I disagree, for the same reasons as Jerry Seinfeld:
http://www.ew.com/article/2015/06/08/jerry-seinfeld-politically-correct-college-campuses

I think that especially in the US, people feel this need to justify their normally diverse reactions to things with concrete "causes". They don't like things because they are "sexist" or "racist", or because they are "passive aggressive" or whatever. Bust most of the time, we just like or dislike things because it either DOES or DOES NOT resonate with us individually on a personal level.

All the rationalizing can maybe help us as individuals figure out why we like/dislike the things we do, but it seems like we Americans have some tendency to assume our tastes are (or should be) universal.

...Not that my opinion on this topic is any more (or less) valid than yours.

The problem in this video here isn't what could've happened to the cop or how threatening the suspect was or even racial bias. That shit is secondary.
A man got shot 2 times in the chest because he did not do what he was told to. He was passive agressive and was murdered because of it. That was murder.
If a law enforcement officer can not subdue a single person without shooting them in the chest, he is either beyond incompetent and his whole organisation needs to be seriously reevaluted concerning their training methods and oversight practices or he just enjoys murdering the shit out of people.
There is no argument that there was not another option how to react. Even if he didn't have a taser, he should have at least some pepperspray. Or hey, try firing a warning shot. If that fails, you can still immobilize the suspect by shooting them in the legs. However, dead men don't sue, right?
That man got murdered and I don't give a shit why. He was killed without reason.

Notice how good the cops are at roughing people up when there is no danger and no real threat. But when the time comes when you actually hope that the police will defend person and property against invasion, times of genuine upheaval and fear, suddenly the police retire back and become strangely passive. It happens in every case of "civil unrest," and it's always astonishing. It's when property owners discover that they are on their own. The persistence of this behavior should make everyone rethink their presumptions that tax-funded, government-run policing is the right approach to security.

The smart response to Baltimore is to recognize that this is the product of the pointless drug war, a racially punitive policing system, failed public services, a highly regulated labor market that cuts off economic opportunity, gun control, and permanent martial law that makes everyone feel like prisoners in their own homes and lives.

Alas, we're likely to see only the typical bourgeois response to Baltimore: lock up these "animals" and unleash the cops on the rest.

Which explanation sells better to the "public?" I think it's pretty obvious. This is why fascism always wins.

I agree that the inside of the ball probably resembles a weighted arm with servo-driven rollers that can move the ball around on one end (likely the bottom) and an articulated arm on the other that has magnets that keep the head from falling off and can move it around on the ball. The head itself could be largely passive, with no ability to "move" itself.

Another thing.
Attacking Obama's leadership in comparison to Bush is faulty.

It is a fact that Obama has a wealth of cognitive prowess.
It is a fact that Bush was & is in a severe cognitive decline.

This video illustrates Bush's early onset dementia
http://videosift.com/video/Bush-used-to-be-sharp

Imagine your Alzheimers stricken father had bankrupted the family & burnt down the house.

Your neighbor criticizes you for taking your family to the hospital, instead of immediately rebuilding the house.

Shouting "Your father was a much better head of the household!"

If you want people to sincerely consider your point. You have to be willing to stick to objective, concrete facts WITHIN context of the situation.

While I agree that Obama is a passive leader.
Obama is an adept politician.

It's okay to admit this.
If anything, it strengthens the argument that he's running the nation into the ground.

Not to mention, all the State & Federal elected officials.
They need to be held accountable FIRST.

100 lbs to LEO for $1M: that's $10k/lb. Cheaper than the space shuttle, but a fair bit more than what the private launch folks (will eventually) launch for. Also the video doesn't show de-orbit or passivization of the 2nd stage, meaning this is a potential source of a lot of new space junk. Furthermore, since this is Darpa/military, it strikes me as a cover story for further weaponization of space.

Oh lord do everyone a favour and stop playing the victim card, no one's buying it. If they're armed and have power over people, they should be stringently held to a higher standard than those they have power over, even a kid knows that. That is the most basic of principles that every non-sadist adheres to. Only your ilk think otherwise - isn't it strange how only dodgy cops don't want the cops to be under scrutiny?

