Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

We're not perfect and as was mentioned this is a gray area. There are reasons given in each individual post why the examples you cited were included. Also, we've been around for six years - our culture is a living thing and evolving. With six years worth of video content you are going to find things that support or condemn your position.

We try for consistency and we try to follow the guidelines but citing precedence is my least favourite way of supporting a position on VideoSift. You'll always be able to cherry pick - and it sounds a little too much like "why are you picking on me?"

>> ^Porksandwich:

>> ^lucky760:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
I'm very glad that the community that I choose to associate with doesn't approve of watching people die.

That's a very nice sentiment and one that I share with you. I have always appreciated that every time I open a horrific video here, there's comfort in being able to presume that as disturbing as it may be, the people involved all survived. This is something many people take for granted or just don't care about, but it's something I value highly about VideoSift.

Well I'd just like to point out that a number of the videos I linked in a previous post, near all if not all of them depict(ed) scenes where people were dieing. Many if you follow them to their source have stories about how many died in the accident/event being shown in the video. I do not think the shuttle or WTC footage should be removed, but it does show scenes were people did not survive. And the building burning shows the fire that ended up killing 100+ people when it was all over.
Beyond the clear newsworthy events (WTC, Space Shuttle) what makes the other videos suitable? The soldiers peeing on corpses is much more graphic and in your face with the death aspect than this video is, since you can see the act happening with the corpses (hopefully dead at this point...hopefully) in view of the camera.
I just want some kind of acknowledgement that putting a news reporter before this video would not change the content of the video. Or a ticker bar at the bottom.....or a watermark in the video......the contents and happenings of the video would remain the same.
I see the plane crash video I linked to as exactly like this video. The person flying either had a hardware failure or mistake that caused him to nose dive into the ground. You know he died either on impact or shortly after. The only difference is one is a plane and one is a car. I know we can all put ourselves in the driver's seat of a car, but we can set ourselves apart from piloting due to lack of experience. This may account for the notation on this video, I want to identify whatever it is that this video has that set it apart from the others.
The police shootings are in the same scenario, but most us aren't cops. But most of them show poor choices that led up to it, and maybe we feel we wouldn't make those choices as a rational person...so the video is OK because it demonstrates a level of behavior that will result in your death that none of us feel we will reach. A car crash accident is not left up to willful choice in most cases.

>> ^lucky760:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
I'm very glad that the community that I choose to associate with doesn't approve of watching people die.

That's a very nice sentiment and one that I share with you. I have always appreciated that every time I open a horrific video here, there's comfort in being able to presume that as disturbing as it may be, the people involved all survived. This is something many people take for granted or just don't care about, but it's something I value highly about VideoSift.


Well I'd just like to point out that a number of the videos I linked in a previous post, near all if not all of them depict(ed) scenes where people were dieing. Many if you follow them to their source have stories about how many died in the accident/event being shown in the video. I do not think the shuttle or WTC footage should be removed, but it does show scenes were people did not survive. And the building burning shows the fire that ended up killing 100+ people when it was all over.

Beyond the clear newsworthy events (WTC, Space Shuttle) what makes the other videos suitable? The soldiers peeing on corpses is much more graphic and in your face with the death aspect than this video is, since you can see the act happening with the corpses (hopefully dead at this point...hopefully) in view of the camera.

I just want some kind of acknowledgement that putting a news reporter before this video would not change the content of the video. Or a ticker bar at the bottom.....or a watermark in the video......the contents and happenings of the video would remain the same.

I see the plane crash video I linked to as exactly like this video. The person flying either had a hardware failure or mistake that caused him to nose dive into the ground. You know he died either on impact or shortly after. The only difference is one is a plane and one is a car. I know we can all put ourselves in the driver's seat of a car, but we can set ourselves apart from piloting due to lack of experience. This may account for the notation on this video, I want to identify whatever it is that this video has that set it apart from the others.

The police shootings are in the same scenario, but most us aren't cops. But most of them show poor choices that led up to it, and maybe we feel we wouldn't make those choices as a rational person...so the video is OK because it demonstrates a level of behavior that will result in your death that none of us feel we will reach. A car crash accident is not left up to willful choice in most cases.

As I think it's relevant to the discussion and it was left as a little quasi threat on my profile.

In reply to this comment by BoneRemake:
Disagree with what ? your intent or interpretation of the events in the video are completely void because of this statement " Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera. ?

Is clearly is in violation of the posted rules. I'd make a big stink about it if it was 2 pm and not 2 am. I'll do it in the morning


Please do make a big stink, this site has a lot of rules that don't get enforced until someone gets a bug up their ass about it. And without enforcement whose to know what videos are allowed or not when my video CLOSELY resembles some of the videos I've linked below. And I'll say right now that you putting extra tags on my video was in poor taste and mocks the events of the video. I don't think you are the right person to be making judgements on my videos when you can mock the video with those tags.


These are the videos I found in the first 20 pages of the "death" channel.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Rare-amateur-video-of-Challenger-disaster-25-years-later - Has a short intro screen and a exit screen. No news coverage, no documentary claims. It would fall under your rule, yet it's been voted very high up there and no one complained.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Destroyed-In-Seconds - This video was taken down by youtube because it showed a guy dieing in it. The comments on THIS SITE even reflect it. No one ever questioned it.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Marines-Urinate-on-Dead-Afghans - I can't confirm those men on the ground are dieing or dead. It shows corpses, wounds and all being defiled for ENTERTAINMENT of the troops. I'd classify this as snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Footage-of-Perm-Nightclub-Fire - Shows a building where 100+ people died.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Indy-500-winner-killed-in-15-car-accident - Shows the tv footage of a car crash where the driver died. No informative news network or documentary. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Deadly-plane-crash-at-Reno-Nevada-air-show - Shows a plane crash, no news or documentary. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Molten-metal-seen-dripping-moments-before-WTC2-collapses - Shows footage of WTC where we know people were dieing inside. We can't see them dieing, but that rule still applies. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Lucky-Montana-Cop-Escapes-Death - Police office shoots a man to death. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Main-Stage-collapses-at-Indiana-State-Fair Stage collapses people die. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Sigh-police-beat-a-man-dead - Police kill a guy on film. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Craziest-and-most-awesome-animal-compilations-of-the-web - I didn't watch this one all the way through. Video Submitter claims death occurs in it. Could be animal, could be people. You watch it and decide if it's snuff...I saw some animals attacking people but never saw the outcome to tell if they were dead or not.

Thanks Enoch..I enjoy your company as well, and I appreciate you saying that..because I am still often accused of being a troll. And yes, I admit have been an asshat at times and said stupid things. It's hard not to want to respond to insults, but, when you don't I think it is something that builds character. Videosift has made me a more patient person.

I think there is just a strain of intolerance in the atheist community, that has become this militant antitheism, where you can't have decent conversation because everything being said is laced with insults and condescension. Videosift isn't really that bad in comparison to some atheist forums I frequent..and it isn't just me, because as soon as you open your mouth you have about 100 people all simultaneously ganging up on you and saying some really vicious things.

I know this isn't the way it should be, as we have seen on some of the more thoughtful debates on God. Where people actually treat eachother civilally and have thoughtful questions and answers. I think a lot of atheists want to act like it isn't even a valid question, or it has been sufficiently disproved, or it is something only stupid people believe, but that is flatly untrue. Even Hitchens said it was the greatest conversation you could have because the question of God leads to all the other important questions. So I think if people took that chip off their shoulder and gave the topic the consideration it deserves, all of this enmity could be avoided.

