For the "Kick me kike me" line, I might let that go as very, VERY poor writing if that were all there was, but it's not.

First, this is a song about unfair treatment of blacks specifically, not minorities in general.

How can you suggest that "Jew" is a bad word/calling someone names? That's the normal word, not a racist epithet. So the argument doesn't fly.

Here's another way to read it: to "Jew" someone (as a verb, as in the song) commonly means to use money/the legal system to cheat/screw someone over. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jew) The full line: "Jew me sue me" makes it clear this was his intent. Evil lawyers are stereotypically Jews ("Shysters"), so this fits too well.

I'm sticking with my racist verdict.>> ^hpqp:

@rex84 and @messenger
I looked up the lyrics out of curiosity, as well as the controversy surrounding them, and frankly, they do not seem discriminatory in context, au contraire. I'm no fan of MJ - as a person or a singer - but I don't like when things get labeled over misunderstandings. The lyrics (if I understand correctly) are about minorities being abused by society ("they"), including verbally, hence "Jew me" and "kike me" read as 'insult me/call me names' (I don't see how else it could be read tbh). It's very poor writing, for sure, but the intention does not seem racist. /my 2cents

>> ^shang:

i hate star anise...
to me it taste exactly like soap
reminds me 100% of when i was young and my mom washed my mouth out with soap once for saying a bad word haha
i can't stand that spice, that and couple others taste just like soap to me, but i read somewhere that certain people can't taste certain spices correctly due to genetics that some spices taste like soap to some and normal to others.
regardless if that's right or not, it still taste like soap to me


Just cardamom would be a really nice fragrant rice Apparently coriander or cilantro is one of those herbs that some people think taste of soap.

i hate star anise...

to me it taste exactly like soap

reminds me 100% of when i was young and my mom washed my mouth out with soap once for saying a bad word haha

i can't stand that spice, that and couple others taste just like soap to me, but i read somewhere that certain people can't taste certain spices correctly due to genetics that some spices taste like soap to some and normal to others.

regardless if that's right or not, it still taste like soap to me

>> ^budzos:
This smelly bitch (lots of other bad words I could send her way) is a psychopath. Her husband is probably just under her spell.


What is more likely is that she's just a normal person who had a shitty start to her day which put her in a bad mood and exacerbated her stress levels. Psychopath generally applies to people who do not feel guilty about behaving in a violent or antisocial manner, I bet this woman felt guilty as hell afterwards but probably doesn't remember feeling guilty now she's being harassed by phone and email.

I certainly don't agree with her behaviour but I do understand that people do shitty things they regret when under stress or are having a bad day (or week, or month, or in some cases just a bad life).

This smelly bitch (lots of other bad words I could send her way) is a psychopath. Her husband is probably just under her spell.

So lets get this straight.

The people are peaceful protesters - protesting the control authorities have over them.
The police are there to control the protesters.
The Police continue to push the protesters around and herd them and try to force them to leave.
The protesters continue to protest.
The police push harder, engaging in confrontation.
The protesters resist.

Situation A).
The police get violent, start fights and then begin arresting people

Situation B).
The protesters stay peaceful, The police keep pushing until fights start and then begin arresting people

Situation C).
The protesters fight back, The police fight back and then there is a riot for which the people are blamed and everyone is arrested.

So the police are allowed to harass people, start fights, herd people, limit where they can go/protest, control them, tear gas them, rubber bullet them ect. and have the full support of the "Establishment". BUT if the people lift one finger, or defend themselves, or stand their ground, say a bad word, or stay on premises - even peacefully, they open themselves up to violence and arrest.

The Leaders we hired (and pay for) are controlling the police (we pay for) to stop us from using the streets (we pay for) and limit the use of public spaces (we pay for) so they can control us. If the employees we elected and hired to run our system are no longer working for us, then they have claimed mutiny on their own employers/people to pander to outside marauding interests in the name of greed.

@marbles *sigh*, bad wording on my part. YES kids can suffer adverse reactions, but the vast majority don't, and usually the ones that do it's harmless really.

There is NOTHING to show that vaccines are triggering Autism though, NOTHING. It's all been shown to be bunk.

As stated, kids usually start showing signs of Autism around the same time they're getting vaccinations, so it's understandable that it could be mistaken for a cause and effect... but it's not, just two things happening close to each other.

And no, I really will not read anything written on a scientific subject by someone who believes in homoeopathy, it's not worth my time as I already know they lack even basic critically thinking ability.

"Yodeling in the gulley."

>> ^DerHasisttot:

yodling in the what? Yodling in the WHAT?

