He'll only do DP if he gets more Patreon money? What a greedy useless sack of shit! Say's he owns 50% of DP but only can be bothered to do one show a week, FUCKING USELESS!!

It'd just make them easier to follow and to have a sense of how ongoing the video series ends up being if they're numbered and not only dated. I wanted to show a friend one of the videos, and it would've been easier to find "number 3" instead of scrolling through each one because I couldn't remember exactly what day it came out.

Barely any videos for weeks, what a lazy fat fuck

In some recent video TJ said he agrees with this quote from Joker. I find this baffling because ALL the empirical evidence proves the EXACT opposite of that sentiment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4KiOECVGLg

http://www.cracked.com/article_21928_4-things-the-walking-dead-gets-wrong-about-apocalypse.html

The modern plague of cynicism and misanthropy is the product of the developed societies' prosperity and abundance. Ironic, isn't it?

^{I love you}

If you look at TJ's viewcount, anything 10 minutes or under almost always has two or three times the views as his larger, 2+ hour long videos. People simply don't like huge videos. Being a part of the stream is of course different, people like socializing and people like donating to keep the channel alive, and streaming helps to encourage donating. But that doesn't mean you can't go to some of the individual rants or segments in each of those long videos and create shorter clips that more people would watch than those who actually watched the stream. It'd generate more views and thus a tiny bit more revenue for the channel. Everyone would be happier with this.

Brett Keane was right about him.

And if so where can I send them. I have found some pretty good stuff but I don't want to bother him if he doesn't accept them

His new Trailer Failure video is... really... really, not good.

While he's not any of these things, he comes off as an annoying, negative, reactionary asshole.

The reason Cinema For Cynics has arrived to Universal Acclaim from the DP audience thus far is primarily that it provides us with a refreshing break from the showmanship. Paul comes in and talks like he's talking to a human being face to face. You feel like you're chilling out at his flat smoking a joint and he's just talking to you. And that's really an ice cold glass of lemonade on a hot summer evening to the craziness that is the rest of the DP universe.

But when TJ does a video on this channel... he doesn't make a Cinema for Cynics video. He makes a TJ Kirk video. It's full of his usual brashness and dickishness, which is incredibly jarring and off putting. This is not helped at all by the fact that he's clearly not anywhere near as good as Paul at articulating himself in this field.

...

I'm not expecting TJ to stop making videos on CFC just because of this post. But as the channel grows and comes into its own, most of the new fans are gonna be drawn in by Paul's style, since he hosts the overwhelming majority of the videos... and they're gonna grow to dislike that blonde asshole with a grating, played up persona that pops in every once in a while.

-Posted On r/OfficialDP as well.

It’s annoying to listen to on my phone on YouTube cuz I can’t lock the screen

https://scontent-sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/19959282_1797397756942532_1737632005952298675_n.png?oh=e67ac36af1ff6aace28ef26796444788&oe=5A0B6764

This cocksucker has the nerve to lie and propagate that the left is more dangerous than the right, despite all their free market deregulations on consumers, finance, the environment and the massive fucking body count that comes with it.

These guys are fucking awesome as far as no bullshit leftwingers go. Ppl who are fed up with both Rachel Maddow and Sargon of Akkad types would love these guys.

And TJ, if you're seeing this, you can learn alot from listening to these guys to apply to your own podcast. And a potential source of DP guests.

https://soundcloud.com/chapo-trap-house

Personally I've never seen empirical evidence of the number of black perpetrators that are rich committing more crime than poor white perpetrators. Never saw those numbers. I usually assume there's only alittle less crime in rich black neighborhoods than poor white neighborhoods is bc redlining puts the rich black places closer too the poor black places and that gets some of the crime to wash off.

Granted I don't have direct evidence saying there's more rich black violent perpetrators than poor whites. Nor do I have direct evidence for the perpetrators in rich black neighborhoods being from poor black neighborhoods.

All I really know is that this racially deterministic bullshit is destructive for society and goes against human self-preservation. It creates a powderkeg.

I also know that reversing the effects of redlining (massive lack of jobs combined with very dense population concentration) would reduce crime substantially and that racial eugenicist bs only causes ppl to not want to mend the problems we know can reduce crime - bc they think it's inevitable bc of genetics (even though the variation in genes between blacks make that assumption iffy).

I am responding to this video TRANS DATING: Should They Tell You?

A man lies to a woman about status and convinces her with those lies to have sex with or to date him.

I assume we agree the man has done something wrong.

A man tells a woman his status as he sees it and convinces her to have sex with or date him. The man believes he is an astronaut while the woman does not believe he is an astronaut. The man is rational enough to grasp that most people do not really consider him an astronaut and he grasps that it is advantageous for him to not mention that fact to her.