>> ^enoch:
when i first engaged shiny i mistook him for a troll.
i have since changed my position.
shiny is a believer.
and this belief is derived with the certainty that the bible is the un-erring word of god and ALL his philosophy flows from that point.
this is not something he keeps obscure or hidden but is quite upfront about it,so it should come as no surprise when he responds in the way he does.
give the man some credit for taking the time to respond to the massive amounts of flack he gets.
feel free to disagree with him (hell,i do...and often)but remember he is taking the time to respond and engage with you.
i also feel he deserves a bit of leeway when he gets a bit testy.very often comments are directed towards him as if he IS religion,or that he somehow represents fred phelps "god hates fags" and therefore should be treated with disdain.
cant blame a man for getting a tad defensive.
he is just a man who has a belief based on the bible and to attack him based just on that belief wastes a fantastic opportunity to understand WHY a person may hold that belief.
it is only through respectful interaction that a more complete and full understanding can be achieved.
i may disagree with shiny but i find him a pleasant individual.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

@BoneRemake
Please clarify why this is not EIA because it seems to fit the channel description perfectly to me. Nothing says EIA has to be funny.

This channel is home to videos of people who seem to have a great desire to remove themselves from the gene pool or at least cause great bodily harm to themselves as they slowly work their way out of the gene pool.

When I asked lucky760 to update the description because of confusion between a couple members, I was told along the line, EIA is for people willfully taking themselves out of the gene pool by doing something stupid like balancing on a galvanized nail while on top of a copper lined roof while on top of a buffalo. I was not told the channel is around for people who "take themselves out of the gene pool " by misinformation/religious indoctrination,lies of sorts, or just being too stupid for your own good ( like my sister). I do hope it is clearer as to where I am coming from. More or less the EIA channel is for people being stupid doing stupid things, that 99/100 people would consider a bad idea. Does not include car accidents, people getting hurt by things they can not control etc.

Thank you for your time and continued support.

Lets do lunch !


Get some clarification on the channel for yourself though if this does not suffice.

Played it for a few hours so far. It is a great game, but hampered by an atrocious console UI. I don't understand why something seemingly as simple as a proper PC UI must depend upon the mod community to create, as I don't doubt it will yet again. The PC and console versions are not going to be played together. Why MUST they have the same limiting, ridiculously-nested, unwieldy user-interface? Assigning items to quickkeys (favorites?!) is a non-intuitive, circuitous joke, and item/spell/skill management is unnecessarily laborious. It's like the designers have never played a proper PC RPG before. I'd think with 100+ people working on the game, someone would speak up and say, "hey, this sucks".

The UI is what connects you to the game. It's that through which you experience the game. It shouldn't be a hinderance that must be overcome or endured in order to play. It should be intuitive, efficient, and unimpeding to immersion. Why would a developer take such a half-assed approach to the PC version of it? Yet another developer disrespecting the very platform and gamers that made them successful. I know... "whaaa!"

It may not seem like it, but I think it's still a great game. It's an awesome game! I've run into several bugs already, but no showstoppers yet. I just think it could be a much better experience for PC gamers without the consolized UI.

>> ^pyloricvalve:

Thanks for the reply. There were things I really didn't understand about Krugman's Hangover Theory article, especially that very point that you quote. In fact I tried to ask in a post above about this but maybe you missed it. To me it seems only natural that there is no unemployment in the boom and there is some in the bust. Both are big reorganisations of labour, it is true. However, to start with the boom is much slower and longer so adaptation is easier. Also the booming industry can afford to pay slightly above average wages so will easily attract unemployed or 'loose' labour. As it is paying above average, there will be little resistance to people changing work to it. The boom is persistent enough that people will train and invest to enter the work created by it. The information for entering the boom industry is clear and the pay rise makes the work change smooth. I see no reason for unemployment.
The bust however is short and sudden. There is no other obvious work to return to. That information of what the worker should do is much less clear. The answer may involve taking a small pay cut or on giving up things in which people have invested time and money. Many people wait and resist doing this. They may well not know what to do or try to wait for opportunities to return. Thus there is plenty of reason for unemployment to be generated by the bust.
If I hire 100 people it can probably be done in a month or two. If I fire 100 people it may be a long time before they are all employed again. For me this difference seems so obvious I have a real trouble to understand Krugman's point. I know he's a very smart guy but I can't make head nor tail of his argument here. Can you explain it to me?


I'm trying to think how to connect what you're saying to the point Krugman's making (at least as I understand it).

At a minimum, he're Caplan making the same point in less space:

The Austrian theory also suffers from serious internal inconsistencies. If, as in the Austrian theory, initial consumption/investment preferences "re-assert themselves," why don't the consumption goods industries enjoy a huge boom during depressions? After all, if the prices of the capital goods factors are too high, are not the prices of the consumption goods factors too low? Wage workers in capital goods industries are unhappy when old time preferences re-assert themselves. But wage workers in consumer goods industries should be overjoyed. The Austrian theory predicts a decline in employment in some sectors, but an increase in others; thus, it does nothing to explain why unemployment is high during the "bust" and low during the "boom."

Krugman saying the same thing in more accessible language:

Here's the problem: As a matter of simple arithmetic, total spending in the economy is necessarily equal to total income (every sale is also a purchase, and vice versa). So if people decide to spend less on investment goods, doesn't that mean that they must be deciding to spend more on consumption goods—implying that an investment slump should always be accompanied by a corresponding consumption boom? And if so why should there be a rise in unemployment?

And as a bonus, here's Brad DeLong making a similar case.

My real handicap here is that I'm not familiar enough with the fine details of the Austrian theory to say with authority what they believe. So if I misrepresent their position, it's out of ignorance.

What I gather is that ultimately the Austrian theory of boom and bust is that central banks are messing with the "natural" balance of investment and consumption goods, with a boom happening when investment is being artificially stimulated (by low interest rates), and a bust happens when interest rates eventually go back up (due to inflation, or expectations thereof).

The response from people like Caplan and Krugman is to point out that since aggregate income has to equal aggregate expenditure (because everyone's income is someone else's expenditure, and vice versa), a fall in investment should mean a rise in consumption, and a rise in investment should mean a fall in consumption. Which means we should never see an overall boom or an overall bust, just periods of transition from a rise in consumer goods and a fall in investment, to a fall in consumer goods and a rise in investment. We should never see a situation where they both fall at the same time.

But we do see a fall in both during the bust. Why?

Keynes's answer was that it happens because people are hoarding cash. Either people are themselves stuffing mattresses with it, or more likely, banks start sitting on reserves and refusing to lend out, either out of a fear of their own solvency (Great Depression), or because a deflationary cycle with high unemployment makes sitting on cash look like a good, safe investment for them (Great Depression, and now). Put simply, depressions are the result of an excess demand for money. And since money is an arbitrary thing, it doesn't have to be a scarce resource, we can always just make more...

@NetRunner
Thanks for the reply. There were things I really didn't understand about Krugman's Hangover Theory article, especially that very point that you quote. In fact I tried to ask in a post above about this but maybe you missed it. To me it seems only natural that there is no unemployment in the boom and there is some in the bust. Both are big reorganisations of labour, it is true. However, to start with the boom is much slower and longer so adaptation is easier. Also the booming industry can afford to pay slightly above average wages so will easily attract unemployed or 'loose' labour. As it is paying above average, there will be little resistance to people changing work to it. The boom is persistent enough that people will train and invest to enter the work created by it. The information for entering the boom industry is clear and the pay rise makes the work change smooth. I see no reason for unemployment.

The bust however is short and sudden. There is no other obvious work to return to. That information of what the worker should do is much less clear. The answer may involve taking a small pay cut or on giving up things in which people have invested time and money. Many people wait and resist doing this. They may well not know what to do or try to wait for opportunities to return. Thus there is plenty of reason for unemployment to be generated by the bust.

If I hire 100 people it can probably be done in a month or two. If I fire 100 people it may be a long time before they are all employed again. For me this difference seems so obvious I have a real trouble to understand Krugman's point. I know he's a very smart guy but I can't make head nor tail of his argument here. Can you explain it to me?

It's a highly volatile market these bitcoins... But there are people making considerable returns from them.

They've increased in value by 10 times over the last 2 months. I purchased some about 4 days ago, and they've already doubled in value. So I'm happy with that!

But it's very, very risky, despite the continued growth. You never know when it might just crash from all this rapid investment.

I've seen days when the value of a bitcoin has fluctuated up to 88% within a single day.

http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/

Anyway, I'm not going to take my little investment out just yet... I'm curious to see just how much their value will increase in the coming weeks and months. People talk about a bitcoin bubble, but that requires the public at large to become aware of it, and that's when investors usually cash in - and the bubble bursts... but I don't think we're anywhere near that yet. Ask 100 people on the street what a bitcoin is, my guess only 2-3 would know..... if that.

>> ^schlub:

I wonder how well that would've gone without the microphone and camera.


Self-important Brooklynite hipsters. I've had plenty of conversations with people on the subway. It just so happens that they are few and far between when you ride to and from work EVERY day with 100 people sitting next to you. And that's just if you only ride in one subway car each way.

It's a nice sentiment and it is kind-of a heart warming video, but without the camera and mic, here's the conversation you're bound to wind up having:

"Hey dude, I just moved to the city, had all my stuff stolen got raped in a public bathroom and found out I have AIDS. Do you have some money I could have?" I guarantee that was said to the filmmaker at least 5 times while making this video.

This whole discussion reminds me of a scene in the Naked Gun which I'm unfortunately unable to find currently.


Mayor: Drebin, I don't want any more trouble like you had last year on the southside. Understand? That's my policy.
Frank: Yes. Well, when I see 5 weirdos dressed in togas stabbing a guy in the middle of the park in full view of 100 people, I shoot the bastards. That's my policy.
Mayor: That was a Shakespeare in the Park production of Julius Caesar, you moron! You killed 5 actors!

Just like speeding limits will end up with cars being banned. Just like gay marriage will lead to polygamy and bestiality. This is my problem with libertarianism as a whole, it's not an absolutist position in the slightest. It's drawing a line in the sand slightly to the right of the general societal consensus around you in terms of individual ownership rights and liberties.

As for guns in particular:

You have 89 guns per 100 people. The next country down, Switzerland, has half (46 per 100) and is in itself is an outlier:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership

By a conservative estimate on total firearm deaths you are 8th in the world per capita.

On homicides per capita alone you are 10th in the world. The next, and first other developed country down in descending order is Italy with just 23% of the US. The next is Finland with 12%.

On unintentional deaths, you are ranked 3rd in the world. The next developed country down, Spain, has a rate per capita, 42% of the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Now, let's put aside the whole argument over whether owning a gun is a right. Is there really any disputing that high gun ownership rates in the US lead to high death rates a a result of firearms?

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, when it's fear based and affects other people's rights? I'd say that's when fear is bad. It doesn't start with "let's get rid of all guns" which is what most of you really feel. It starts with, "Maybe we should revisit this whole gun control conversation again. Maybe we do little more this time to ensure our safety."
Sure, clips are limited this time around. Next, the caliber of bullet is limited. Those who can own guns is limited further. Where those guns can be located is limited further. Eventually what're we left with? Are the 20,000 gun laws currently on the books not enough? Of course they're not, because they still allow people to own them, and that's really the point isn't it? It's disingenuous and opportunistic (not to mention horrible) to wrap yourself in self-righteous indignation over Green's death and then use it further your political agenda.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
Ok, the guy at 5:20 got me a little choked up.
But man, either Pixar has far more employees than I imagined or Pixar is really gay.
happy


They started with 40 people back in the late 70's. They plan to have 75-100 people at the Vancouver BC based Pixar Canada alone.

Personally, I wouldn't mind a hug from the guy wanting to jump through the screen, and I'm not even gay.

I quote myself from the original original submission, http://videosift.com/video/Chaplin-s-Time-Traveler


Just because it hasn't been posted yet, 50,000 people spending 3 mins on Youtube beats 100 people spending 1 hour.

"It was a hearing aid device native to the 1920's.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/23909185@N06/5108888518/"

Just because it hasn't been posted yet, 50,000 people spending 3 mins on Youtube beats 100 people spending 1 hour.

"It was a hearing aid device native to the 1920's.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/23909185@N06/5108888518/"