Kids is a channel for stuff that might appeal to kids, not racism. I'm unsure how this applies to religion. Politics would only apply if the political leaders vocally supported the demonstration. War on terror also doesn't apply as this isn't a terrorist attack or a response to one.

Teens might apply, Fail definitely does, and Education does only in the context that this involved school aged teens outside of a high school.

That said, even though it is something we can all agree we dislike, it is their right to display what they like as long as it doesn't violate lewdness laws. They can't be charged or hassled over it by law enforcement or political officials. They COULD be punished for it if they were parking on school owned grounds, but it sounds like they were parked across from the school property.

The one tag that would have fit perfectly was equality, since it is for this type of thing.

In any case, this sucks. Kids shouldn't be doing this type of thing because racism is horrible. If you had correctly labeled this video, I would have likely voted for it.

*nochannel

I didn't dislike the new Ghostbusters. Of course it couldn't surpass the original, but I felt the SNL casts were fun to watch on the big screen and they had fun making it. I wanted to turn my brain off and see something fun with my wife next to me and it delivered enough. Is it better than a free SNL episode on TV? No. But is it worth a ticket? Yes, to support these actresses & production, IMO. God knows we need more "fun rides" movies than the "another-month-another-Marvel/DC-superheroes-punch-fest" routine we've settled into for a couple of years now.

I don't mind the SJW aspects of any Hollywood production. I rarely get bothered by SJW-undertones, bad accents, historical/source material accuracy if the movie/TV is good/fun/meaningful. When I spot them, I can mentally compartmentalize and say "OK, moving on..." and focus on the plot, acting, theme and the storytelling. What I am bothered by, is when a production went way over-board to be stereotypical and predictable. Is Ocean 8 overselling SJW? I don't feel it. At least, I don't go look for it to criticize for the sake of it.

However, from the trailer, it doesn't have that Ocean 11 signature slickness to it, though. Love Sandra Bullock to death as I am, she's no replacement to Clooney in terms of magnetism here. And Cate & Anne being overly typical Cate & Anne... that I am sick of. But it is a crime-genre movie that I can get my wife to the theater to watch together because of the cast, this the original O11 & Godfather type of movies can't.

Hmm, I partly agree.

Surely, what goes around comes around. Kids are people, too.

You do some shit to poke your kids in the feels, you'll have to live with the consequences.

However, I don't see the debt (owe).
People are free to make their own choices regarding their own affairs, and their personal part of any relationship with others.
People are free to dislike other people's choices.

Happiness/contentment is not a requirement, and no one else has to go out of their way to make whoever else happy.

-scheherazade

To be fair, I'm sure that examples could be found of media personalities praising Obama/Clinton for similar stuff that they ragged Bush Sr./Jr. for. Best example off the top of my head might be Bush's "terrible war crimes" vs Obama's "brilliant use of drones".

Now, that all comes with a big disclaimer from me. I disliked Obama's expansion of drone bombing, flip-flop in in-office stance vs campaign stance on whistleblower protection, etc. But, I'd still personally evaluate Bush's, uh, miscues as overwhelmingly worse than Obama's. All I'm saying is that there have certainly been talking heads that have been hypocritical in the other direction before.

That being said, this clip takes it to a whole other level. This isn't nuanced, this is blatant. The only rational explanation is that Fox News simply is that biased, shamelessly so (no surprise to most of us). The problem is that Fox News' audience isn't particularly swayed by rational explanations.

I think clearing that "reality distortion field" is something that takes lots of time and lots of indisputable evidence. That's why I basically hope that Trump gets plenty of leash to try (and fail) to fulfill all of his ridiculous promises and self-hype. Nothing like a pointless and decaying border wall to serve as a reminder to be careful about who's cult of personality you get sucked into...

Well, things are not as rosy as folks like Steven Pinker would like us to believe. As much as I dislike resorting to Hollywood for philosophical insights, True Detective was absolutely on point in this quote:

„Transference of fear and self-loathing to an authoritarian vessel. It's catharsis. He absorbs their dread with his narrative. Because of this, he's effective in proportion to the amount of certainty he can project.“

Now, they were talking about a preacher. But I'd argue this applies to scapegoats as well. And if your arguments undermine the scapegoat, it starts losing its efficiency as a focal point of people's discontent.

Most of us have so much day-to-day shit to deal with that outsourcing the macro-shit to a boogeyman, any boogeyman, helps us get through the day without wanting to bash our head against the wall. Or bash someone else's head in, for that matter.

This doesn't excuse this level of self-delusion, but maybe it explains it to some degree. I'd say keep doing what I know you've been doing for many years: present your case in a respectful manner.

Dislike.

1: how do you know that’s actually a pedophile?
2: even if it is, that’s not justice.

My cognitive dissonance is in overdrive. I dislike videos that lend credence to veganism.

Putting me on ignore doesn't mean someone gets to have their say without contradiction....it means she doesn't have to read it.

I don't care a whit if she does or doesn't read me, I know she dislikes me, I doubt she'll read my comments, it's not about her.

It's a public conversation. I get to chime in when I feel there's something to say, even if it's in response to someone who won't engage. Get over it.

Edit: someone might tell her that lucky can hide my posts for her so she won't see me at all if she asks. I'm not trying to harass her.

They won't, ever, because they're totally full of shit tin foil hat folks making up bullshit because 1/4 of Americans will believe any insanity Trump tells them. Are you buying it?

Notice he offers zero actual specific charges that should be forthcoming, just some names of people he dislikes.
Lots of sound and fury over nothing, designed to delegitimize the investigation into Trump's crimes and those investigating them.

This is another Faux news birther/benghazi/email red herring conspiracy theory....hide and watch.

It's what I dislike.
She calls him out publicly, a definite attempt to hurt him professionally, for not picking up on non verbal cues....allegedly given while his date was naked in his bed and engaging in sex in the dark but never verbalized, Sam has zero idea what those nonverbal cues were or if she even sent them.
Her private message to him was somewhat appropriate (but showed her lack of maturity to have gone through the bad date, slept with him, actually gone to sleep in bed with him, and only later decides it was unacceptable). Going public with a bad date and pretending it's a "me too" sex abuse story was outrageous imo, and only (severely) harms the anti sex abuse movement. He may have deserved blue balls, not to be blackballed.

I like Sam, but I think she's on the wrong side of this one. It's 100% up to the woman to communicate her discomfort clearly, not on men to pick up non verbal cues of discomfort given in the dark while they're also giving verbal cues to continue. She never said stop, she said slow down, which means continue, but slower. Verbal cues trump non verbal cues 99.999% of the time.

Yes, you are 100% right in that he does a great job of getting about as close as possible to the sound of the guitar on a piano.

But I'm not questioning his playing ability, I'm questioning the choice to do it in the first place. Or more specifically, the choice to try and REPLICATE the sound of the original.

Here's what I would consider a good example of adapting a guitar piece to the piano. She's not trying to make the piano sound like a guitar, but using the piano to create a different version of this.

Or the other way round taking a famous piano piece and adapting it for guitar.

Obviously, art is a subjective thing and you're not "wrong" for liking or disliking this... I just feel like it doesn't really add anything to the original.

Also, since I'm posting unpopular opinions.. .he actually plays the wrong notes a few times... amateur

You know the truism, "We dislike in others what we fear is in ourselves."

Lindsey Graham is a bigoted, small-minded, opportunistic, disingenuous, hateful, petty man.

It's no wonder you don't like him, @bobknight33

I'm guessing you're not in the target market?

so if you're not the type of person that likes old spice, it's still funny because it's kind of a social commentary and wouldn't cause you to dislike the show
and if you do like old spice, I guess you would see it as funny because it's so over the top so crazy man

Yea hes down have the right to stop them and yell at them for running up and and down the street.

If you had hooligans running up and down you street on ATVs then yes stop them ant talk to them and indicate your position of dislike.

Color has nothing to do with it . To you everything is raciest. A white man walking a black dog is raciest. lighten up.

There should not be charges against walker ( atv rider) but against Brower ( want to be cop)

I usually dislike these kind of videos because the context we are missing can skew what we are watching. I usually try and give the officers the benefit of the doubt in that case. Here, it's just plain as day the office standing in the wrong. What kind of police officer responds to a request to identify themselves by pulling out handcuffs? This is unreal and officer should be facing not only court, but the potential for jail time over this.