I didn't hear any deep societal issues being addressed and the depth of the commentary was consistently shallow.

In fact, these are the same mainstream, shallow attempts at 'profound thought' that we get from Hollywood and Madison Avenue. The type of mass appeal positivity that viral advertisers try to capture because it so easily plucks the emotions of the everyday, busy, 9-5 commuter.

And here it's being delivered by exactly the type of person that will be ignored, out of hand, by the same busy people who will go home and endlessly upvote and share these same thoughts. As long as they come in the form of a youtube video with dramatic background music. (ahem) Why is our acceptance of the message conditional on the social acceptability of the medium by which it's delivered? Do we fear being ostracized to the community of mad men if we don't hate his message?

I feel like I'm being mocked for my readiness to expose the vapid sentimentality that's replaced meaningful emotions in my life.

Maybe I missed the point. The music was a fitting addition though.

I like this video. Upvote and Share.

Don't give me that false equivalence BS, you don't have a different viewpoint, you have a demonstrably bad viewpoint.

I don't hate you, I pity you. I'm not the one that hates homosexuals and minorities,

people like you and lantern who judge people on the basis of skin color, and sexual orientation....

...are not good people, it's that simple. You are relics of the past.

It is socially acceptable to shame and call out people like you and lantern when we catch you voicing your antiquated ideas. Your social viewpoints are becoming less and less acceptable with each day. Even the right is slowly backing away on their attacks on minorities and homosexuals.

Your ideas...don't work, they never did.

I've told you and your pal lantern many times that you are free to be as backwards thinking as you want in the privacy of your own home and your own brain. But when you voice your bad ideas in public, expect to be called out and shamed.

You can play the victim card all you want. but you know it's not just me picking on you. Long before I ever showed up, you've been called out and shamed by many others here and you've been reprimanded by the staff of this website on multiple occasions. I'm willing to bet that unless you live in a hole in the ground in the deep south, you know better than to voice your ideas in public in real life since you know you'll get in trouble. Being an anonymous troll on a website is the only place you can voice your bad ideas, isn't it?

I understand that you're angry. The world changed on you and you're too set on your old ideas to change with it. Well you better hang on, because it's going to keep on changing and people who share your viewpoint will keep dying of old age. As it should be.

As I told lantern, start taking your own advice. You keep claiming that gays and minorites need to "suck it up".

Suck it up bob, suck it up. Why don't you practice what you preach about "rugged individualism" and quit whining? Take it like a man, right?

If you don't like it, go find a website that shares your viewpoints. Freedom of speech does not exist on a private website.

Deal with it. Your prejudice is only going to keep getting called out and you will continue to get shamed.

Yep, it's fucking barbaric. It is genital mutilation of children, period.

If you decide as an adult male that you want to be circumcised, that's your decision. But I have no idea how it is considered socially acceptable to mutilate infants like this.

That would be incredibly oppressive. Men can act in such shameful ways if the culture permits it. But when every reasonable man and woman has the courage to stand up to that kind of bullshit I think it dies off. Because even selfish men want social acceptance.

I hope the courage of these women sets an example.

So the smiley-face is supposed to excuse ad-hom, bunny-man?? You could have called him a 'cunt' 'asshole', 'dipshit', any of these would be in violation of civil rules of decorum.

Could this obvious hypocritical double-standard applied to users who disgust you speak to a fundamental personality flaw which makes you just as anti-social as you accuse others of being?

Could pushing the rules of the sift to the brink indicate a personal loathing of anyone who has an opinion other than your own that you then personally deem 'unworthy' of your time when it could have been a springboard for another direction in this thread?

Maybe not, you gave Yogi time enough to label him 'twat' (which I suppose isn't so bad since 'twat' is socially acceptable in jest, etc. in certain countries.

Use that term with reference to a woman in America and see how long it takes your nose to flow red.

How about ya go feed yer bunny and who cares why people of faith bother you so much, sounds like a personal malfunction. Perhaps everything really is, all about you.

What's your favorite ice cream flavor? How about your favorite color? Did you choose those things to be your favorite? Could you suddenly decide--right this instant--that a different flavor of ice cream or color is your favorite and not only behave as if it was, but actually believe it was (i.e. eat the ice cream every day and not be secretly wishing it was a different flavor)?

I suspect you've exaggerated how much choice comes into play in determining these things. Genetics, early life experiences, upbringing, social ties, and a host of other factors are probably far more important than choice in determining our "personal preferences."

Unless you're trying to say we can deny our personal preferences, which is absolutely true. People who are smart can decide fitting in is more important than being themselves and pretend to be dumb in order to be socially accepted. That behavior is a choice, but I don't think it really changes their underlying preferences.

As for the second part, it sounds to me like you agree with exactly what he said. "It's not you, it's the bully." Disagreeing with that statement would mean it IS you that's the problem and you deserve to be bullied. Whether the bully is an "evil little fuck" or the product of their environment, it's the bully that's the problem, no?

I think it's a hard distinction to make. Religion does improve people's lives. Religion is not the only rallying call for violence.

The problem as I see it, is that while moderate theists, who selectively pick and choose the socially acceptable parts of, say the Bible, may be comforted by their beliefs, their public espousal of their religion gives legitimacy to the fundamentalists who interpret it more literally and don't pick and choose the reasonable passages.

It's a tenuous link, but I don't think you can discount it. The reasonable middle ground here would be for moderate organisations to refute certain religious scripture, say the infamous Leviticus passages, The problem is, they don't because it then allows any section of the text to be called into question, instead choose to passively ignore them. This is where I start to have a problem.

Men tend to not pick up on the subtle nuances of sexism.
About 3 months ago I entered a room at work. A female colleague of mine, one of the most attractive ones at that time, was eating a sandwich or something like that. Nothing phallic like a banana. Across the room stood another coworker, freshly married father of a newborn son. He was watching her eating with an expression of certain interest and after I inquired what's so interesting he proclaimed loudly enough for her to her "I could watch her do that all day." His tone said way more than his words.
The woman was eating a fucking sandwich. I'm still waiting for the day when I'm licking an icecream cone and any woman tells me she could watch me do that all day long.

And that's just the subtle stuff, the socially acceptable creepiness.

While he has an important message that he is trying to get across. This "culture" they are arguing about goes far deeper than anyone realizes. Vocabulary should be the least of anyone's concern. For a side note about the vocabulary used, the word in question has lost its meaning as he is stating. Can it be a powerful word when used in a demeaning and demoralizing context? Absolutely. However, the blatant use and misuse of the word by everyone, blacks, whites and everything in between, has changed the meaning of the word. It is similar to the word fag. It has been years since I have heard the word actually used as a vicious attack towards a homosexual. Can it be? Absolutely. It is commonly used as that? Not even close. Words change meanings over time and especially over generations.

This is not the case here. The "culture" they talk about starts with teenage boys. Walk into a high school locker room. The threatening messages these two dolphins players sent each other are the same ones kids use. Martin even sent a text message to Incognito apologizing for the situation and that he doesn't blame him or they interactions. They are still friends. That says more about the whole situation than anything. They are still friends.

This "culture," yes I'm using quotes for a reason, is being founded in these men from the time they are boys. I was in locker rooms through high school and college. Have I used all the words they refer to? Yes I have. Do I hate anyone I was talking to? Not in the slightest, but it still happened because boys are boys. They don't know any better. That is the real issue. Coaches at the high school and college level are failing their players, not in a sport sense, but in a "how not to be a condescending piece of shit asshole" way. The morals I learned from my parents and family were not taught by many of my coaches. I had one coach who would bench you for this type of behavior. He did not care if you were the star or a third stringer. He did no care if we lost. He said he was more interested in teaching the kids how to be real men than to be football players. This was a great college coach and a great mentor.

This falls to them and to parents to try and teach at a young age this is not socially acceptable behavior. If they don't, they grow into men like we have on the dolphins, and then we have news stories like this. If these announcers think this isn't what EVERY single NFL or NBA locker room is like then they are even more delusional than I first thought.

It is interesting to consider why we're okay joking about murder but not rape, personally I consider rape to be just another kind of violence, like assault or murder. So, looking at it what way I don't understand why joking about rape trivializes rape victims but the plight of victims of other forms of violence aren't trivialized by humor? Also, we joke about murder all the time and yet we all know that it doesn't make it anymore socially permissible so why do jokes about rape make that more acceptable, because I'm not sure it does.
You may be right that jokes about murder are more socially acceptable because we've all (or at least most of us) have been there at one point.
And that rape is probably not the form of violence that most people reach for when thinking these dark thoughts, although I admit to contemplating the violation of some peoples bum holes with certain broom handles on occasion.
Emotionally I can understand why some people react the way they do to rape jokes but logically it's not enough to justify telling people they can't say it.

So we can't criticise Islam unless we live under a theocratic regime that doesn't allow us to criticise Islam?

Let me very clear. I believe that the vast majority of muslims (any figure would be a guess, but I'll go with at least 90%) are decent people who, deep down, are probably kinda embarrassed at some of the bullshit inherent in their religion (much as the majority of catholics are truly disgusted at their churchs handling of child rape cases).

But that does not stop me from criticising the ideology within the religion. This is not some hypothetical internet argument; the WHO estimates that 140 million girls have their genitals mutilated annually, most in the name of Islam. (I'm not even going to start on the socially accepted genital mutilation of males).

Finally, I take issue with the term "islamophobia", not because it's an *irrational* fear, but because it's a *fear*. I am not afraid of Islam. I object to parts of it on moral grounds.

So yeah, call me an "internet atheist" if you want. Unless you have some evidence to back up your specious little rant, I'm not interested.