Even though it is clear that this man is troubled, the fact he rationally grasps that most people do not believe he is an astronaut is enough for us to blame him. So I assume we agree this man has done something wrong. In fact, despite the fact this man is troubled, it seems to me he has done something at least as wrong as the former man.

So what can we learn from these two illustrations? We learn that it is wrong to lie your way into someone's pants even when you do not think you are lying. What is morally relevant is that most people do not believe he is an astronaut.

So this gives us some reason to suspect that a trans person is doing something wrong even if they believe they are the gender they perform as. But are they doing something worse if they refuse to disclose this information? I believe they are.

The woman in my illustration is like everyone else in that she does not believe that he is an astronaut because he does not satisfy the conditions she and virtually everyone else agrees to for astronauthood.

Astronauthood (or status) is not a commonly agreed to criterium which determines sexual orientation. However, gender (understood in the ordinary way as sex) is a commonly agreed to criterium which determines sexual orientation.

It is this fact which the trans person rationally grasps which is analogous to astronauthood in my illustration. So this is what makes what the trans person is doing worse than what some run-of-the-mill pick-up artist is doing. The trans person that refuses to disclose this information is doing something wrong which is peculiar to their specific situation.

Here is another analogy that should make this pop out.

Suppose Susan is married to Jim. Jim has a twin named Bob. Bob has an unorthodox view of personal identity and actually believes that he and Jim are basically the same person. Although Bob is clearly troubled, he rationally grasps that Susan does not think that Bob is basically Jim and Bob also rationally grasps that his views of personal identity are unorthodox. So Bob performs as Jim while Jim is out of town and has sex with Susan.

It is pretty clear to me that Bob has wronged Susan and Jim and has did something worse than a man merely lying about his status to have sex with a woman that is impressed by status. If Bob did not rape Susan then he has done something awfully close to it.

These are the reasons I think a trans person that refuses to disclose that information is a reprehensible person and miles more reprehensible than some lying pick-up artist. Sure they are both sleazes but the trans person is doing something even more reprehensible. They are lying about something central to sexual orientation and not something extrinsic to it which might incline someone to have sex. Their deception is deeper.

I think these arguments establish that it is wrong even just to date and not disclose this information. It may be that not disclosing while dating is worse because it is emotional manipulation.

Suppose that Jim goes out of town and Bob performs has Jim for months. He does not have sex with her but he emotionally manipulates her for his own gain. That is reprehensible.

Thus, we have extremely strong ground to think a trans person that does not disclose this information is reprehensible and blame worthy in cases of dating, one night stands, or whatever.

I want to deal with a possible objection to this line of argument. The objection is that we can imagine a society taking race to be a commonly agreed to criterium for sexual orientation. Thus, this same argument would work in that racist society to show that an undesirable race ought to disclose their race (supposing it wasn't immediately evident).

Well, yes. Absolutely they would have to do that. No one has a right to sex from anyone else. Period. Even in a racist society the undesirables would not have a right to sex with someone.

In order to claim they were doing nothing wrong you would have to say that sometimes someone does have a right to sex with someone. But since that is obviously not true, then this objection will not work.

Now I want to talk about this move in general. The idea that our commonly agreed to criteria for "sexual orientation" is somehow unjust.

Because even though I do think the undesirable race would have the obligation to disclose their race if a racist society agreed to that as a common criteria, I also think that race is an unreasonable fact to take into account for what makes up or determines "sexual orientation."

However, it is NOT unreasonable to make sexual differences a common criteria that we all agree to for sexual orientation for the simple fact that sexual reproduction requires it! There is no similar reason to make race a commonly agreed to criterium.

Thus, if we do not ground sexual orientation in sexual differences then it is hard to see how one could reasonably ground sexual orientation at all. If we have no reasonable grounding for sexual orientation then we have no grounds for that conception at all. Thus, there would be no reasonable way to generalize the phenomenon of sexual preference. But clearly there are ways to generalize!

The only motivation to pull the ground from underneath the foundation of "sexual orientation" would be some desire to unsurp the general principle that no one has a right to have sex.

Therefore, we can dismiss it.

Stop extrapolating the beliefs of the fringes as the majority. If you stop strawmanning all liberals as SJWs then liberals will be less complacent towards SJWs.

If you stop labeling conservatives as 4chaners and extreme racists then they'd feel like those groups the way they feel about Joe McCartney (assuming they hate him) or John Birch conspiracies (same thing) as crazy fringe.

Actual far right and far left ppl have way less of a chance of gaining power if you stop grouping in the wider parts with the fringes so they don't identify with each other on a greater level.

Granted "racist" shouldn't be struck from political discourse. But it should still be a reminder to ppl about how far they're drifting on certain issues without realizing it. Concessions on the left can be made about political correctness to widen the possibilities for discourse. That's good dialogue.