search results matching tag: poison

» channel: weather

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (283)     Sift Talk (16)     Blogs (17)     Comments (1000)   

Super Half-Life (HL) Bros.

Aftermath November 2016

heropsycho says...

There's two ways to look at this election. One is a dispassionate exploration of why did it happen. Another way is a moral argument on who people should have voted for. What you wrote is a great description of why Trump was elected.

Her reaction to the election is a great moral reaction to people who voted for Trump.

I'm sorry, but she's right.

A "fuck you" "no confidence" vote for Trump is a temper tantrum vote, and I say this as someone who isn't really a big Hillary Clinton fan. Voters shouldn't act like five year olds. How about be adults and do what you've had to do frequently in your adult lives, take the punch in the gut, and fucking do the right thing.

I REALLY REALLY want to go to Europe next year. I saved up the money, I had everything planned out, and I was ready to go. And then my dog got sick and had a thousand dollar surprise vet bill, and then my heat pump died.

I could act like a five year old and go anyway even though I don't have the money as a fuck you to god, the universe, or whatever I think gives a damn, or I could be a grown up and do the right thing - postpone the trip and go later.

I acted like a adult, and did the right thing. Europe can wait.

I wouldn't say this to an Obama, Romney, McCain, George W. Bush, Kerry, or Gore voter, and I could keep going back in history. This wasn't an election where you're picking between equally deadly gruesome poisons. One was a typical politicians, who you may rightfully hate, and the other was a sexist racist completely inexperienced baffoon who bragged about sexual assualt, bragged about how big his dick was in a presidential primary debate, a complete serial liar the likes we haven't seen in politics in the modern era, and I could go on and on and on.

Be a fucking grown up and vote for the only responsible adult in this election, who is admittedly completely unlikeable. It's really not hard, but never put anything past the American voter.

I

enoch said:

a vote for trump was a "fuck you" vote.
a trump vote was a "no confidence" vote.

TYT - How to Rebuild the Democratic Party

newtboy says...

Fire the DNC....yes....AND anyone working for the Clinton campaign. They are all poisoned, and poison to the party now.
Don't put Sanders in as head, we need him in the Senate. He's not the only honest person available, find another or wait until he's retired please.
Removing big money, first from their own campaigns and then if elected from the election in general as a platform base is, perhaps, their ONLY possibility for survival now. The days of accepting 90% of funding from <10 people and still winning elections are over....for the Democrats at least. Working for the people rather than donors....well, removing the money should make that automatic, but perhaps it still needs saying.

Sadly, I think he's right, Democrats in power will snicker at all of those proposals, won't adopt any of them, and will lose even bigger in 2018. We need them to take a long, hard, honest look in the mirror, do an honest critical assessment of the election and how and why they lost against someone so terrible as Orange Kanye, and have an epiphany, or we're just going to be moving farther and farther to the 'right' for the foreseeable future while the Democrats only whine and cry that things aren't fair and it's someone else's fault.

How To Correct Donald Trump In Real Time

dannym3141 says...

It's happening hardcore over here. It seems like sometime in the last 5 years, all the stops came out and it's become utterly shameless. They will say or do anything, and if they are wrong or found to be acting improperly they print a very small retraction - but the damage is already done. And other media outlets report on the false report!

Recently the Labour leader here has been repeatedly smeared by anti Semitism. They say his supporters are anti-Semites, that he doesn't express enough outrage in condemning anti-Semitism. The guy is famed for his tolerance and acceptance, says in almost every speech he gives that he wants to challenge any and all xenophobia, is the biggest cheerleader for women and minorities, has appointed the most diverse shadow cabinet in history, issued a full independent investigation into racism and abuse....... He does all of this, but now the stories are "claims of anti-Semitism appears to follow the Labour leader around" -- they are now reporting that they have reported false claims of anti-Semitism!

He doesn't even defend himself - he asks people instead to stop instrumentalising minorities to score political points. So then they claim he's not taking their false claims seriously enough and therefore not taking anti-Semitism seriously and the smear cycle goes on.

The worst thing about all of this is how complicit his opponents are in the game.... fair enough if you don't like him, it's ok to rubbish his policies. But this media misrepresentation is destroying a democracy that was already on its knees. And politicians, guardians of our society, manipulate and utilise this poisonous shit to get their way!

This year has completely turned me off politics again. To see what these people will to do an honest man has broken my spirit, but to that 70 year old bloke's credit, it hasn't broken his.

ChaosEngine said:

Jesus, how much do they need to do this.... but they fucking won't.

Journalism is failing democracy.

*quality

Man Chops Down Tree To Steal Bike

Drachen_Jager says...

Chinese manufacturers poison children with lead paint on toys and melamine in formula. They build shoddy schools in earthquake zones, killing hundreds more children. The government is corrupt, the people, by and large, are on the verge of poverty, forced into making tough decisions like leaving their kids with the grandparents in the country while they work in the city and can barely scratch enough together to visit once or twice a year. At the same time, the wealthy class has ballooned at a staggering rate, government officials steal millions of dollars from taxpayers, or take the money in bribes, and offshore it so they can escape when the inevitable collapse comes. And all this is just barely scratching the surface of all the shit that goes on in China.

Yes, by all means, let's worry about one tree.

The Oldest Fast Food Restaurant in the East End

Mordhaus says...

From what I understand, eels were easily available as a cheap source of protein for many years. Even after the Thames became so dirty that the eels couldn't survive, they retained their status as a comfort food for people around the London area.

They do have poisonous blood to mammals, so the guy was telling the truth about the stinging in the eye bit.

Thanks for the promote!

eric3579 said:

Love this guy. Are eels a standard English food. I had no idea *promote

Aziraphale (Member Profile)

bareboards2 says...

Thanks for this thoughtful response.

I agree 100% with the idea of catching more flies with honey idea. Treating people with respect. All of that stuff is patently true to me.

However. Of course there is a "however."

I don't agree with the "clearly condescending" assessment. I did not find the delivery condescending in the least. I found it sarcastic and pissed off and appropriate to the topic.

This video is not meant to add to the debate or woo people to her side. It is flat out laying out the facts with a take no prisoners attitude.

That you think this is condescending and I guess poisonous is interesting to me.

Is this indeed sexism at work? Did you read Crushbug's comment? Do you understand that women are "policed" as to their tone of voice all the time? In fact, your mother's (true) advice that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar is actually the internalized oppression that we women struggle with all the time. Be sweet, be kind, be oblique. Manipulate your (male) partner into doing what you want by leading him to think it is his idea.

Just writing this out is making my stomach hurt. It is so poisonous, the suppression of free human expression that women are subjected to in so many cultures. (Think of young Japanese girls who cover their mouths coyly when they laugh.)

Having said all this, please don't think that I believe that men are the evil oppressors. Men have a different pressure put on them that distorts their psyches -- "be a man" is just as deadly as "be sweet".

I was just saying to a friend the other day -- I was wondering how it screws up little boys' heads when daddy leaves the house for a week long business trip, and tells his 4 year old son "You're the man of the house now. Take care of your mother." Good lord. He's a child! He needs her to take care of him!

Anyway. There is much that I agree with in your long and thoughtful response. I just don't think that these ideas are appropriately applied to this comedy video. As you sort of implied with your addendum.

Aziraphale said:

The narrator's tone in this video was clearly condescending, and that is not how you reach the other side of an argument. Even if every statement she made in this video was objectively factually accurate, the way it was presented all but ensures a full-on backfire effect.

I would compare the tone of this video to the youtuber thunderf00t. Even though he is someone with whom I agree on nearly every topic, I still find the tone of his videos to be overly patronizing, and as a result the message doesn't reach as many as it could.

I usually despise overused, banal platitudes, but there is one, I think, that should be considered. "You attract more flies with honey than with vinegar." Even if it is factually incorrect, the spirit of what implies is clear. You will have a greater chance of conveying your side of an argument if you treat the other side with dignity and respect, even if they don't deserve it. I have learned this the hard way over the years in many of my debates with theists.

-----

All that being said, I can give the benefit of the doubt and say that maybe her tone was entirely for comedic effect, even though I think it utterly fails in that regard, and is a missed opportunity to contribute to a real debate.

