Hell yeah.

Or the shimmy. I think the person in the post confused these two and mixed them together even though the result is something completely different.

She must be an angel. If I was in her place I wouldn't only let you, I'd come with.

Spidey, you also have to take into account the time spent researching the topic. Reading a few books and articles about it can take a few days. Anybody can write 10 pages in 30 minutes if they just talk out of their ass and make shit up, you're not special. But researching, then coming back to the books you've read to check if the data is correct, making citacions, cross referencing it with other authors in case there are differences in opinions that you should mention... THAT is what writing a paper means. Not writing out of your ass and taking quotes and data out of context.

@famousone Imho the biggest problem is when the first dude says that "this problem is likely to persist over several generations." You say that if you were born in America, then you are an American. Makes sense and I agree with you, but this goes against the first guy who basically says that children of immigrants are also immigrants even though they were born in America. So in that sense, Colbert raises a good point by calling the guy out on his bullshit. If a child of an immigrant is an immigrant as well, then white people can't ever be natives in America. I don't watch Colbert much but I think he would agree with you there, it's just that in this specific context he's demonstrating how stupid the first dude's argument is.

Superfreak! Superfreak! With superpowers, yeah!
(Seriously, go watch the Hillywood Show parody, y'all)

I didn't know Sam Winchester joined the army

Surprised? Did I say something outrageous?
1. If you put the uneducated opinion on a pedestal, you're giving its speaker an audience. That's my point, but I would never restrict someone's speech.
2. She's popular mainly with the anti-SJW part of conservatives.
3. Ok, good point and I'm glad you clarified that like I hoped someone would. Still, I think my point about him suing people for jokes still stands.

Also, let's not pretend like Trump is some kind of free speech warrior. I see this a lot among some popular conservatives like Tomi Lahren and her ilk, she screams about how "the left" (btw what a gross generalization) are a bunch of snowflakes who can't handle free speech and whatnot, but then she retweeted some dude who asked for another dude to be fired over an anti-"solving problems with thoughts and prayers" remark. She got triggered that he didn't believe in her Big Space Wizard and wanted him to get fired. Free speech my ass. Same with Trump, he repeatedly sued people over jokes and remarks about himself that he didn't like, and even didn't allow journalists from media outlets he disliked into a White House conference (it happened some time ago though so maybe my memory is a bit blurry, please correct me if I'm wrong). I mean come on, he sued the frickin Onion! Who tf does that? Not someone who is principled in their opinions on free speech, I'll tell you that much.
(2/2)

The thing is, I am a free speech absolutist, I think that no matter how much of a racist/sexist/homophobic shit you are, you are allowed to speak your mind. However, allowing free speech isn't the same as giving bigoted fucks a platform that is as legitimate as a research/statistics outlet. You know what I mean? Recently a lot of media outlets have been doing this "neutrality bias" thing where they put an educated, well researched opinion on the same level as the opinion of some bigoted asshole screaming about "something something God something something Bible", and then act like it's a 50/50 conversation. (Just remember Bill Nye vs Ken Ham) But those things are just not comparable! Why should someone who spent zero minutes doing research and only has anecdotal "evidence" get the same amount of coverage as someone who has spent years researching the topic and has a clearly defined opinion? That doesn't make sense to me and if this is what the UN was aiming for, I agree with them
(1/2)

When and how did the UN limit free speech? Seems like an oversimplification to me.

Darn, I should go catch up on that.

Eh, I tend to lean on the side of @lordblackdragon and @nightkami here. Yes, we get it, having kids is hard. Nobody said it would be easy. I'm totally okay with people complaining to me about how hard it is, I will gladly listen because we all need to take things off our chest sometimes, and I will even help you with your kids if you need me to. But so many people with kids act like they're martyrs, like they made some big sacrifice, and furthermore so many people with kids treat people who don't have/don't want to have kids like some kind of inferior being, like we're assholes because we decided not to make this "sacrifice". It's not even a sacrifice at this point, the Earth is overpopulated, it's just a choice. And a selfish one, even. There are so many kids in orphanages but you just had to spread your own genes because they're sooooo worth spreading. But that's a conversation for another time, now I'll just say that do reproduce but stop acting like such martyrs about it.
</rant>

"Right foot, left foot, now move even faster. As you're moving backwards keep your eyes on me."

You're necrobumping a little bit BUT I agree with you. The tolerance paradox is very real.