobody looks that nasty beast in the eye and names it. Or when Hillary has done it, she is ridiculed for it. Instead, these lies are repeated as truth. You say you don't like lies -- how about pushing back on that crap, instead of embracing it, since it helps your candidate?

What I don't get from your position is what exactly you want to happen? Hillary is ahead on delegates and the popular vote. You want her to just concede right now? Is that what you think should happen?

I have lost track, but last I read, Sanders needed to win something like 65% of the remaining contests to win the nomination.

So do it. Go out and do it.

And I'll vote for Sanders.

To me, this is all more proof that you want the world to be different than it actually is.

And as I have said repeatedly, as much as idealists annoy the hell out of me with their purity tests and unrealistic, not of this world, points of view -- I am desperately glad these idealistic warriors exist. Because otherwise, nothing would ever change.

(I'm not happy about conservative idealists -- Tea Party purists who are constipated, me-me-and-mine ideologues. And I have to acknowledge that we need them, too. The continual pulling of the middle by the fringes -- that is indeed the way the world works. The pendulum that swings back and forth throughout human history.)

And Dan has said repeatedly he will support Sanders if he gets the nomination, @newtboy.

Um...you know Dan Savage is a HUGE Clinton supporter, right?
You were able to read how one sided and assumptive his article is, right?
Read -"Another way to look at this is that these results is that they should be deeply worrisome to you if you're expecting that Hillary Clinton is going to win in a blow out in November." "HILLARY CLINTON", not "The Democratic Nominee".
THIS kind of one sided, dismissivness is what I'm talking about, and why independents won't vote for her, knowing that she and her zealots will toss them aside the instant they have their votes.

EDIT: Rereading him, I can also see how he's unintentionally pushing for Sanders without saying his name, by explaining why you should be extremely worried if you think Clinton can win in November. I wonder, will Clinton supporters all fall behind Sanders if HE is the nominee, or would they let the world burn? No one EVER asks THAT question.

Anyone else just hoping Ann would say something so offensive and outrageous that Dan Savage would just elbow her in the face?

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Black Friday, Steely Dan: Live. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Steely Dan - Reelin' in the years (live). Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I do love me some Steely Dan. *quality.