Vox: Sexist coverage steals the show at 2016 Olympics

bareboards2 says...

"Poisonous tone and attitude." POISONOUS TONE AND ATTITUDE???!!!???

So, would you like to expand on that phrase, @vil? And perhaps read crushbug's comment above?

Because here is what I hear -- not that you are saying this, but it is what I hear:

Angry women are off-putting. Women with sarcastic voices are off-putting. Women who dare to be anything but sweet and compliant are off-putting.

Men are not "policed" this way. They are allowed a wide range of attitudes in the way they present information. Of course, they CAN be "poisonous" -- but I guarantee you no man's delivery this mild would be labelled "poisonous."

There is a "thing" called "vocal fry" that some women (and gay men) have that pitches their voices high (to be simplistic in its description.) There has been reams written about it. I assumed that most of the comments here were related to vocal fry.

Your comment here is not about vocal fry. Or if it is, wow. What words to use to describe it. Ouch.

So can you use different words to explain what you mean? If I am not understanding you?

As for "word counts not mattering" -- that is categorically not true.

I have been talking about this for forty years and have thought about it deeply, in a logical manner, trying to find the vocabulary to discuss it. I think I have succeeded, and it applies to black people, especially black men, as well as women, both black and white. Here it comes.

Words have values. Words with similar values are interchangeable with gender usage. Words that don't have similar values are sexist and racist. (Even if women do it to themselves, they are indeed engaging in internalized sexism.) If you can take a sentence with the word "girl" being used, and change the gender to male, would you ever -- in that specific situation -- use the word "boy"? If you would, go for it.

And here is where the "word count" matters. Because there are more women than there are men, and yet the word count proves that in the same situation, the word girl is used a lot more. Even if you take out the gymnasts, who are indeed less than 19.

I never say "never use the word girl." Because sometimes, in the same situation, you would indeed use the word "boy."

Let me give you an example.

Old Boys Network. Very powerful men, on the same social and power level, call themselves "boys." Leads to Boys Night Out -- same social and power level.

So can you say Girls Night Out without it being an infantilzation? Absolutely.

Can black people call themselves the n-word? Sure. Same social and power levels. A white person calling a black person the n-word? Nope, nope, nope, nope. Different social and power levels.

This will only make sense to older people, since it doesn't happen as much as it used to. Calling a black man "boy." A grown man. With a job and a family and dignity. Can a white person employing a black man call him "boy"? No. No they cannot.

When is a man over the age of 20 or so called a boy? Very very rarely. Young man, sure. But rarely "boy."

Yet when it comes to women, they are called girls until they die. And they do it to themselves, to make themselves smaller and less threatening.

So. Poisonous. Tell me what you meant, please? Keeping in mind the idea that "threatening" women need to stay in their place?

Vox: Sexist coverage steals the show at 2016 Olympics

vil says...

True.

I just wanted to know. What I would next propose is that groups of "women in general" amongst themselves consider themselves to be girls. Like "native americans" consider themselves indians and "african americans" consider themselves black or niggers.

So its not about the word count, but who and how uses the words. So if an old white man uses the word "girl" condescendingly, it is different to athletes calling themselves girls within their group. So counting words is generally a bad idea and misuse of statistics.

Similarly reporting on this and trying to do the same in reverse by using a poisonous tone and attitude doesnt really work, it is counterproductive to the effective presentation of the content.

Now the sports commentators in the video are extreme, but generally sports commentating is difficult because the level of familiarity within a sporting community tends to be much greater than in the general public or given by TV standards. Resulting in awkwardness and miscommunication and hilarity.

And Eugenie is a joke.

bareboards2 said:

Sigh. Way to cherry pick data.

The New Wave of YouTube "Skeptics"

Imagoamin says...

Then you haven't encountered any of his fans on twitter.

And he is pretty much the largest and most 1:1 example the above video is referencing: He uses specious arguments, focuses on minor details or extreme examples to paint with a massive brush, and generally is more vitriol than skepticism.

