Interesting Videos to Watch

[drauz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ABa4RdNPxU

[phantasm]

I made it 12 minutes. Feel a little smarter now, thanks.

[drauz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiVQ8vrGA_8

[Tgo01]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiVQ8vrGA_8

That was an awesome video. But he's a gay married man? I'm guessing the Left wants him as dead as they want Milo dead.

[drauz]

Something interesting to read

https://www.glassdoor.com/research/studies/gender-pay-gap/

[Gelston]

Pog field day vs Grunt field day


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KW7_V9I-OI

[Tgo01]

Pog field day vs Grunt field day


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KW7_V9I-OI

So what's going on here? Other than the second group of people are a bunch of meanie heads?

[Thondalar]

So what's going on here? Other than the second group of people are a bunch of meanie heads?

...lol.

[drauz]

So what's going on here? Other than the second group of people are a bunch of meanie heads?

Basically non grunts vs grunts.

[Gelston]

So what's going on here? Other than the second group of people are a bunch of meanie heads?

Every Thursday in the Marine Corps is called field day. It is when you clean your room and the common areas so the 1stSgt can come by and fail the entire barracks and make you do it again over the weekend.

[Thondalar]

Every Thursday in the Marine Corps is called field day. It is when you clean your room and the common areas so the 1stSgt can come by and fail the entire barracks and make you do it again over the weekend.

Builds character.

[Tgo01]

Every Thursday in the Marine Corps is called field day. It is when you clean your room and the common areas so the 1stSgt can come by and fail the entire barracks and make you do it again over the weekend.

So what's going on with the first group then? Are they getting off easy cause they are chicks or because they're Army or something?

Or is this the same group of people but as you say they cleaned everything but failed anyways so they are cleaning it again on the weekend?

[Gelston]

So what's going on with the first group then? Are they getting off easy cause they are chicks or because they're Army or something?

They are pogs. (Non infantry)

[Tgo01]

They are pogs. (Non infantry)

https://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic385531.jpg

?

[Gelston]

It is pronounces like pogue. Personnel Other than Grunt.

[drauz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H20jwYq8WI

[Tgo01]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H20jwYq8WI

Racist.

[Latrinsorm]

Something interesting to read

https://www.glassdoor.com/research/studies/gender-pay-gap/Could have just linked to my post saying the exact same thing /flex

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiVQ8vrGA_8Freedom of speech (or "your right to say it") refers to government censorship. That's it. That's all it's ever meant. If Terrence says he's tired of reading his crazy family's Facebook comments and puts them on ignore, that doesn't infringe on their freedom of speech. If Terrence says the government should ban his crazy family from posting on Facebook, that's an infringement of their freedom of speech.

In a similar way, freedom of religion is not now and has never been 'the government cannot force you to violate your conscience.' Freedom of religion is that the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

The government made a law that people can't blow other people up with bombs.
This law does not respect an establishment of religion, therefore it does not violate (that part of) the First Amendment.
American citizen Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's conscience told him that he should set a bomb at the Boston marathon.
The government sentenced him to death.

Mr. Rubin, therefore, has three choices.
1. protest the government forcing people like Mr. Tsarnaev to violate their conscience
2. stop protesting people the government forcing people like Unnamed Baker X to violate their conscience
3. keep being a hypocrite

Mr. Rubin's problem here is not that he is a bigot, Islamophobe, etc. His problem is that he is fundamentally misinformed about what the Constitution actually says, and that he hasn't thought his positions all the way through.

[drauz]

Could have just linked to my post saying the exact same thing /flex

I don't remember you saying that the wage gap is only 5%. Did I miss that post?

[Latrinsorm]

I don't remember you saying that the wage gap is only 5%. Did I miss that post?I went into great detail most recently here (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?67961-Dumb-things-liberals-say/page189&p=1930084#post1930084). Cliff notes is that it's another version of confounding variables. We observe that x causes z and y causes z, but that doesn't mean x DOESN'T cause y, and if we control for y we may be doing so mistakenly.

In this case, we see without a doubt that gender causes a wage gap, or at least those of us who care to see that. With that removed from all argument, don't we have reason to believe gender also causes a job title gap, an industry gap, and so on? If I as a business owner can't even be bothered to exchange the same objective, quantitative value for your work (that is, that value that is easiest to verify), why would I do so in more nebulous and qualitative value like promotions, hirings, etc.?