But hey! I understand how cops like to stick up for their buddies. You're thicker than thieves with half the personality. Everyone can play that passive-aggressive game and it goes nowhere so try addressing the argument for a change. Funny how you ignore the shit out of anyone that demolishes your point, did you do that when you were a cop as well, or did you just start blasting secure in the knowledge that every other cop would instantly cover your arse just like you do so readily for them?

If you want any evidence that we need to hold those in power to account, just look at the financial mess we're in thanks to unchecked bankers and corrupt governments. You obviously don't like looking at prison statistics as we've seen, so try looking outside your own sphere of influence. But that would require empathy.

We have the luxury of sitting at our keyboards knowing the intentions and full context of this dancer’s actions. The cop in the driver’s seat and those in front of the van would not have the same luxury, it was happening in real time. I don’t exactly applaud the policemen’s response but given full context I can pretty much understand it. But I won’t get sucked into the usual Michael Moore level of debate -“cops BAD citizens GOOD”

If this dancer wants to play the passive/aggressive thumb-sucker and ignore current events and say “golly, I was just dancing” then he deserves to get the stupid shoved right out of him. Although I don’t think that’s possible. Go spread your joy with some small town police force, maybe they will shake their heads and chuckle while you flash your roll of Mentos.

This really grinds my gears. I had to listen to this irritating thing for 2 hours when my train was delayed at King's Cross. I was on the verge of going over and unplugging it.

Note: we don't say "elevator" in the UK and the "available" at the end of the sentence is completely unnecessary, as is the passive-aggressive tone.

Understand, for people who have faith, faith is knowing the unknowable.

Example: I know that intelligent life exists on other planets. It is a 100% certainty in my mind. I am so certain of this "fact" in fact, that I think it's ridiculous that there are people who even question it. Yet, there is no actual scientific proof. Nothing published. Nothing discovered. I believe it though. I know it to be true. If someone were to tell me I shouldn't believe or talk about it, I would find it nonsensical and offensive. This is what faith feels like.

There's a difference between passively not believing in God and actively hating people who do.

If someone offers some bullshit as fact, and you know it isn't, welcome to every day on earth (or at least the internet). It doesn't matter if it's religion or not.

For example: (paraphrasing) 'Most people proselytize'.

Most of the (almost 6 Billion) people who believe in God go through their day to day lives without ever even mentioning their beliefs let alone trying to proselytize when they do.

And on that note I will say that proselytizing is not necessarily wrong either. You believe what you believe and they believe what they believe and everyone gets to express themselves (all proselytizing) and everyone can make up their own minds. Now, I'm talking about people expressing themselves, not entities who have an agenda.

Which brings me to my last point. None of this is to suggest that I disagree with Bil Nye. Kids should not be fed bullshit. Adults either. The real problem? It's not "money is the root of all evil". It's "the love of money". Greed is behind the majority of evil.

There are those who desire positions of power and pervert religion into a tool to achieve their own agenda. This is a very old story. And it is these people who "take God's name in vain". But that's just one hammer in their toolbag. Religion is one. Anti-intellectualism another. Manipulation through fear. On and on.

Science is truth but it is not the only "truth" in life. Art exists. Beauty exists. Love exists. There is more. Maybe all of that can be boiled down to some chemical reactions in the brain and sociological pressures, but I believe there is a greater truth.

Sorry for ranting. Don't take any of this personally please!

Yeah, and I remember when you used to be witty and insightful even when I disagreed with you.

Now you're just posting passive-aggressive bullshit. And apparently, you can't even be bothered to proof read it either.

@Trancecoach is being a petty, infantile asshole and @VoodooV is right to call him on it, and yes, he's in flagrant violation of the rules.

haha.we both promoting that elite video!
great minds blah blah blah
i have to admit being extremely surprised at just how many downvotes trance has given and how targeted they all are.

i knew he was a passive/aggressive child but wow....hyper egocentric to boot.

This. The classist element here is palpable. The video even says, "people from all backgrounds." Coulda fooled me. I didn't see any well-to-do folk in there. I'd like to see the counter video where the tall chiseled guy in the suit says hi to random women on the street and we see their reactions. I bet you get quite a few blushing, smiling, tilting their head and tossing/twirling their hair. The reality is that this video is about undesirables with the gall to come up from the sewers.

Where there is a legitimate point comes from inherent physicality differences. Just the other day I turned around in line to find myself about 6 inches from a guy who's got to be 6'8" 325 pounds. I clock in about 6' 230. I'm not used to that feeling. I suddenly realized what it must be like for women all the damn time. Now if some little dude were to comment on my ass, sure, I will engage and laugh it off... But that dude? Even a "hey there" would make me sweat. That said, it's still a reaction rooted in stereotypes.

This brings me to a final point, which is what I'd call a form of sizism. Not the usual fattism, but rather the assumptions that go along with bigger people more generally. Brawny guys, particularly dark skinned brawny guys, are automatically assumed to be dangerous. BNBG, so to speak. While there is some obvious rational basis to this assumption, I think it has gone way to far and negatively impacts the social inclusion of bigger folk. We big folk have to go way overboard with passivity to not be seen as a rapist in waiting. Else, embrace your inner meat head and go cruise the gym scene.

I'm finding it was a fair discussion on both sides. Harris is clearly more knowledge in the subject but Cenk came up with enough counter-examples to keep the discussion interesting.

Ultimately I think they've spent far too much arguing on the part/predominantly Islam to blame and whether Islamic is worse than certain other religions. Both are very subjective positions and I feel Harris comes off dogmatic here. He may be well placed to argue that people will undersell the role of Islam (perhaps due to political correctness) but to take a very absolutist position cheapens his argument.

I'm only half way but I feel they skipped over socio-economics far too quickly. The reason a middle class citizen in a western country can be radicalised by Islam (say ISIS) is because of the wellspring of specifically radical Islamic communities on the internet relative to other religions. This makes the chances of an impressionable individual stumbling on these much higher than say on a radical Christian call to action which I'm sure exist. As an area, the Middle East is also far more conflict prone and engender an immediate need to respond.

That Islam is so important in many Middle Eastern countries is in itself a product of their low socio-economic level. I suspect that in societies where religion rather than the nation state (which is corrupt or ineffectual) is the main cohesive entity and where low education may make many events we attribute to science unexplainable, it is no surprise that religion (Islam) is taken more seriously and literally. For example insofar as there being no effectual system of law and punishment to more humanely deal with criminals. Also because religion is such a more important glue of community, it's strictures are enforced more rigidly - more varied interpretations would lead to disagreements and risk breaking the community apart (or alternatively, I am saying that only communities with rigid ideologies have survived).

The reason why a Palestinian Christian behaves less radically than Palestinian Muslims on average may also have manifold explanations if it is true. If we accept that many religious groups are linked globally, it is arguable that western countries with their more moderate Christian view are a moderating influence relative to the more radical average global interpretation of Islam. Perhaps with suicide bombings being such an Islamic stigma, it is an activity they as a community have actively tried to avoid? Perhaps anthropologically being in the minority in a community engenders less radicalism and more passive behaviour?

Drop the passive aggressive tone. It's not intellectual dishonesty to recognise that not all situations are the same.

Texas doesn't have a right to secede. There is no legal framework for it to do so under US law. That has nothing to do with my opinion, that is reality.

Scotland, OTOH, did have a right to secede based on the Edinburgh Agreement.

Whether they should secede is a different argument, and one of sufficient complexity that I don't feel a blanket yes or no could cover all cases.

I see no reason for Texas to secede, so I don't believe it's warranted.

I sorta wanted Scotland to secede, partly out of interest, partly because of my aforementioned dislike for monarchy, but even then I wasn't sure it was in Scotlands best interests. Since I don't live there, my interest really didn't go much beyond Groundskeeper Willie and John Oliver.


As for whether the US can learn lessons from monarchical governments, of course it can. Just because you shouldn't adopt their system of a head of state, doesn't mean there aren't aspects of their government/society that aren't vastly superior to your own (arguably broken) democracy.

To claim otherwise would be hubris.