@newtboy - There is a men's and a women's bantamweight *title* because the men and women don't fight each other, so they can't have just one title, but they aren't separated as different "men" and "women" divisions. Subtle difference, but still very meaningful I think.

@Lawdeedaw - That difference in severity makes all the difference. I'm curious if Knox (2012) cites how many husbands versus wives are subject to prolonged physical and psychological torture by their spouse.

Yeah but he drinks that after he's already walked in to the room. Everything was plainly insight immediately entering the house, the boxes are every where, the camera is sitting on a tripod in the middle for the room.

Not to mention the very nature of idly accepting a photo of two people fucking in the face of "customer service". Feel it might of been better to have the photo he gives over cropped with perhaps a subtle hint of a few arms. Then leave the larger photo on the kitchen bench, letting human curiosity sneak a peak.

You can only chalk so much up to the drugging, still have to put a little effort in believability. Good concept but fell flat for me on the details.

Subtle political commentary on the Capitol being made of straw?

I never really got this whole thing. I mean I guess I get the swearing part of it, but he's no Lenny Bruce in terms of breaking down barriers. Nor is he as funny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDkoCtMOFOg
"If the word motherfucker stimulates you sexually you're in a lot of trouble"
-Lenny Bruce, decades before often-subtle sexual nursery rhymes

Although, maybe that's it. He wasn't as funny.

I've added tags and channels back in.

I've had trouble trying to find a way to reinsert them in a subtle way that won't clutter the place up but will still be easily accessible.

After contemplating lots of options what I came up with was just putting them below the byline but minimally, with smaller text and semi-transparent until you hover over the video's meta info box.

Thoughts on my solution and other possible, possibly better solutions requested. (I'm not super-keen on what I came up with and wish there was something less messy.)

Eh, I don't really get what everyone is going on about. Yah Bill Maher comes off as a bit of a dick most times, but isn't that kind of the point of his show in the first place? It's not an interview show, it's an opinion/discussion show where him and his guests are often shouting over each other at times.

On top of that he's also a comedian. Jon Stewart will try and get a laugh when he can during an interview as well, granted he's more subtle about it.

To me this was a very standard interview for Maher, possibly even more retrained than usual. You could definitely argue he's not a good interviewer, but I guess that depends on what your expectation for a Bill Maher interview is.

He's not just going to sit there and let the person blab on for the entire 8 minutes (very short of amount of time for a decent interview in the first place). Bill's whole persona is someone who has a very specific opinion or slant or bias if you will and he's made a career out of speaking his mind in an 'in your face' kind of way. Obviously he's going to interject here and there and steer the conversation towards an area that appeals to his audience/pet topics.

I disagree, you now have an explanation of why other people like the song. Surely you would have found it easier to work out one you like (particularly after watching a few of these).

I'm also left with the distinct impression that these videos are a subtle German parody of overly serious music programmes. I'm not 100% sure of that, but either way the ones I have seen have been great watching

I created an account just to weight in as well. I'm pretty sure that this is simply ironic (and therefore humorous) because it's a caveman who is not living in a cave, but instead in a house. This is what the house of a caveman would look like, get it? Larson takes ideas or concepts we have some conception of (cavemen) and ascribes relatable characteristics to them which, again, makes it funny. It's not incredibly deep, just kind of subtle.

I agree, there's clearly a missing piece. She didn't pick the colors by the order they were presented to her (in which case silver would have been 2nd), and he made no mention of other cues which would have lead to her selecting them in that order. Maybe it was simply top to bottom, other than the horse being first due to cobalt being shoved in her face. He does have a big honkin' earpiece in though, which would have made it easy for someone to feed him her marker selections. Occams razor: is it more likely that he was being fed her selections and telling her which animals to color accordingly, or that some subtle unknown cue caused her to pick the marker order she did? The subtle imagery clues he referenced (Katy's amber owl mug for example) appear to me to be total red herrings, as he told her the animal after she selected the color.

NOMA as in how Dawkins criticises NOMA?

I think there's a subtle distinction between what NDGT is saying and NOMA, which is that i don't think he suggested that any religion should be given the position to present what they know as fact. He seemed to suggest that the American physicists he knows, if they are shall we say 'spiritual' then they are spiritual in a more open sense than being classed as any particular religion. Perhaps in the sense that they see no reason for there NOT to be different realities or even that the universe is not a part of something else. In that way they may be open to spirituality even if just in a general well-being sense, and use religious texts as interesting moralistic tales. If you believe in the possibility of something greater than yourself and that it is abstract and unlike anything we can imagine, then you could use the christian god as a 'good enough' placeholder, even though you believe in the physical universe as being separate to 'god'.

At the end of the day, no matter how cutting Dawkins can be, he himself knows that you can't prove anything about this god or that god, and ultimately anything to do with why there is this reality nor what any alternative might be. He's just a guy with opinions about how this place works too, and he's certainly not the smartest of us to ever have been.

Might you be putting too much focus on the (i think facetious) comment that it teaches how to go to heaven not how the heavens go? I think, or rather hope, that he was trying to say that there's no way to tell one way or the other, but he can understand why people feel comforted by it, why some people are moved by their own unique experiences to feel that way. Also that you can say you subscribe to something even whilst you hold your own completely modified version of it according to what you experience in this reality!

Kind of. It's hard to know. You are assuming rationality on the part of the business people.

My evidence? The Bechtel Test for the movies. Despite women being 1/2 the population, the moviemakers ignored that audience for decades as they chased what seemed like a better bet -- males from the age of 18-35, or whatever the range of ages is.

Despite the evidence of quality movies about women doing well at the box office, the "rational" business deciders kept saying - oh, that movie that just did well is the exception.

As the exceptions mounted up, FINALLY they are beginning to pay attention. Even then, it was pushed by book sales, you know? Hunger Games. Twilight.

Surely you wouldn't argue that sexism has been absent from the movie theaters all these years?

It may seem like a stretch to make this analogy, but I don't think it is. The blindness of those in charge is LEGION.

Racism can be subtle. The toymakers don't have to saying -- I don't want to make no n****r baby dolls for them to be twisted by the subtle racist stance that little black kids don't read.

I agree with you. It isn't evil.

It is "just" subtle racism that affects little girls standing in a toy aisle.

I think they're arsing around but not going too stupid. A lot of people appreciate the subtle approach. Sometimes it's funnier to the person making it to make it look more real, or helps them create a persona for future stuff. The guy in the black has gotta be milking it in at least half these clips.

*promote the master!
welcome back @blankfist
ya'all need to start taking notes.

this guy was super entertaining,i thought he was gonna have an embolism at the halfway mark.

hiiiiilarious!!!

look,no matter which direction you approach this situation the REAL dynamic is simply:power vs powerlessness.

we also should establish which form of libertarianism we are speaking.cultofdusty criticizes the bastardized american version and this dude come from a more classic libertarian (sans the unbridled capitalism).so there should be no surprise they are at odds in their opinion.this man is defending a libertarianism that cultofdusty may not even be aware of at all.

libertarianism has little or nothing in common with the republican party.

so when this dude posits that the corporation is the fault of government,while not entirely accurate,it is also not entirely wrong.corporations in the distant past were temporary alliances of companies,with the blessing of the people (government) to achieve a specific job or project and once that project was complete,the corporation was dissolved.

it was a cadre of clever lawyers,representing powerful interests who convinced the supreme court that corporations were people and hence began the long road leading us to where we are now.

so it was partly the government that fascillitated the birth of the corporation.

i do take issue with this mans assessment of public education.his commentary is the height of ignorance.while i would agree that what we have now can hardly be called 'education".his blanket and broad statements in regards to public education TOTALLY ignores the incredible benefits that come from an educated public.he ignores the history of public education,as if this system has been unchanging for 100 years.

that is just flat out...stupid..or more likely just lazy,regurgitating the maniacal rants of his heroes without ever once giving that 100 years some critical study.

so let me point to the the late 50's and 60's here in the USA where our public education was bar-none the best in the world.what were the consequences of this stellar public education?
well,...civil rights marches,anti-war movement,womens rights movement and a whole generation that not only questioned authority and the entrenched power structures but openly DEFIED those structures.

this absolutely petrified the powered elite.
during the height of the anti-war movement nixon was forced to baricade the white house with school buses and was quoted as saying to kissinger " henry,they are coming for me".

again,the fundamental premise is,and has always been -power vs powerlessness.

so over the nest few decades public education was manipulated and transformed into a subtle indoctrination to teach young minds to tacitly submit to authority.

which this man addresses and i agree,i just disagree with his overly generalized non-historically accurate puke-vomit.

my final point,and its always the point where libertarians lose their shit on me like an offended westboro baptist acolyte (its actually two points) is this:
1.if we can blame the government for much of the problems in regards to concentrated power and the abuse that goes with that power,then we MUST also address the abusive (and corrosive) power of the corporation.many libertarians i discuss with seem to be under the impression that if we take away the symbiotic relationship between corporations and government that somehow..miraculously..the corporation will all of a sudden become the benign and productive member of society.

this is utter fiction.
this is magical thinking.
many corporations have a larger GDP than many nation states.this is about POWER and there is ZERO evidence any corporation will be willing to relinquish that power just because there is no government to influence,manipulate or corrupt.

which brings me to point number 2:
my libertarian friends.
you live in a thing called a society.
a community where other people also live.
so please stop with this rabid individualism as somehow being the pinnacle of human endeavour.im all for personal responsibility but nobody lives in a vacuum and nobody rides this train alone.the world does not revolve around YOU.

but i do understand,and agree,that the heart of the libertarian argument is more power to the people.i also understand their arguments against governments,which directly and oftimes indirectly disempowers people.

i get that.its a good argument..
BUT...for fucks sake please admit that the corporation in its current state has GOT TO FUCKING GO!

because if you dont then ultimately you are trading one tyrant for another and in my humble opinion,ill stick with the one i can at least vote on or protest.

there aint nothing democratic about a multi-national corporation.they are,by design,dictatorships.

so i will agree to wittle the government down and restrict its powers to defense (NOT war),law and fraud police,if you agree to dismantle and restructure the seven headed leviathan that is todays corporation.

deal?

No lumping of racists was done.
I suggested that as a member of a group you can be complicit in racist attitudes (ever made a remark about asian's being good at math for example?)
It can be incredibly subtle, I'll admit I've done that sort of micro aggression shit before, I'm no angel.
As per my last response, if you are more upset by the phrase "white people often treat black people badly" because it implies that as a white person, you might often treat black people badly then I've got great news, you aren't a racist! But you do seem to care more about implicit, quite general remarks to your character than actual racial injustice, (ie: job discrimination and police brutality on the basis on skin colour) which might be food for thought.

This has been around for awhile, the Keystone Kops were more subtle than this nonsense. I was waiting for the silent movie title card "And along comes his sidekick to the rescue".