[drauz]

I went into great detail most recently here (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?67961-Dumb-things-liberals-say/page189&p=1930084#post1930084). Cliff notes is that it's another version of confounding variables. We observe that x causes z and y causes z, but that doesn't mean x DOESN'T cause y, and if we control for y we may be doing so mistakenly.

In this case, we see without a doubt that gender causes a wage gap, or at least those of us who care to see that. With that removed from all argument, don't we have reason to believe gender also causes a job title gap, an industry gap, and so on? If I as a business owner can't even be bothered to exchange the same objective, quantitative value for your work (that is, that value that is easiest to verify), why would I do so in more nebulous and qualitative value like promotions, hirings, etc.?

Well your post says that everyone agrees there is still a small gap and that it is caused by discrimination. That is a fallacy. While it is certainly possible that is the reason there is certainly other possibilities that are just as likely.

There is no "everyone agrees" regarding the wage gap.

[drauz]

Could have just linked to my post saying the exact same thing /flexFreedom of speech (or "your right to say it") refers to government censorship. That's it. That's all it's ever meant. If Terrence says he's tired of reading his crazy family's Facebook comments and puts them on ignore, that doesn't infringe on their freedom of speech. If Terrence says the government should ban his crazy family from posting on Facebook, that's an infringement of their freedom of speech.

In a similar way, freedom of religion is not now and has never been 'the government cannot force you to violate your conscience.' Freedom of religion is that the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

The government made a law that people can't blow other people up with bombs.
This law does not respect an establishment of religion, therefore it does not violate (that part of) the First Amendment.
American citizen Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's conscience told him that he should set a bomb at the Boston marathon.
The government sentenced him to death.

Mr. Rubin, therefore, has three choices.
1. protest the government forcing people like Mr. Tsarnaev to violate their conscience
2. stop protesting people the government forcing people like Unnamed Baker X to violate their conscience
3. keep being a hypocrite

Mr. Rubin's problem here is not that he is a bigot, Islamophobe, etc. His problem is that he is fundamentally misinformed about what the Constitution actually says, and that he hasn't thought his positions all the way through.

Ok, that wasn't the entire video though.

[Latrinsorm]

Well your post says that everyone agrees there is still a small gap and that it is caused by discrimination. That is a fallacy.An observation cannot be a fallacy. You put too much stock in logic, try empiricism instead. We have space shuttles!

Had. :(

[Tgo01]

Could have just linked to my post saying the exact same thing /flexFreedom of speech (or "your right to say it") refers to government censorship. That's it. That's all it's ever meant. If Terrence says he's tired of reading his crazy family's Facebook comments and puts them on ignore, that doesn't infringe on their freedom of speech. If Terrence says the government should ban his crazy family from posting on Facebook, that's an infringement of their freedom of speech.

In a similar way, freedom of religion is not now and has never been 'the government cannot force you to violate your conscience.' Freedom of religion is that the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

The government made a law that people can't blow other people up with bombs.
This law does not respect an establishment of religion, therefore it does not violate (that part of) the First Amendment.
American citizen Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's conscience told him that he should set a bomb at the Boston marathon.
The government sentenced him to death.

Mr. Rubin, therefore, has three choices.
1. protest the government forcing people like Mr. Tsarnaev to violate their conscience
2. stop protesting people the government forcing people like Unnamed Baker X to violate their conscience
3. keep being a hypocrite

Mr. Rubin's problem here is not that he is a bigot, Islamophobe, etc. His problem is that he is fundamentally misinformed about what the Constitution actually says, and that he hasn't thought his positions all the way through.

There is freedom of speech, which is protects us from the government limiting our free speech.

Then there is the concept of free speech, which is that we should be able to hold a discussion and express our views without someone screaming like a man child and threatening people and blocking doorways and getting the school officials to coddle them and shut down discussions that hurt their precious feelings.

When people talk about the regressive assholes on the left shutting down free speech they are talking about the latter, which is why no one is mentioning the constitution when making these arguments. But you knew that.

Fool me once...wait...DAMN!

[drauz]

An observation cannot be a fallacy. You put too much stock in logic, try empiricism instead. We have space shuttles!

Had. :(

Yes it can. Anecdotal evidence is an observation and can certainly be a fallacy. Anyways...


In this case, we see without a doubt that gender causes a wage gap, or at least those of us who care to see that.

You are making an assumption. There are so many possibilities of what it could be. You were told what the reason is and you are stuck on it. That is called anchoring (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring).

[Latrinsorm]

There is freedom of speech, which is protects us from the government limiting our free speech.This is a right.
Then there is the concept of free speech, which is that we should be able to hold a discussion and express our views without someone screaming like a man child and threatening people and blocking doorways and getting the school officials to coddle them and shut down discussions that hurt their precious feelings.This is not.
When people talk about the regressive assholes on the left shutting down free speech they are talking about the latter, which is why no one is mentioning the constitution when making these arguments. But you knew that.The speaker in the video used the term "right" and as a bonus quoted Voltaire (who was referring explicitly to government persecution), and was therefore referring only to the former.

This is your problem, Terry. You pride yourself so much on reading between the lines that you no longer read what people actually say.

[Latrinsorm]

Yes it can. Anecdotal evidence is an observation and can certainly be a fallacy. Anyways...

You are making an assumption. There are so many possibilities of what it could be. You were told what the reason is and you are stuck on it. That is called anchoring (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring).Oh let's be clear, empirically science is absolutely and inescapably based on assumptions. This is easy to demonstrate.

You flip a light switch.
The light goes on.
I suggest it is due to electric current.
"No, it is a demon!" you exclaim.
I rule out that it is a demon.
"It is a goblin!" you insist.
I rule out that it is a goblin too.
"It is surely an angel!" you declare.
I rule that out as well.

There is never a point where I can disprove every other possibility besides electric current, because there is no end to every other possibility - eventually there is a leap of assumption. You can tell yourself you never do that, but the question you have to ask yourself is whether that's true all the time or only when you don't like the "anchored" explanation.

[Tgo01]

The speaker in the video used the term "right"

He used the term "right" twice in the video, once about free speech (which you mentioned next and I'll address in a moment), and the other about freedom of religion, which he then went on to talk about government interference.


and as a bonus quoted Voltaire (who was referring explicitly to government persecution), and was therefore referring only to the former.

Actually Voltaire never uttered the quote he mentions in the video, so no he was not referring to the government when he said it.


This is your problem, Terry. You pride yourself so much on reading between the lines that you no longer read what people actually say.

You done fooled me thrice now! You can't fool me again because there is no equivalent to thrice for the number four.

[drauz]

Oh let's be clear, empirically science is absolutely and inescapably based on assumptions. This is easy to demonstrate.

You flip a light switch.
The light goes on.
I suggest it is due to electric current.
"No, it is a demon!" you exclaim.
I rule out that it is a demon.
"It is a goblin!" you insist.
I rule out that it is a goblin too.
"It is surely an angel!" you declare.
I rule that out as well.

There is never a point where I can disprove every other possibility besides electric current, because there is no end to every other possibility - eventually there is a leap of assumption. You can tell yourself you never do that, but the question you have to ask yourself is whether that's true all the time or only when you don't like the "anchored" explanation.

Well an electrical current can be actually tested so thats not really an apt comparison. There is only 1 reason why those lights went on. You flipped the switch.

[Latrinsorm]

Well an electrical current can be actually tested so thats not really an apt comparison. There is only 1 reason why those lights went on. You flipped the switch.That's the whole point of a reductio ad absurdum. I can show you an LCD display demonstrating the electric current, you can say "There are so many possibilities of what it could be." I can show you study after study after study demonstrating the gender wage gap, you can say "There are so many possibilities of what it could be." I know you don't say that for the first case, that's why it demonstrates that the form of your argument is absurd. You can't see it for some reason. Oh well.

[drauz]

That's the whole point of a reductio ad absurdum. I can show you an LCD display demonstrating the electric current, you can say "There are so many possibilities of what it could be." I can show you study after study after study demonstrating the gender wage gap, you can say "There are so many possibilities of what it could be." I know you don't say that for the first case, that's why it demonstrates that the form of your argument is absurd. You can't see it for some reason. Oh well.

Ok, I assert that the reason there is a wage gap due to choices of women. You says it is because of discrimination. I guess we will agree to disagree.

[drauz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWclm4Bi4UM

[Back]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZeCpaxn3PM

[everan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZeCpaxn3PM

The Sicilian half of me resents this prejudicial portrayal of Italians. Besides, he said "you got a f... granite countertop, who the f... cares? Clearly, he isn't truly Italian, they love marble and granite.

[drauz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eloBdLBulj0

[Pin]

He used the term "right" twice in the video, once about free speech (which you mentioned next and I'll address in a moment), and the other about freedom of religion, which he then went on to talk about government interference.

There has yet to be a case where the federal government has stepped in and interfered with a businesses religious freedom and it wasn't struck down in court.

A business can not discriminate however, which is not a religious freedom issue.

[drauz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JUzbvjZ1OY

[~Rocktar~]

All fine and good until the Russians hack it.

[Back]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JUzbvjZ1OY

Cool. But can it run Witcher on highest settings?

[drauz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3qkf3bajd4

[drauz]

https://www.hulu.com/watch/1075419

I don't know if you can watch it without a subscription, hopefully you can with ads.

Its a documentary put out by a female feminist regarding MRA groups.

[Parkbandit]

https://www.hulu.com/watch/1075419

I don't know if you can watch it without a subscription, hopefully you can with ads.

Its a documentary put out by a female feminist regarding MRA groups.

You can't.

[drauz]

You can't.

Oh, well its called "The Red Pill". Just came out this year.

The long and short of it is, she starts out as a feminist and it ends with her saying that she won't call herself a feminist anymore. She talks to lots of feminist groups and MRA groups and comes to that conclusion. It is worth a watch in my opinion.

[drauz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfWp_smSL0c

[drauz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTVl5OwnvU4

[cwolff]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTVl5OwnvU4

That's an interesting video. The smug white guy interrupts too much though.

I got a few minutes in and turned it off but I noticed that one counterpoints is that its nepotism is natural and once we're all "brown sugar" racism will have run its course.

I don't think brown America is willing to take the wait and see approach.

[drauz]

That's an interesting video. The smug white guy interrupts too much though.

I got a few minutes in and turned it off but I noticed that one counterpoints is that its nepotism is natural and once we're all "brown sugar" racism will have run its course.

I don't think brown America is willing to take the wait and see approach.

Well if they are continually fed the BS that 70% of the US population is out to get them you can't move forward either.

[cwolff]

To me, that idea sounds paranoid and defensive. I don't understand why white people feel so threatened. Even the smug white explainer dude recognizes that poc been screwed because of nepotism. Hes wrong about that, its not familial its cultural, but anywho, he recognizes right off the bat that there is an inequality.

[drauz]

To me, that idea sounds paranoid and defensive. I don't understand why white people feel so threatened. Even the smug white explainer dude recognizes that poc been screwed because of nepotism. Hes wrong about that, its not familial its cultural, but anywho, he recognizes right off the bat that there is an inequality.

I don't think its a feeling of being threatened. I think its a want to deal in facts and not psuedo science.

[Neveragain]

To me, that idea sounds paranoid and defensive. I don't understand why white people feel so threatened. Even the smug white explainer dude recognizes that poc been screwed because of nepotism. Hes wrong about that, its not familial its cultural, but anywho, he recognizes right off the bat that there is an inequality.

I think the first mistake in the entire discussion is that the focus is on one country rather than the entirety of the world population. It's kind of like opening a sock drawer, pointing to the area of the drawer where the white socks have been organized, ignoring that the rest of the sock drawer has been organized and that there are actually fewer white socks in the drawer than there are of other colored socks. For some reason it's only necessary for us to place other colored socks in the area of the drawer that is being occupied by the white socks even though there are more of the other colored socks that have their own area of the drawer. Nobody is saying, hey black socks you are racist for having too large of an area of the drawer and now you must allow more brown socks into your area, no, it's only the white socks that need to have their area of the drawer displaced.

It's not that the white socks feel threatened, it's that the white socks look at the areas occupied by the other colored socks and say "oh, hell no" we like what we have done with our culture not our fault some of the other colored socks continue to live in foot cheese.

[cwolff]

I don't think its a feeling of being threatened. I think its a want to deal in facts and not psuedo science.

If we tackled inequality factually we wouldn't still be talking about it. And yes, you may not be an emotional guy, but too many anti-snowflake, "fuck your feelings", white people are. You got to call the whambulance before you ask them about racism because you know they're fixing to start blubbering about feeling attacked, reverse racism, they grew up poor with no shoes and on and on and on. You want to tell them to chillax because no one is calling him/her personally racist, we're just talking on a macro level here, but they can't hear you through all the tears and sniffles.


I think the first mistake in the entire discussion is that the focus is on one country rather than the entirety of the world population. It's kind of like opening a sock drawer, pointing to the area of the drawer where the white socks have been organized, ignoring that the rest of the sock drawer has been organized and that there are actually fewer white socks in the drawer than there are of other colored socks. For some reason it's only necessary for us to place other colored socks in the area of the drawer that is being occupied by the white socks even though there are more of the other colored socks that have their own area of the drawer. Nobody is saying, hey black socks you are racist for having too large of an area of the drawer and now you must allow more brown socks into your area, no, it's only the white socks that need to have their area of the drawer displaced.

It's not that the white socks feel threatened, it's that the white socks look at the areas occupied by the other colored socks and say "oh, hell no" we like what we have done with our culture not our fault some of the other colored socks continue to live in foot cheese.

Well two things here. One; we're not talking about the World. We're Americans talking about USA. Once we get our shit sorted we can export our model globally. Two; lots of your brown sock areas are fucked up because the white socks came in and trashed their drawer. The white socks got a hell of a lot of benefit and advantage from trashing those drawers and they need to recognize.

[Neveragain]

If we tackled inequality factually we wouldn't still be talking about it. And yes, you may not be an emotional guy, but too many anti-snowflake, "fuck your feelings", white people are. You got to call the whambulance before you ask them about racism because you know they're fixing to start blubbering about feeling attacked, reverse racism, they grew up poor with no shoes and on and on and on. You want to tell them to chillax because no one is calling him/her personally racist, we're just talking on a macro level here, but they can't hear you through all the tears and sniffles.



Well two things here. One; we're not talking about the World. We're Americans talking about USA. Once we get our shit sorted we can export our model globally. Two; lots of your brown sock areas are fucked up because the white socks came in and trashed their drawer. The white socks got a hell of a lot of benefit and advantage from trashing those drawers and they need to recognize.

Why are we even focusing on the US then, we are one of the most diverse countries in the world. Are you saying that the white socks are the only socks to have conquered other socks? Hell the white socks have conquered other socks, modernized their area of the sock drawer, given it back to the other colored socks only to have those other colored socks shit on the modernization. I'm having a hard time of thinking of any other colored sock that has even done such a thing. For some odd reason the white socks are punished for having the most advanced cultures and they must be devolved for some reason. These areas of the sock drawer were shit holes long before the white socks came along.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLOvdgXSy_Q



Once we get our shit sorted we can export our model globally.

I thought manifest destiny was a bad thing?

[cwolff]

Why are we even focusing on the US then, we are one of the most diverse countries in the world. Are you saying that the white socks are the only socks to have conquered other socks? Hell the white socks have conquered other socks, modernized their area of the sock drawer, given it back to the other colored socks only to have those other colored socks shit on the modernization. I'm having a hard time of thinking of any other colored sock that has even done such a thing. For some odd reason the white socks are punished for having the most advanced cultures and they must be devolved for some reason. These areas of the sock drawer were shit holes long before the white socks came along.

What you're showing is the sensitivity and defensiveness that Drauz denied earlier. We're talking about the USA because it's our country.

[Neveragain]

What you're showing is the sensitivity and defensiveness that Drauz denied earlier. We're talking about the USA because it's our country.

And your solution to "fixing the US" is "If we can just get rid of the white people everything will be alright". Where is the historical evidence that white people = social decay, when the evidence suggests it's just the opposite?

Really it sounds like we have a bunch of different races that are jealous of Anglo-Saxon technology, don't have the ability to reach those levels of technology on their own and either want to destroy the technology or steal it.

[~Rocktar~]

Really it sounds like we have a bunch of different races that are jealous of Anglo-Saxon technology, don't have the ability to reach those levels of technology on their own and either want to destroy the technology or steal it.

I bolded this section because this is the most basic and fundamentally racist idea there is. The idea that other races cannot reach technology, innovation, enlightenment, equality whatever on their own is pure garbage. What is the truth is that without outside pressure (positive influence, positive examples or being conquered, subjugated or something else like a substantial level of assistance) a culture/group cannot make advances without first paying the price as a society to move ahead. For example, for a society to move beyond slavery, you must have a population that is willing to fight and die to end slavery. To have technological development, you must have a population that is willing to learn and work and make the changes needed to support that technological advancement. Every advancement in the Western world, everything that makes the US the most advanced, wealthy and despite rumors, powerful nation in the world was paid for in labor, sacrifice and blood over 241 years of strife, labor, suffering and sacrifice.

Until nations and peoples are willing to put in the time, the labor, the capitol and the blood to claw their way up, they cannot have or maintain our level of development.

In fact, we as a nation have spent centuries inculcating a sense of pride, moral purpose, self sacrifice, discipline and work ethic in our people. An overall sense of American exceptionalism so to speak. And yet, in the short span of the last 50-60 years or so, we have stopped due to several factors and in the past 30 we have really let this kind of thing collapse in our education of our children. And because of that, we may not be able to maintain our development and technological advancement.

