I can spot an atheist a mile away, hehe.
While all those people you admire are atheists, there are 10 fold more people who believe in God but you disregard them. And I'm talking from all religions.
But that's okay. God made atheists and I'm sure God loves atheists. I feel bad for them because of the richness of life they are missing out on. They seem to be very unhappy people and rabidly anti-social. That's a major agenda to fight against everything spiritual.

No, it is nothing like The Office. There is no awkwardness at all. It is just happy and funny with a healthy dose of pathos. I highly recommend it if you're feeling a bit low, because whenever I have watched it, I spend hours after in a state of contentment

And I completely get you about the physical pain you feel when you are faced with cringy comedy. When something does make me cringe, I feel daunted and unhappy and it doesn't matter how funny it might be, I can't watch!

She slipped and fell to her death.

Sounds like a cautionary tale, similar to that of Pippa Bacca.

The world rewards those rare people who are developed enough to be able to enjoy being boring and responsible. (Read that link.) Zina and Pippa would have been happier today if their parents had told them that.

This might be throwing a bit of a lit match into the whole thing, but there has been a lot of discussion about how "the media" failed women, and how some sort of unseen force is trying to keep women down, or even men.

At some point in the production of any music video you care to point a finger at, some women have been quite happy to accept money in exchange for portraying whatever it is that certain people are unhappy about.

I have to insist that the question is asked - does everyone WANT equality? There are a lot of women out there quite happy to make a lot of money based on photoshop'd depictions of how they might look in a make believe world. Or to dance around in their smalls, trying their very best to MAKE men interested in their sexual prowess. Their primary money making skill is sexual.

So before we criticise this invisible and possibly make-believe machine that systematically holds women down, how about we consider the individual decisions of prominent women? The women in the blurred lines video weren't forced at gunpoint to strip off and dance around titillating viewers, they accepted payment for a job and did what they were paid for knowing full well that young girls might be watching and imitating them, or whatever.

I mean, great job insulting the hell out of the producer of the video or the choreographer or the guy who made up the song. But all they did was write out a script or imagine out a vision of something they would consider sexually appealing. How about blaming the vacuous bints that wobbled their tits around without considering the consequences?

Perhaps not everyone WANTS equality. Men or women, but women are the easy example; perhaps some or perhaps even many women WANT to be able to use their bodies to gain interest from men or money. If that is the case - as it is for "sexy" music videos, photo shoots, modelling contracts or anything you care to name that involves a complicit woman representing an apparently undesirable or harmful skill - then it is equally unfair to force "equality" on those who do not want it. I see everyone as a person - all equal. And if someone wants to accept payment for wobbling their bits around then that's their decision until it becomes illegal, and it's ridiculous to turn around and say "oh how terribly oppressive of <someone else> for paying that women to flaunt herself." She accepted the fucking cash and did it. She could have pursued any career she wanted. It isn't like she had no other choice.

Additionally, I'm not going to even enter into any discussion that involves "rape" or terms akin to "rape culture" (what a bullshit term) because i actually believe that it detracts hugely from actual acts of rape and the pursuit of justice and prevention of rape.

People are just too spoiled through our society. You grow up as a child, being dragged away and saved from even the slightest bad stuff. In TV you only see happy happy stuff that causes grown ups to feel the urge to barf (Teletubbies for example), and even as a grown up, you are not encouraged to deal with bad stuff and just ignore it with phrases like "its below your standard".

The fact of the matter is that there are many, many very unhappy people, who cant just swallow their misery and poop it out as a smile as many of us may have learned. I mean look at Facebook. Why is there no dislike button? Why do people always get so personal and defensive when you criticize them or their work even objectively? Especially women tend to see things much more personal than men because most of the time they have been cared and "saved" much more, and thats also part reason why there are less women channels, as she put so well.

There are simply people like this and the Internet allows them to openly say what they think. Not to mention that a huge part of those are just stupid jokes that are not meant to hurt anyone. Thats the fucking Internet and society and also shows us problems that need to be fixed PROPERLY. If you cant deal with it, you should go somewhere else where you can concentrate on your mental rainbows only.

We have forgotten how to deal with criticism and unhappy people. Instead we ignore them, generalize them, and make things even worse with that ignorance and then we are surprised when it comes back to us sooner or later at twice or more the power.
Seriously, especially from scientists I expect more thinking than this stupid generalization.
Criticism is an essential part of democracy, freedom and science.

Oh and that doesnt mean one should tolerate crap like that silently, but instead blame the culprit which is our society and that ultimately means we need to change ourselves. We cant change people, we can only change their surroundings, so they change on their own.

There is something very simple but effective in work here. Letting kids be kids, let them get dirty and adults just hanging out with them teaches more valuable lessons of life than any hovering tiger-mom style. Asian countries have surpassed Scandinavian in math skills but at horrible cost. It's just stupid to put kids in to super-learning mode if they grow up unhappy, with social skill problems, unable to fit or feel accomplished.. I like our way of doing things, thank you very much. Eat dirt, climb where you shouldn't and fall down, scrape knees, explore without fear, get hurt, discover, all of that is important part of growing up.

I'm sorry, but those conclusions are pure emotional based off what you see in the MSM. If you can find me a study, a legitimate one, not one from Faux News or Huffington Post, that actually shows that a government safety net induces vagrant behavior, then I will believe you. Until then, I will stick with all the studies that show very clearly that social safety barriers do in fact work, and that the decades old gutting of the programs are wrecking havoc on the system. Not to mentioned the systematic desecration of the educational system that's been designed solely for "efficiency" and pumps out students that are over qualified, unhappy, massively in debt and lead to believe a lie in which they can never achieve, or the exact opposite and ditches those most in need yet are the most visually different.

Combine this with white flight, red lining, and a culture of fear mongering, race baiting and rapid communication and we have a perfect storm. The general population is so overrun with sad stories and empathy inducing situations they actually go into empathy shock - a state in which they cease to care and numb themselves so they don't have to make a decision. A decision which they may later feel bad about. Instead, it's "nothing I can do about it so I won't care." And yes, this happens with those "gang-bangers" you talk about.

Instead of solving the situation, which is a blatant and total discrepancy in incomes, social normality, and general empathy, we will continue to have this problem. So long as white flight occurs and the NYPD openly racially profiles and harasses 110% (no joke) of the black community, and so long as the Christian Right still chants "it's ok to profile brown people" both in NYC, Arizona and everywhere else we will continue to have this problem.

Ever hear of the Theory of Attitudes? Or Reactance? There is far more going on than "if we give them money they'll stop working." Because I'm pretty sure every Christmas when your parents (general assumption) gives you presents, you instantly stop working. Totally proven concept, eh?

He's a traitor because he's given away state secrets to Russia and China in exchange for asylum and celebrity. He's a coward because he doesn't want to adhere to civil disobedience; I don't remember MLK or Ghandi fleeing to Russia. He's a narcissist because he could have easily revealed the misconduct of the NSA to the public anonymously instead of showboating like the second coming.

Fuck him, and I hope he suffers the fate of other Russian defectors:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113757/snowden-case-unhappy-history-american-defectors-moscow
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/02/us-usa-security-snowden-russia-idUSBRE97114O20130802

My unhappy workmate punched a hole on his laptop screen, told my boss to go f**k himself right in front of everyone, and left. He was a brave man

People are just unhappy because his picture doesn't make him look like what they think a terrorist should look like. They called him a monster right next to it, but people are grumpy that his picture doesn't fit the narrative.

The attitude Stephen Fry refers to of "he's got it all, why is he unhappy?" is something I've heard rather too many times and shows such a poor understanding of the situation. That's the point. He's got it all yet he's unhappy - hence, it's an illness. If you're unhappy when you have reason to be unhappy, that's normal and healthy.

@cluhlenbrauck, how do you know he didn't set these goals? I know he's lost a lot of weight in the last few years, that suggests he did has done this. It's not just a case of setting goals.

I've got angry resting face and it's absolutely infuriating to constantly be criticized for not being happy (which is just an asshole thing to do, even more so to someone who is actually unhappy).

So, yeah... self-fulfilling prophecy... I look angry/pissy even if I'm not and then someone comes along and acts like an asshole about it, leaving me angry/pissy.

No, but absence of evidence is absence of evidence. Do I need more periods for that to make sense? Reports/leads. are. not. factual. evidence.
Are you suggesting that they should have had the right to invade any home or neighborhood that a tipster mentioned to them, because you seem to be. And you call me a nutjob? Hmmm.
To address your previous rant...
Because one person may have posed a danger to some does not suspend the rule of law, which requires EVIDENCE, not a guess, that there is actually 'imminent danger' of harm or destruction of evidence or escape...they could not have had that for random searches in Boston, if there were any.
I agree, your ignorance is embarrassing. Searching based on hunch or guess is unreasonable. Simple enough?
It's funny that you have apparently pegged me into some hole you dislike, because you know far less about me that we know about the bombers activities in the hour being discussed and have already made numerous quick false assumptions, but that's your prerogative.
I understand the fourth amendment, it has been widely interpreted by many. You seem to believe that anyone with a different interpretation from yours must be a brain dead idiot that needs a spanking. I simply feel that anyone that wants to freely give up the rights that many paid dearly to secure should instead move to somewhere that already governs the way they would like. They do exist, and I meant it about Australia, it seems great but it's not the USA.
edit: please don't take that as 'if you don't like it then get out!', it is a reasonable idea for those unhappy with the way the current system is working out, especially given the difficulty of changing it.
I take your argument to the logical conclusion, which is that if you think dangerous criminals in the area makes random searches legal, then you think the police may enter your home at any time, you have said nothing to dispute that, just called it dumb and BS. If one murderer is dangerous and worthy or house to house search, is another somehow not? Please explain and cite where the law draws the line.
Please attempt to make a rational argument and not a third grade name calling session. I made no flights from logic that I can see and freely stated I was commenting based on the 'facts' in the description, and did not resort to name calling.
Recall what one of the smartest founding fathers famously said (and quadrophonic kindly reminded me of) "Those that would sacrifice essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither." Benjamin Franklin

Muslim fundamentalists seem to be more numerous and powerful than the Christian ones. The reasons for this have little to do with the religious fundamentals themselves as laid out in their holy books. Both books are full of soaring praise of peace and execrable lust for vengeance over imagined slights. Both books really do say that those who don't worship your way should be put to death. Whether you listen to the nasty parts or the nice ones has everything to do with your relative economic situation. If you are satisfied with your lot, it is easy to find the passages of your screed that advocate peace, harmony, and tradition. If you are unhappy and see yourself as oppressed, it is easy to find the passages that advocate war, upheaval, and radical acts of violence against the oppressor. Muslim fundamentalists are more numerous and powerful than the Christian ones because the Muslim countries are poorer. The radical messages get more traction among them. The more poor Christians we accumulate in this country, the more our own homegrown radicals, the WBC, will be taken seriously.