Why the negative rating? He makes a good point. This whole site loves Louis CK to the point of having a Louis CK Promise, so I assume many of you have seen his specials. I don’t recall anyone saying “hey, this Louis CK is funny in general, but I really can’t approve of his rape jokes.” Its all just hypocritical nonsense. Jokes about rape can be funny, just like jokes about war, disease, racism, abuse, alcoholics, necrophilia, etc. Making a joke about something awful doesn’t mean you’re condoning it.
Isn’t the intent behind the joke what matters, anyway? I find Daniel Tosh’s humor to be mean-spirited, and I didn’t think his “joke” was funny. “Wouldn’t it be funny if she got raped by five guys right now?” Nope. Not really! And since it was not a bit, and was directed at an individual, presumably to get back at her for heckling, its hard for it not to leave a bad taste in my mouth. Boo, Daniel Tosh!
But its still okay to make jokes about rape, and this scene from Arrested Development is a good example. We’re really just arguing over what constitutes a bad rape joke versus a good one.
I could not guess which one. PLEASE TELL ME WHICH ONE
I really enjoyed your commentary for this video, Gabe. That is all.
I only seem to comment when I’m upset, and when I’m upset, I talk a lot, so let me save you some time and say tl;dr, next, blah blah etc. WRITING THIS WAS THERAPEUTIC DAMN IT
Many Muslims believe that it is part of their religious duty to pray five times a day at specific intervals. Prayer is often ritualistic, and involves specific movements (such as prostration) and facing Mecca. Many schools will allow Muslims to perform these prayers at the specified times, but Bachmann completely misses the point. These are personal prayers, performed independently of the school and at the student’s discretion. The school does not broadcast these prayers over the intercom, nor does it participate in or promote Islam. Christian students have the same right to independent prayer. It is true, perhaps, that a Christian is not granted “special prayer time,” but this is a false argument, because prayer is structured differently in Christianity (especially if we’re talking about Protestants). Prayer is more personalized and less structured, and it is never “required” in the same sense. If Christians suddenly believed that they had to pray at noon every day, and that this prayer was an integral part of their faith, then Bachmann might have a point. But they don’t, and she doesn’t.
I went into Skyrim expecting a better Oblivion, which it tooootally is (I used four “o”s for emphasis). But the combat does get better; while it does feel like Fallout with dragons, you have more options in terms of how you tackle dungeons. Raising the dead, casting invisibility, shooting water with electricity, enchanting your weapons, sniping from afar–and lets not forget the fact that you can dual-wield practically anything. That being said, the main thing that got me excited for Skyrim was the setting and atmosphere, and it surpasses almost every other game I can think of in those categories.
Also, VIDEOGAMEGUM!!! Listen. I am a nerd. We cool? Of course we are so. So let’s start talkin’ jive ’bout dem viddyergames!
Did anyone else feel like Todd was Norm Macdonald’s cousin?
That sounds vaguely sexual.
So, am I the only one who’s kind-of-genuinely scared by this?
Well, shit…you were my target audience!
Well, just for the record, I’m not trying to glorify Libertarians. The only point I was trying to make is that Gabe does not understand what Libertarianism is, and if that’s the case, he should probably refrain from criticizing it.
I do disagree on a few points; for example, I don’t think that increasing states rights would lead to an unbalanced country. It would lead to greater variation amongst the states, but I think that would be a welcome change. Different states could try different policies; they could learn from each other in the process. I think it could allow positive change to occur much more quickly. For example (part of me thinks using this example might be a mistake, but…), if one state legalized drugs and saw a decrease in organized crime, disease, substance abuse, and a strong boost in their economy (as well as, say, tourism from other states), that might help other state abandon the War on Drugs. Okay, so now you know my stance on the War on Drugs; that wasn’t really the point. The point is that variation can lead to standardized (and, possibly, better) policies; it doesn’t have to be unbalanced. I also think its good to point out that many of our policies and institutions are unconstitutional and in direct violation of the 10th amendment. That doesn’t mean that they are bad policies or that we shouldn’t have them, but it does mean that we should be willing to change our constitution to support them.
That being said, the whole “private market” thing kinda creeps me out, ’cause I’m pretty sure there was a time when the private market employed children and hated safety regulations? And I know that seems like a long time ago but it also totally wasn’t? And while I admire Ron Paul and would gladly have him elected over Obama or any of the other GOP candidates, I also don’t understand how you can be pro-liberty and anti-big government but also be pro-life. And did you hear that he kinda doesn’t really believe in evolution? And he’s doctor!? Whaaaaa
Libertarianism is not about abolishing the state, and there are a wide variety of beliefs that fall under the umbrella term “Libertarian.” Most Libertarians recognize that the state is something of a necessary evil, and so they think it serves a legitimate, if regrettable, function. That may seem extreme to some, but its certainly not anarchy. In my personal experience, which is admittedly limited, most people who call themselves Libertarians are simply expressing that they are socially liberal and economically conservative and distrust big government.
So, basically, your entire argument against demonkitty is wrong; you don’t seem to understand what Libertarianism is, and to call all Libertarians “full of shit” (if I understood that comment correctly) is kinda weird and crazy.
I love you Gabe! Well, not really. Admire? You’re cool or something. I’ve been coming to this site for years, and I’ve finally crawled out of my comment-less cave to talk…politics? On Videogum!? That is also kinda weird and crazy. Still, I wish you’d do a little research before you making sweeping claims about political parties or opinions.
Nothing from UCB, Celebuzz? U MAD
Whoa whoa whoa…
…we’re not all American!?
Because its not about the vaccine, its about the role of government. To a certain extent, its semantics, since the parent has control over what happens to their child either way. But the concern is that such actions set a precedent: that the government can decide what is healthy or good for you and then enforce those opinions. Some people don’t think that the government should make those decisions for you, and an “opt-in” supports that idea more than an “opt-out.”
Of course, its much more fun to say “Michele Bachmann is pro-cancer.”
“On the other hand there are other vaccines that are required to attend public school, or colleges in certain states, and I don’t have a problem with that so I guess people should get over it?”
I can’t remember if this was said during the debate (I’m pretty sure it was), but someone pointed out that those vaccines are for communicable diseases, meaning that failure to vaccinate could lead to a school-wide epidemic. Since HPV can only be spread by unprotected sex, and we’re talking about children in their early teens, this is a completely different type of vaccination.
I dislike Bachmann as much as any one man can, but you’re misrepresenting what she said. Bachmann didn’t “take a public stance against a vaccine;” she was upset that Perry issued an executive order which mandated the vaccination.* The debate isn’t about cancer or HPV, its about the role of government and what it should be allowed to enforce. Even if you disagree with her stance on the issue, that is a reasonable debate to have.
I really enjoy this website, but I wish you’d shy away from the political stuff. Just sayin’.
*The vaccine wasn’t actually mandatory, which is something I’m not convinced Bachmann understands. Parents had the option to “opt-out,” but several candidates argued that this was backwards: parents should have to choice to accept the vaccine, not the opportunity to deny it. No one at the debate argued against the vaccine or suggested that it shouldn’t be available.