It just really weirds me out. I should be glad that these convservatives are changing their minds. Support for same sex marriage is over 50 percent and is only going to get higher and higher. It's not an issue that will go away and even the most conservative people have to see the writing on the wall that they're going to lose.

but...

1. Either they are only changing their mind because of the reasons we've already talked about.

or

2. They do see the writing on the wall and know that same sex marriage will ultimately win and they're just changing their mind, not because they agree, but simply because they're a politician and they want to keep having a job.

So it's weird, it's progress, but it's not like the war is over or anything. I just hate that you pretty much have to wait for people to die and be replaced by people who didn't grow up in a time where it was socially acceptable to discriminate for real change to occur.

>> ^Deano:

You know this suddenly makes me genuinely concerned as to whether I've been caught doing this but they've let it go. I was working with a lady last week and I was so darn bored I just kept peeking glances, I really couldn't help myself.
After leaving I barely recall doing it until I really thought about it.
Any tips for avoidance? I'm serious! I don't want to give undue offence.

She totally noticed. Doesn't matter how discrete you think you were. She noticed. Hell, I've been behind a girl checking out her ass for split second and I could tell she knew when our eyes met. She knew I knew she knew too. Awkward.


No but seriously. Lets talk tactics. Those guys who wear sunglasses indoors during winter? Its not because they have some ugly eye infection, its because they want to look wherever they fucking please without being judged. Downsides? They get judged to be douches anyway because they're wearing sunglasses indoors in the middle of winter.

Another option is just to drill yourself into looking into her eyes. Imagine they are a pair of perfectly pert breasts and the pupils are the nipples. Downsides? She'll be able to see right into your lust filled soul. She may call the police or take out a restraining order.

Next - adopt a gay lisp, get totally up to date on fashion/clothes. Be that guy. That way you can happily look at the breasts, hell you can even comment on them, suggest clothes that might better accentuate her curves. Its pretty much all fair game when your a gay best friend. Cons - Your her gay best friend. Looking at those breasts/any breasts is all you're ever going to be able to do unless you pull the whole "I think you made me turn straight" thing which is a huge gambit.

4th - Masturbate furiously at every opportunity. Keep your libido as low as possible at all times. I personally used this method for much of my teen years with some success. Its not fool proof but its generally better than nothing. Cons - blindness (although this also serves to solve your problem).

Lastly you could just try to be yourself and hope women aren't too offended by your primal desire to reproduce. If you are attracted to her even more so than normal then consider asking her out. Perving over somebody is somewhat more socially acceptable if you are dating. Hell, maybe love will blossom. Cons - she might say no.

Thats all I got. Hope it helps.

>> ^spoco2:

Does no one else find it a little sad that people find smoking weed so central to their lives that they feel compelled to cheer on people doing it in movies?
Surely once it gets to the point where one of the things you identify yourself as is a smoker of weed, you are letting it take up too much of your life?
Do people who drink really watching someone else on screen drink and go 'Fuck yeah man, he's drinking! I drink too! Fuck yeah, I LOVE him!'


I agree with the guy below you in that it has to do with the legality and the social perception of it. Look at any group that partakes in something that straddles the line of socially acceptable or legal and you'll find a group that feels a kinship toward each other. Particularly so if the person identifies themself as such outwardly.

I'd imagine people that say "yeah man smoke it up famous people" are people who willingly identify themselves as regular smokers or "pot heads" or "stoners." For such people this is popular culture and iconic scenes saying "yo man smoking is fine or fun or at least not some horribly illegal activity" to which they say "hell yeah I agree!"

Also for me I like the fact that it brings into question the perception that many people who are more radically against it hold. For many weed is just a lighter drug thats a step or two further than alcohol but for many it's a social cancer and the beginnings of harder crimes and drugs.

For me the common use of it in popular culture and on shows that tend to be on FX, Showtime, HBO, etc. just goes to show it for what it is...a fairly benign form of intoxication that is as close to large scale acceptability as anything besides alcohol has been. It shows it's not that different from people whom get intoxicated from alcohol on a semi-common basis. I would argue that many of my professional friends and colleagues have just as damaging results from their social drinking as I do from smoking and I'd be the first to say that my personal use is greater than theirs.

As a stoner, I'd be surprised to see these same attitudes and emotions surrounding it's use persist if it was legalized or decriminalized as that would take away the social aspect of "we chose to dismiss the law/society and partake in this activity we both enjoy" but it would take many years if not a generation or two for the old ideas to fall off.

>> ^KnivesOut:

Sexism is still more socially acceptable, because it spans all minorities. Yeah, having a black president is a big deal, but we'll know when the US has truly evolved as a society when we have our first woman president.
But I'm sure @quantumushroom was just trying (and failing) to be funny.>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^quantumushroom:
WOMEN AREN'T FUNNY. GET BACK IN THE KITCHEN.

Racism gets you banned, but blatant sexism is okay?



I feel bad for laughing now...thanks Knives...