I too have a toddler, skittles, a laundry basket, and a bizarre sense of humor.
Will post back with results of experiment this evening.
__________________
Pylon on the Edmonton Oilers:
"I am actually more excited for the Oilers game tomorrow than the Flames game. I am praying for multiple jersey tosses. The Oilers are my new favourite team for all the wrong reasons. I hate them so much I love them."
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to IliketoPuck For This Useful Post:
How do you define unpopular? A skit about the beauty standards of women in entertainment being unfair?
It's ####ty obviously, but unpopular? No, that's pretty well known.
Popularity and visibility are not synonymous.
A big part of comedy is shining an abrasive light on visible topics that are unspoken or downplayed. It's uncomfortable, sure, but it's part of a comedians job.
A big part of comedy is shining an abrasive light on visible topics that are unspoken or downplayed. It's uncomfortable, sure, but it's part of a comedians job.
Nothing Amy Schumer says makes anyone uncomfortable. It's just terrible low-brow humour.
A big part of comedy is shining an abrasive light on visible topics that are unspoken or downplayed. It's uncomfortable, sure, but it's part of a comedians job.
There is no part of Schumer's act that is "uncomfortable". It's all pretty safe, even the stuff that tries to be pointed. She's a "hit for singles" comedian, and that's the crowd she attracts which is why the response was poor.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji
Johnny eats garbage and isn’t 100% committed.
The Following User Says Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
Senate race odds have tilted significantly toward the Democrats in the last week, with one particular development that Kander has pulled into an apparent deadlock with Blunt in Missouri. Gun control has been a topic of significant debate between the candidates, and this advertisement is getting a lot of attention.
On the one hand, I think it's a great ad for dispelling some of the stereotypes about gun control advocates, and speaking to gun enthusiasts as one of their own. On the other hand, it's totally lacking in any sort of discussion of the issues. It sure sounds like it's been effective though. Having Kander get to the senate and be part of the public face for a push on common-sense gun control measures could be a huge win for the democrats.
Have I ever even used the word "elite?" I'm not sure.
I'm Canadian, and I've never voted for Republican Party (obviously). I don't have any skin in the game, but I think that there are some interesting social/cultural things happening in this election beyond your crude attempts at explaining why Clinton should be appointed instead of elected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
It's funny, but in terms of values, I am far more like someone in the elite. I have a graduate degree, I make over the median income, I live in a neighbourhood about 5km away from the nearest homeless person. The so-called Trump supporters aren't like me in any way. Their marriages fall apart, they do drugs, they can't keep a job. I am not like them in any way, and I have only disapproval for their pathetic way of life.
What I don't like is so many people like me cast these people in a light as if they are less than human or less than capable of participating in a free and open society.
They have real concerns. Their communities have completely fallen apart due to technology and free trade. They are told callously to leave, or go back to trade school or whatever. No one cares about their problems, and instead treats them with just the worst kind of arrogant scorn.
Sorry, but it makes me angry.
I think part of the reason why you're so cranky right now is because you're conflicted, and uncomfortable in your own skin. Your 'elite' social status is up in arms with your conservative values.
Scalia is dead. Time to move on and get with the times.
The Following User Says Thank You to calumniate For This Useful Post:
It's always a bad idea to argue on behalf a stranger, but the relevant text is
The gripe is that he, a patriotic red-blooded American, is that he is faulted for health critiques of a woman because she is a woman. The next two clauses (time of month, sick) are independent clauses that would limit his free-speech, not an argument of causality.
He's arguing that her period is not relevant to her mental health, not the other way around.
Maybe that's what he maent, I'm not sure. Quibbling about an inarticulate complaint isn't a great idea.
The reason I chose to pick this fight is because I am worried that we are all lacking in charity.
There are real problems with sexism.
There is a fear of the Bradley effect where women are just generally perceived of being too hysterical to be trusted with power.
I think it's shameful that the most respected witness against the sexual assaults of Donald Trump is Donald Trump. The most respected witness against Bill Cosby was Hannibal Burress. Even Bill Clinton's crime was lying to men, not anything those hysterical bimbos said.
Misogyny is real, but jumping on a guy for using a buzzword is holding back the better conversations.
You can feel free to give him that much credit for nuance and depth, if you see fit, but given the rest of his argument (that Trump--claimed multi-billionaire, who inherited more money than this man and his entire family will ever see in their entire lifetimes combined--is just a "regular guy," leads me to believe that he hasn't looked at it nearly that carefully. Also given that he doesn't even realize that a woman of Clinton's age no longer has a "time of the month," yeah, forgive me for assuming he's not really grabbing for the deeper issues here.
He could have mentioned Clinton's health issues without bringing up a specifically female "problem." He brought up the period thing, clearly he views it as an issue. I think you're giving him way more credit than he deserves, but you're welcome to give him the benefit of the doubt, and we'll agree to disagree.
No, I'm not insisting that at all, and I made sure to include that in my brief example.
And yes, religion is an important element of society. Indeed, it may be the most integral.
Which is not the view of a moderate. Not even close. A moderate would actually consider reducing religion's place in society. I'm guessing you're wholly opposed to any such concept.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
I think part of the reason why you're so cranky right now is because you're conflicted, and uncomfortable in your own skin. Your 'elite' social status is up in arms with your conservative values.
Scalia is dead. Time to move on and get with the times.
Actually, the elite typically has morals and values and behaviours that align with a kind of conservatism.
The problem is that they don't prescribe these values for others, and set an example, but instead cast the rest of society as being in need of enlightened direction.
Which is not the view of a moderate. Not even close. A moderate would actually consider reducing religion's place in society. I'm guessing you're wholly opposed to any such concept.
Of course it is moderate. Religious people tend to form the most cohesive, stable, and productive communities. Properly structured religion actually helps a free society become more free, civil, engaged, and transparent. I'm not just speaking of Christianity here.
Radically autonomized and liberated individuals actually tend not to form any attachment to society at all.
Look at the incredibly radical liberation movement currently occuring around the subject of sex and gender. It is actually deconstructing quite stable communities in the name of ideology.
Constitution enshrines religious freedom, and many religions say marriage is a sacrament. Allow religious people to act on their consciences.
This is a moderate position, one that tries to imperfectly, but sincerely address the issues presented by both sides.
Unfortunately, in today's win all, lose nothing political mentality, moderation is increasingly being seen in the precisely the way you just described my position. Inherently unfair, or even unjust.
Don't play the victim card so quickly, it'll be ok. It seems you think a moderate religious viewpoint is a moderate viewpoint for everyone.
In an increasingly secular society clinging on to antiquated ideas about marriage is what is moving conservatives away from moderates, not towards it. But this does help to explain why you present things as you do.
As for your last bit go ahead and crawl down off your cross. I tried asking you if you meant something else. What was inherently unfair or unjust about how your quick little argument was was interpreted?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ResAlien For This Useful Post:
