Rooster Teeth & Mega 64 Molest The TSA With Satire
- Thread starter vansau
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Certainly not intentional on their part, but driving it into the ground seems appropriate for a TSA parody.chemicalreaper said:
On a completely unrelated note, America would rather molest its citizens than risk pissing off the PC police with completely justified and highly effective racial profiling. I'm about as liberal as they come, but there's a point when you have to put aside excessive political correctness - and that point is when people's lives are at stake.
Two guys feeling each other up is perverted? Being intersex is gross? I expected better of Rooster Teeth. And to clarify things, I usually don't get offended easily.
A lot of people are complaining about these new security measures, but the ones I feel sorry for are the TSA agents. Poor guys having to feel people all day.
Ah yes. Airport security.
You know, I still remember the complaints about Shiphol in Amsterdam.
And guess what? They only have these stupid scanners in one area...
Guess which one?
If you said the area for flights to the USA, you'd be spot on.
Wow, I hate this paranoid stuff. It doesn't accomplish anything either...
You know, I still remember the complaints about Shiphol in Amsterdam.
And guess what? They only have these stupid scanners in one area...
Guess which one?
If you said the area for flights to the USA, you'd be spot on.
Wow, I hate this paranoid stuff. It doesn't accomplish anything either...
Poor guys? I wouldn't be so sure about that. Besides you can get used to pretty much anything when you have to do it long enough.thenumberthirteen said:
I understand the fear, but flying is still statistically one of the safest ways to travel. I would think random more in depth searches more appropriate and a better deterrent then just patting down everyone's junk.
This isn't the first time Rooster Teeth has done a stab at airport security. A few years back they did a small comic arc about one of their team being chosen at random to be a "suspected terrorist" by the TSA. The logic was that since they can't get the actual terrorists, they would choose people at random to go through the searches. At the end he said that he felt like blowing up buildings, and the attendant said that the system worked.
Anyway, great video. The TSA is quickly becoming the biggest punching bag in the media (and I'm glad to be Canadian because of it). I mean, they've always been the subject of ire, but this is quite the jump in security. I hope that more people will start to take other modes of transit instead of bitching about it. If you starve the airlines for money, they'll pressure whoever they need to in order to change things.
Anyway, great video. The TSA is quickly becoming the biggest punching bag in the media (and I'm glad to be Canadian because of it). I mean, they've always been the subject of ire, but this is quite the jump in security. I hope that more people will start to take other modes of transit instead of bitching about it. If you starve the airlines for money, they'll pressure whoever they need to in order to change things.
It's satire, and they made fun of plenty more than just groping and intersex. These shorts are like South Park: everything is blown way out of proportion.SuperMse said:
Cute, but really I don't think that the TSA should be getting as much flak as it has been getting. I think if anything people should be looking at the liberal policies that are behind this kind of thing to begin with.
The enhanced airport security is due to concerns about Muslim terrorists and the ongoing conflict with that culture. Our principles are that it's wrong to single out a specific group of people for special treatment, unless martial law has been declared (and to many in the left wing, they oppose that on principle as well). As a result the TSA has basically been given a mandate to harass any and all people wanting to board planes and public transportation, so that way they can point to all the non-Muslims being inconveinenced to show that the policy isn't discriminatory.
People flying on planes generally feel better for the increased security, but also detest having to jump through the hoops nessicary, especially when singled out for special searches and the like randomly. Really the whole thing mostly benefits a bunch of liberals hanging out at home who can feel comfortable due to their principles not being infringed upon.
What's more, according to some reports I've read over the years the guys running security are concerned because as invasive as this security is, it's still not in depth enough for them to be comfortable with it, since there are failures in the system that they know can't be put in place.
While some people will scream bloody havoc over it, I'm pretty much of the opinion we should pretty much just approve profiling, and single out Muslims. Let the transit authorities come up with whatever methods they think are needed, handle those people seperatly, and otherwise move on with the issue.
As far as discrimination goes, I frequently think a lot of our nation's principles are misunderstood on the subject. It's noteworthy that our Founding Fathers had no real issue with taking "special care" in dealing with Whigs (British Crown Loyalists) and similar groups. It can be argued that discrimination on a cultural or political basis, especially in times of crisis (when you've say just finished a Revolutionary War).
A lot of people don't like how I think, and as I freuqently say in these forums "we're going to have to agree to disagree". In the case of the current increase in transit security though I think we're again getting right to the heart of the issue. People are being harassed oddly enough on a moral principle, so a target culture we're at war with won't be being singled out. It might not be "fair" by certain attitudes, especially seeing as cynics will point out that white folks aren't liable to ever be searched given the race/culture breakdown, but right now by searching everyone just to be "fair" it literally becomes an issue of harassment without much justification behind it.
I'll also go so far as to say that years ago when I took Criminal Justice, the instructor was fond of talking about how being a cop, or doing certain kinds of security work, effectively put a pair of "colored glasses" on you that you couldn't ever take off. This is to say that once you've been trained, and gained experience you see things in a way people who have never been in those professions never will be able to. You can recognize crimes taking place, shady behavior, and various types of people due to long practice and experience. If you've being involved in sureveillance and gotten to watch people when they think nobody is watching you see, and learn, even more.
I've made cases through the years for how I think profiling should be legal, however those profiles should be set by criminal justice professionals from law enforcement and certain security backrounds. It's hard to describe if you've never been there, but a conversation between someone with this kind of training and experience, and someone who doesn't have it can be almost like two alien creatures meeting. I find it darkly amusing whenever I (or someone with a similar, or greater backround) are accused of being naive, sheltered, or having no experience with other groups of people, when we know FAR more about what goes on than even someone who considers themselves well travelled and experienced. In part because if your just someone who meets a lot of people you see them in public, socially, and generally at their best. You don't see them through the lens of cameras, follow them around, or see what goes on behind closed doors, and in stairwells, and the like, or try and deal with those people from a position of authority (even if your simply acting as a representitive of the property owner).
I'm one of those guys who sort of agrees with a lot of Heinlan's writing that military and/or police experience should be required to hold any kind of goverment office, especially if you an set policy. This would incidently exclude me because I merely worked as a Casino Security officer, and while I understand a lot of this from my job, I was not a cop (very differant situation). Of course this is heading out into an extreme here, and well off subject. The point I'm getting to is that while there are people with similar perspective that would disagree, I think the majority of people who have this kind of experience, training, and perspective would generally agree with me on profiling as a tool, and how situations like transit security should be addressed. Ironically, for all the comments about how discrimination is wrong, the odd thing is that doing this would lead to far less people being harassed and a smoother transportation experience for the overwhelming majority of people. Some of the more extreme suggestions about preventing Muslims from boarding planes at all (which you hear once in a while) would be going too far however. There are those who have been argueing that Muslims should only be allowed to travel to and from the US by boat, because even if packed with explosives the damage a boat can do is limited to what's right there on the shoreline. What's more they can be more easily stopped/boarded by groups like the US Coast Guard. Stopping, or boarding a plane in mid-flight is more or less impossible. As I said, while extreme compared to many, I don't go that far.
The enhanced airport security is due to concerns about Muslim terrorists and the ongoing conflict with that culture. Our principles are that it's wrong to single out a specific group of people for special treatment, unless martial law has been declared (and to many in the left wing, they oppose that on principle as well). As a result the TSA has basically been given a mandate to harass any and all people wanting to board planes and public transportation, so that way they can point to all the non-Muslims being inconveinenced to show that the policy isn't discriminatory.
People flying on planes generally feel better for the increased security, but also detest having to jump through the hoops nessicary, especially when singled out for special searches and the like randomly. Really the whole thing mostly benefits a bunch of liberals hanging out at home who can feel comfortable due to their principles not being infringed upon.
What's more, according to some reports I've read over the years the guys running security are concerned because as invasive as this security is, it's still not in depth enough for them to be comfortable with it, since there are failures in the system that they know can't be put in place.
While some people will scream bloody havoc over it, I'm pretty much of the opinion we should pretty much just approve profiling, and single out Muslims. Let the transit authorities come up with whatever methods they think are needed, handle those people seperatly, and otherwise move on with the issue.