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” ― Benjamin Franklin

[Neveragain]

I bolded this section because this is the most basic and fundamentally racist idea there is. The idea that other races cannot reach technology, innovation, enlightenment, equality whatever on their own is pure garbage. What is the truth is that without outside pressure (positive influence, positive examples or being conquered, subjugated or something else like a substantial level of assistance) a culture/group cannot make advances without first paying the price as a society to move ahead. For example, for a society to move beyond slavery, you must have a population that is willing to fight and die to end slavery. To have technological development, you must have a population that is willing to learn and work and make the changes needed to support that technological advancement. Every advancement in the Western world, everything that makes the US the most advanced, wealthy and despite rumors, powerful nation in the world was paid for in labor, sacrifice and blood over 241 years of strife, labor, suffering and sacrifice.

Until nations and peoples are willing to put in the time, the labor, the capitol and the blood to claw their way up, they cannot have or maintain our level of development.

In fact, we as a nation have spent centuries inculcating a sense of pride, moral purpose, self sacrifice, discipline and work ethic in our people. An overall sense of American exceptionalism so to speak. And yet, in the short span of the last 50-60 years or so, we have stopped due to several factors and in the past 30 we have really let this kind of thing collapse in our education of our children. And because of that, we may not be able to maintain our development and technological advancement.

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” ― Benjamin Franklin

And like I said, these folks don't seem to have the ability to do that and I would suggest this "And your solution to "fixing the US" is "If we can just get rid of the white people everything will be alright" is the most fundamentally racist idea there is.

The alt-left is suggesting using the final solution to "fix" the US.

[Latrinsorm]

That's an interesting video. The smug white guy interrupts too much though.

I got a few minutes in and turned it off but I noticed that one counterpoints is that its nepotism is natural and once we're all "brown sugar" racism will have run its course.

I don't think brown America is willing to take the wait and see approach.We'll find another way to be racist after we invent brown sugar, just like we did after we invented white people a hundred years ago. As long as there are humans there will be an us and a them.

Someday though, we won't be humans anymore. So we've got that going for us.

[cwolff]

We'll find another way to be racist after we invent brown sugar, just like we did after we invented white people a hundred years ago. As long as there are humans there will be an us and a them.

Someday though, we won't be humans anymore. So we've got that going for us.

Well the good news is that this seems to be a self correcting problem. It's good to be a Water Bear. LOL


...And they may survive the environmental crisis. But as you go up the scale of what we call intelligence, they are less and less successful. By the time you get to mammals, there are very few of them as compared with, say, insects. By the time you get to humans, the origin of humans may be 100,000 years ago, there is a very small group. We are kind of misled now because there are a lot of humans around, but that’s a matter of a few thousand years, which is meaningless from an evolutionary point of view. His argument was, you’re just not going to find intelligent life elsewhere, and you probably won’t find it here for very long either because it’s just a lethal mutation. He also added, a little bit ominously, that the average life span of a species, of the billions that have existed, is about 100,000 years, which is roughly the length of time that modern humans have existed.

from a Chomsky speech (https://chomsky.info/20100930/) recalling a Ernst Mayr v. Carl Sagan debate.

[drauz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFqVNPwsLNo

[drauz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIDJHbngfM8

[drauz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAOmyWMxhbw

[drauz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRPDGEgaATU

[drauz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uogEbb0WOJE

[drauz]

https://youtu.be/o-FSppkdYHo

[~Rocktar~]

https://youtu.be/qUU2iWxrH2M

[drauz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlqU_JMTzd4

[Fortybox]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlqU_JMTzd4

This completely explains Time4fun.

[Back]

The Russian playbook explained.


https://youtu.be/S-4iwYkAivA

[Wrathbringer]

The Russian playbook explained.


https://youtu.be/S-4iwYkAivA

There are only two genders.

[Wrathbringer]

There are only two genders. Change my mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtftZPL-k7Y

[Tgo01]

There are only two genders. Change my mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtftZPL-k7Y

There are 85 genders!

[Astray]

BRO IF I YELL LOUD ENOUGH AND AM ANECDOTAL ENOUGH I WIN RIGHT ???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7fXAYcMIhQ

[Tgo01]

BRO IF I YELL LOUD ENOUGH AND AM ANECDOTAL ENOUGH I WIN RIGHT ???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7fXAYcMIhQ

I wish Crowder would do more of these Change my Mind segments.

[~Rocktar~]

https://youtu.be/XRFI3SyLR78