And the difference between Sarkeesian making videos critiquing and thunderf00t is myriad: Sarkeesian focuses on depictions and media, thunderf00t focuses on indviduals and a very amorphous idea of "feminism" with videos like "Why feminism is poisoning atheism", "Why 'feminism' poisons EVERYTHING", all pretty much completely obsessed with Sarkeesian and Rebecca Watson.

That's not skepticism.. that's a creepy personal vendetta.

The other major difference are their fans. I don't recall Sarkeesian ever taking out a personal vendetta against a random person and suggesting her fans bombard their business on Yelp with bad reviews and then people on the doxxing boards of 8chan joined in the online attacks.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/25/1439148/-Phil-Mason-is-Working-With-Baphomet-to-Ruin-DC-Business

I mean, it's not quite as simple as "one person makes videos critiquing, another makes videos critiquing". But I feel like you probably already knew that.

00Scud00 said:

Why look for that excuse? I think the word you are looking for is 'validation'. I think it's really human nature that compels us to search out those who we see as being like us and helps to reaffirm our beliefs. Fox News became a media empire based almost entirely on this principle and ever since then many other media outlets have followed suit.

@Imagoamin
I read that article a little while back, but I'm not sure taking away Patreon or ad money would silence those people. I'm pretty sure many like thunderf00t would just keep on doing what they're doing anyhow. I've watched some of thunderf00t's videos and while they may not use the most genteel language or may come off as snarky but it never sounded like harassment to me.

YouTube, and the internet in general are a soapbox which people like Anita Sarkeesian can use to criticize popular media and can also be used by others to criticize Sarkeesian in turn, this is perfectly fair in my opinion.

Climatologist Emotional Over Arctic Methane Hydrate Release

newtboy says...

Solution, no. Semi-mitigation....possibly if it could be done, but there would be tradeoffs, it wouldn't be a simple 'now it's only CO2' solution....as if that was a solution, there's still too much CO2 too.

I'm intrigued by the engineered bacteria idea...at this point it couldn't be much worse than just releasing all the methane (OK, it could), but it's like that one time I went to the lake to bone my girlfriend, but the mosquitos were going crazy and she said there is no way. By the time people decided it was worth the risk and started developing them, it would be too late anyway, but we might mitigate the extinction event for the insects....who knows?

Um....uninhabitable for 100 years? How do you figure? It's likely that when the ocean temps rise enough, and are acidic enough, most sea life dies, sinks, rots, and releases massive amounts of hydrogen sulfide killing anything that's left.
(WIKI-Kump, Pavlov and Arthur (2005) have proposed that during the Permian–Triassic extinction event the warming also upset the oceanic balance between photosynthesising plankton and deep-water sulfate-reducing bacteria, causing massive emissions of hydrogen sulfide which poisoned life on both land and sea and severely weakened the ozone layer, exposing much of the life that still remained to fatal levels of UV radiation.)
Along with all the other damages of climate change, and the apocalypse that >7 billion people will cause on the way out, it's going to be way longer than 100 years before humans can live off nature if ever....way way longer.

We are hard to kill, but we aren't extremophiles. We'll die, or become mole people, but some other life will continue.

greatgooglymoogly said:

So Newtboy, would attempting to burn all this methane as it is released(converting to CO2) be a possible solution, assuming it was possible from an engineering point of view? Apart from that, maybe bioengineered organisms designed to eat the methane could make an impact.

I'm not hopeful, but I'm pretty sure there are enough ultra-rich people with the resources to save a small portion of humanity while the earth in uninhabitable for 100 years, that humans will not die out. Viruses are hard to kill(according to Agent Smith)

ant (Member Profile)

How to never have a serious poison ivy rash again.

dannym3141 says...

I've only ever heard of poison ivy on TV or in books, but are you seriously telling me that in hundreds of years, no one ever thought to just wash it off with a rag?

ant (Member Profile)

How to never have a serious poison ivy rash again.

ulysses1904 says...

Poison ivy has always been my kryptonite, although luckily I haven't had an episode in years. The worst ever was when I ran a weed whacker while wearing shorts, didn't realize I was hitting poison ivy. Both legs were a crusty, oozing mess for 2 weeks. My coworkers took pity and went out and got my lunch for me every day, knowing that walking was an ordeal. Good times.

Good video.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists