Okay, so when men dominate women unfairly, you're happy for women to curtsy and live by men's leave..? Because men might threaten violence against women? Because that was the way it was? There was never a point where you stood up even though you feared it might result in harm to yourself?

There comes a point in time when it's no longer okay, when people are driven so far and they can't take it anymore. Surely you can understand that? How many women, or gays, or blacks, or "insert whatever you want here" have suffered because they were willing to stand up and fight against the tyranny?

Absolutely....but you asked ME what I thought, not them. ;-)
I gave my opinion, which is often not the normal or accepted opinion.
There is a single, original text for each religion, the sects offer different interpretations and translations, but use the same originals. If you read the original bible in Latin (or whatever language the testaments etc. were first written in), you can interpret for yourself the exact 'words of god', not someone else's interpretation/translation.

As I see it, those you describe were/are religious, but if they stray from the text in any way, they are not (insert a specific sect of Christianity here). It's like the difference between a pick up basketball game and a professional one, they're both technically players of basketball, but only one is a "basketball player"
I have at least met many who SAID they thought that....but none that had the nerve to try it....but if your text says that's the prescribed treatment for an 'infidel' and you ignore it, you aren't following your religion, so aren't an (insert sect of any religion here).

I disagree that it's a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy, (EDIT: It's a "very few true Scotsman" argument) it's a strict reading of the rules of religions and allowing no personal interpretation or modification, as they all REQUIRE. Just because very few people (but not zero) actually practice religion as their texts prescribe doesn't change the rules for religion, it just makes them non devout...and I say, to me, that makes them not part of their chosen religion, but fans of it, since they don't actually practice it.
I do agree, that opinion is based on a far more strict interpretation of religious rules than most people's, but I can't understand how you can ignore a single letter of the "word of god" if you believe, so I can only believe that most people don't actually fully believe, so aren't devout, so (IMO) aren't "Christians" (or "Muslims", or "Jewish", etc).

EDIT: I certainly hope my environment as a child was the exception, I would hate to think that everyone went through that as a kid. It was a daily struggle living as a vocal atheist in Texas in the 70's.

Q: What's the "Australian way of life" to you?
A: Well, it's certainly not people your age skating up and down the footpath.

That's a WTF worthy non-sequitur right there. Is she implying that only dirty furriner kids would skate on footpaths? [insert JackieChanWhatIdonteven.gif]

I agree, kudos to the young man for taking it in stride.

Demo is all right, we really don't see anything we haven't seen before. Pretty much the onlything we havn't seen is mass scale destruction. Heck even small scale is so-so, mainly because of 2 things. #1 you really need a chunk of processing time for convincing physics calculation of a good amount of debris (We still don't see the level of particle effects the old AGEIA PPU demo's had) and #2 realistic enough fire effects. #1 is at least possible with tech that we have today, but #2 requires that someone actually create the effect for use in games.

Fire as you may have gathered, is probably the most difficult CG effect to create. Hollywood took 20 years after CGI effects started in movies before it actually didn't look fake. Today fire in CG is very manageable, but before that it just made more sense to record your fire on a matte backdrop and insert the footage over one of the final rendering passes of your 3d project.

*Warning I've only gone and done yet another wall of text again! This may or may not get read by anyone on here (good god I wouldn't blame anyone for skipping it), but at the very least it's formed the backbone to a video script so it's not a complete waste of my time! (he tells himself)*

This is as much @bareboards2 as yourself, but he already made it clear he wasn't willing to engage on the issue, so you're getting it instead MWAHAHAHHAHA! *coughs*

I don't wish this to come across as over condescending (though I'm sure it will none the less as I'm in one of those moods). But pretty much every (successful) comedy premise operates on the same underlying principle of irony. i.e. there is an expectation or understanding, which is deliberately subverted, and what results is comedy.

In this case, amongst other things we have the understood premises that:
A. rape is a bad, often horrific thing.
B. that there is an established social taboo about praising such behaviour.
C. that there is a section of society inherently opposed to making light of things of which they do not approve (or in a way in which they do not approve)
D. most words and phrases have an expected association and meaning.

What Jim Jefferies (an accomplished and well respected comedies amongst his peers) has done here, is take these commonly understood premises and subverted the audiences normal expectations in order to evoke a sense of irony, from which the audience derives humour and amusement.

A simple joke might take a single such premise and perform a single inversion of our expectation. e.g. my dog has no nose, how does he smell?....terrible!

By subverting our assumed meaning (that the missing nose refers to the dogs implied lack of olfactory senses), the joke creates basic irony by substituting this expected meaning for that of the odour of the dog itself.

This is of course a terrible joke, because it is as simple as a joke could be. It has only one layer of irony and lacks any sense of novelty which, might tip such a terrible joke into working for any other than the very young or simple minded.

We could of course attempt to boost this joke by adding more levels of irony contextually. e.g. a very serious or complex comedian Like say Stuart Lee, could perhaps deliver this joke in a routine and get a laugh by being completely incongruous with his style and past material.

And herein we see the building blocks from which any sophisticated professional comedy routine is built. By layering several different strands or ironic subversion, a good comedian can begin to make a routine more complex and often more than just the sum of its parts to boot.

In this case, Jim is taking the four main premises listed above, layering them and trying to find the sweetest spot of subverted expectation for each. (something which usually takes a great deal of skill and experience at this level)

He mentions the fact that his jokes incite outrage in a certain section of society because this helps to strengthen one of the strands of irony with which he is playing. The fact that he also does so in a boastful tone is itself a subversion, it is understood by the audience that he does not/should not be proud of being merely offensive and as such we have yet another strand of irony thrown into the mix.

You know how better music tends to have more and/or more complex musical things happening at once? It is the same with comedy. The more ironic threads a comedian can juggle around coherently, the more sophisticated and adept their routines could be considered to be.

Naturally as with music there's no accounting for taste as you say. Some people simply can't get past a style or associations of a given musician or song (or painting or whatever).

But dammit Jim is really one of the greats right now. Like him or lump him, the dude is pretty (deceptively) masterful at his craft.

There are at least 4-5 major threads of irony built into this bit and countless other smaller ones besides. He dances around and weaves between them like some sort of comedy ballerina. Every beat has been finely tuned over months of gig's (and years of previous material) to strike the strongest harmonies between these strands and probe for the strongest sense of dissonance in the audience. Not to mention, tone of voice, stance, timing etc.

I think Ahmed is basically terrible too, but it is because the jokes lack much semblance of complexity or nuance. Jeff Dunham's material in general feels extremely simple and seems like it uses shock as a mere crutch, rather than something deeper and more intelligent.

Taste is taste, but I feel one can to a reasonable extent criticise things like the films of Michael Bay, or the music of Justin Beiber for being objectively shallow by breaking down their material into its constituent parts (or lack thereof).

Likewise one could take the music of Wagner and while not enjoying the sound of it, still examine the complexity of it's composition and the clear superiority of skill Wagner had over most of this peers.

I guess what all this boils down to is, Jim seems to me to be clearly very very good at what he does (as he ought after all these years). Reducing his act to mere controversy feels a lot like accusing Black Sabbath of just making noise and using satanic imagery to get attention (or insert other less out of date example here).

The jokes were never at the expense of victims, they are at the expense of our expectations. He makes his own true feelings on the matter abundantly clear towards the end of the section.

As as he says himself his job is to say funny things, not to be a social activist.

I take no issue with you not liking it, but I do take issue with the suggestion that it is somehow two dimensional, or for that matter using controversy cheaply.

Offensive initial premises are some of the most ironically rich in comedy. It's like deliberately choosing the brightest paints when trying to create a striking painting. Why would you avoid the strongest materials because some people (not in your audience) find the contrast too striking?

Eh, much love anyway. This was more an exercise in intellectual masturbation than anything else. Not that I didn't mean all of it sincerely.

That's a pretty big can of worms you're opening there newt.

Do you REALLY want to make it ok for people to legally discriminate for any reason?

You'd be comfortable with shops refusing services to gays or non-caucasians or atheists or insert-your-own-prejudice-here?

"Awww, but we could boycott them!"

So, a libertarian market solution then? Those don't work. Because as soon as you allow a business to be racist or homophobic or whatever, you will have racist, homophobic assholes queueing up to support them.

Sorry, but you don't get to impose your values on your customer (regardless of whether your values are good or evil). Unless what you're being asked to do is actually illegal (and that includes hate speech, so asking a baker to make a KKK cake would cover that), you suck it up and do your job.

If you want to make a political point in your business, there are other ways to do it. Source your materials through fair trade. Tell this moron Trump supporter that the profits from his t-shirt are going straight to Hillarys campaign fund.

When people do stuff like this and it goes horribly wrong the headlines are along the line of "Person tragically killed in <insert sport name here> accident". When it should be along the lines of "idiot tempting fate pays the price for their stupidity".

I have also linked this in the description, so people don't have to read the comments to find this link:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/6/1534962/-The-daunting-and-powerful-statement-a-Stanford-victim-reads-to-her-rapist-in-court-goes-viral

Here is part of the full statement that was excised for time -- part of where she responds to the defendant's statement, point by point:

You said, Being drunk I just couldn’t make the best decisions and neither could she.

Alcohol is not an excuse. Is it a factor? Yes. But alcohol was not the one who stripped me, fingered me, had my head dragging against the ground, with me almost fully naked. Having too much to drink was an amateur mistake that I admit to, but it is not criminal. Everyone in this room has had a night where they have regretted drinking too much, or knows someone close to them who has had a night where they have regretted drinking too much. Regretting drinking is not the same as regretting sexual assault. We were both drunk, the difference is I did not take off your pants and underwear, touch you inappropriately, and run away. That’s the difference.

You said, If I wanted to get to know her, I should have asked for her number, rather than asking her to go back to my room.

I’m not mad because you didn’t ask for my number. Even if you did know me, I would not want be in this situation. My own boyfriend knows me, but if he asked to finger me behind a dumpster, I would slap him. No girl wants to be in this situation. Nobody. I don’t care if you know their phone number or not.

You said, I stupidly thought it was okay for me to do what everyone around me was doing, which was drinking. I was wrong.

Again, you were not wrong for drinking. Everyone around you was not sexually assaulting me. You were wrong for doing what nobody else was doing, which was pushing your erect dick in your pants against my naked, defenseless body concealed in a dark area, where partygoers could no longer see or protect me, and own my sister could not find me. Sipping fireball is not your crime. Peeling off and discarding my underwear like a candy wrapper to insert your finger into my body, is where you went wrong. Why am I still explaining this.

If you want to see the original, without the stupid music, fx, and reaction video inserts...
https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/4k6d8p/oh_im_such_a_happy_chewbacca/

Great video. I really wish people understood this concept better.

Any of this sound familiar?
"Kids these days are too soft. When we were kids, we rode bikes without helmets, sat in the front seat of cars, <insert outer dangerous activity> and WE WERE FINE"

Of course, you were fine; the fact that you're here to tell that anecdote is proof of that. The kids who died in auto accidents generally don't get to tell their stories.

In terms of what this means for our day to day lives? You can't just look at the winners and copy what they did. You have to look at the losers and avoid what they did.

$15,000 dildo sounds totally worth it. https://www.lelo.com/inez

Thor Buckswallow writes:
"This is the kind of toy that only comes around once in a lifetime. When you first insert this gorgeous pleasure rod into your hoo hah, your toes will curl while your left arm goes numb as receptors fly across your body delivering messages that could end world hunger. The first time I unboxed this hedonist pole and rammed it like a battering ram into the door of a third-world immigrant living in Germany into my vaginal cavity, I screamed so loud that my neighbors (who live 3 miles away on their own estate) called the police. I had to pay off the local police chief so he would bury the incident. Not a negative, though, since paying the local authorities off so they wouldn't interfere with the weekend torture rituals was on my to-do list anyways! LOL! Great product, would recommend."


Although I 'll be spending my hard earned money on this special treat.

"Earl", Quite simply the most distinguished gentleman’s plug in the world, is the finest butt plug in the land and for $2590 a bargain. https://www.lelo.com/earl

At about 9:54, the dude on the right asks:
"But why are you assuming that we would find out about it [something / anything shady] then [just before the general election]?"

Because that is when it would cause the most damage, duh. It is well possible that some parties on the right already have something, considering that Guccifer probably DID hack into her server. If any such people DO have anything (or if they get anything new), they are well motivated to hold their cards until revealing them would have the most impact -- ie., AFTER she's locked up the nomination, but just BEFORE the general election.

Cenk and other democrats are 100% right to be absolutely terrified by this. I don't know that I think it is *likely*, but the democrat establishment just glossing over it seems bizarre and shortsighted.

Also, I seriously doubt that Biden would ever attempt to pick up Clinton's hypothetical fumble and run away after the DNC. I figure the GOP bigwigs that are suggesting it just want to make it look like the democrat side is in just as much disarray as the republican side.

But if either party actually does any "contested convention" shenanigans, all they will accomplish is to bring up serious and legitimate questions about their legitimacy within their core base of supporters. This election is proving that large segments of BOTH parties are NOT going to be blindly loyal to their party line and the status quo. In that environment, pushing their luck by inserting some handpicked golden child as their candidate would be suicidally stupid for either party.