As far as discrimination goes, I frequently think a lot of our nation's principles are misunderstood on the subject. It's noteworthy that our Founding Fathers had no real issue with taking "special care" in dealing with Whigs (British Crown Loyalists) and similar groups. It can be argued that discrimination on a cultural or political basis, especially in times of crisis (when you've say just finished a Revolutionary War).
A lot of people don't like how I think, and as I freuqently say in these forums "we're going to have to agree to disagree". In the case of the current increase in transit security though I think we're again getting right to the heart of the issue. People are being harassed oddly enough on a moral principle, so a target culture we're at war with won't be being singled out. It might not be "fair" by certain attitudes, especially seeing as cynics will point out that white folks aren't liable to ever be searched given the race/culture breakdown, but right now by searching everyone just to be "fair" it literally becomes an issue of harassment without much justification behind it.
I'll also go so far as to say that years ago when I took Criminal Justice, the instructor was fond of talking about how being a cop, or doing certain kinds of security work, effectively put a pair of "colored glasses" on you that you couldn't ever take off. This is to say that once you've been trained, and gained experience you see things in a way people who have never been in those professions never will be able to. You can recognize crimes taking place, shady behavior, and various types of people due to long practice and experience. If you've being involved in sureveillance and gotten to watch people when they think nobody is watching you see, and learn, even more.
I've made cases through the years for how I think profiling should be legal, however those profiles should be set by criminal justice professionals from law enforcement and certain security backrounds. It's hard to describe if you've never been there, but a conversation between someone with this kind of training and experience, and someone who doesn't have it can be almost like two alien creatures meeting. I find it darkly amusing whenever I (or someone with a similar, or greater backround) are accused of being naive, sheltered, or having no experience with other groups of people, when we know FAR more about what goes on than even someone who considers themselves well travelled and experienced. In part because if your just someone who meets a lot of people you see them in public, socially, and generally at their best. You don't see them through the lens of cameras, follow them around, or see what goes on behind closed doors, and in stairwells, and the like, or try and deal with those people from a position of authority (even if your simply acting as a representitive of the property owner).
I'm one of those guys who sort of agrees with a lot of Heinlan's writing that military and/or police experience should be required to hold any kind of goverment office, especially if you an set policy. This would incidently exclude me because I merely worked as a Casino Security officer, and while I understand a lot of this from my job, I was not a cop (very differant situation). Of course this is heading out into an extreme here, and well off subject. The point I'm getting to is that while there are people with similar perspective that would disagree, I think the majority of people who have this kind of experience, training, and perspective would generally agree with me on profiling as a tool, and how situations like transit security should be addressed. Ironically, for all the comments about how discrimination is wrong, the odd thing is that doing this would lead to far less people being harassed and a smoother transportation experience for the overwhelming majority of people. Some of the more extreme suggestions about preventing Muslims from boarding planes at all (which you hear once in a while) would be going too far however. There are those who have been argueing that Muslims should only be allowed to travel to and from the US by boat, because even if packed with explosives the damage a boat can do is limited to what's right there on the shoreline. What's more they can be more easily stopped/boarded by groups like the US Coast Guard. Stopping, or boarding a plane in mid-flight is more or less impossible. As I said, while extreme compared to many, I don't go that far.
I know what satire is, I know what hyperbole is, and I know that they were attacking the TSA. I am still going to follow Rooster Teeth. I am simply saying that this particular short did not sit well with me.Sporky111 said:
I did too.SuperMse said:
I'm going to put the blame squarely on mega64, this more their sort of thing and they are rarely ever funny.
I just don't get it. All this useless paranoia and fear inducing bullshit. I mean, that's what makes Terrorism work, not the occasional suicide bombing every 5 years or so.
I've heard quite a few bad things about American Airport security, but genetalia fondling takes the cake. I mean seriously, cut that out. Way to support Terrorism, dumbasses.
Awesome video. Was that their first collaboration?
I've heard quite a few bad things about American Airport security, but genetalia fondling takes the cake. I mean seriously, cut that out. Way to support Terrorism, dumbasses.
Awesome video. Was that their first collaboration?