You might appreciate this vocabulary lesson by Carlin. I certainly was enlightened

http://videosift.com/video/Carlin-s-extended-list-of-bad-words

Also, as an aside, I used to have a list of bad words that a certain large studio targeted at kids used for their sites back in the day. I either had it as a CSV or XML file, but it was used to check usernames and comments before allowing them to submit them. It would even censor out things like "ball" and "hairy".

Something like that would probably work well for people who've been hobbled.

That would be a decent compromise. I just think allowing the community to dole out bans or put people in muteboxes is a bad idea. There's strength in numbers. If one person hobbles another, there's one person responsible not a group. It makes it less likely to be abused.

>> ^Stormsinger:

After spending a decade and a half deeply involved in online communities, both as a member and as staff, I feel compelled to point out that explicit standards of conduct aren't really much help. The vast majority of people already understand what's "over the line", and making an explicit list of "forbidden" words and actions works mostly as fodder for the rules lawyers ("I didn't say fag, I said fhag, so you can't ban me!"). And people who cross the lines of common decency are -still- going to claim that they're only in trouble because the powers that be don't like them.

I'm personally fine with guidelines just as we already have...they're clear enough that anyone who cares can understand. However, I'm not a fan of the semi-anonymous, pseudo-automated "X votes means a ban" style of systems. I prefer to rely on the judgement of a known person or small group of persons.

I'm definitely not suggesting we try to come up with some list of "bad words." I think our issue is hostility, not obscenity.

I'm just saying we need to be a little more clear than "personal attacks," especially when personal attacks get tossed around all the time. People saying "it's persecution" have a legitimate case -- they've been singled out and punished for breaking a rule that everyone breaks.

I think if we're getting people into the "I didn't say fag, I said fhag" mode at least some of the time, it'd be an improvement over the near universal "it's persecution!" response we've seen when people get reprimanded for bad behavior. If our community's argument over bans centered on the circumstances of the incident and interpretation of the rules, then I think we could deduce that the community's reached some sort of consensus that the rules are legitimate, and there's a need to mete out punishments if they're broken.

The arguments I've actually seen here tend to revolve around some sort of argument about dag's worthiness as our king. I don't think that's a healthy place for us to be.

Gotcha...verrrrry interesting...consider my horizons expanded.
In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
it's my shtick to mock when I see people getting chastised by "the man" (usually played by daggy-pie)
In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
...same to you...you also haven't a clue about the situation.

I rather gave you more credit than that. Still so inclined actually.
In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
yea...go **** ****** ******** **** ****** ****** mother's mouth>> ^dag:

Just becaused you starred it out - it doesn't make it OK. We're not 'bots looking for bad words. These kinds of ad hom comments are against the guidelines of the Sift. Please desist.
In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
Awwwww...poor whiny ...don't worry, you'll always be Queenie of the dupes.
In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
http://videosift.com/poll/Would-it-be-helpful-to-have-a-notadupe-in
vocation

it's my shtick to mock when I see people getting chastised by "the man" (usually played by daggy-pie)
In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
...same to you...you also haven't a clue about the situation.

I rather gave you more credit than that. Still so inclined actually.
In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
yea...go **** ****** ******** **** ****** ****** mother's mouth>> ^dag:

Just becaused you starred it out - it doesn't make it OK. We're not 'bots looking for bad words. These kinds of ad hom comments are against the guidelines of the Sift. Please desist.
In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
Awwwww...poor whiny ...don't worry, you'll always be Queenie of the dupes.
In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
http://videosift.com/poll/Would-it-be-helpful-to-have-a-notadupe-in
vocation

Dad, I'm all for the high road.

And I am generally and often appreciative of your acumen, intentions, and perspectives. However, this time, I would prefer you to dissect and analyze this situation. Particularly before you so cavalierly wave your banwand in my general direction.

And to your inference to my ability to exercise self control I am underwhelmed. Your comment had my upvote until then. Perhaps you do not care though.

I am surprised and perplexed at you on this I am sorry to admit. You may not like having to intercede when your "children" or those that you perceive act thus do not play nice. I empathize. I have let things go and reached a capacity and so answered in kind. It might be argued reservedly so and in a manner to communicate my displeasure and that a cessation might be advisable. I am sorry others were drawn into it. I haven't divined the machinations of that yet but will. However, I have addressed each with equanimity.

As to you, I would appreciate more of a even hand rather than a rubber stamp.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Rather than dissect and analyse your comment and mine - or call out other users for similar action, how about you just be nice and perhaps stop commenting to this particular user.

If you don't think this is possible - or you don't understand my intent, perhaps take a break from the Sift - go out and smell the flowers, take some time off. If you're not capable of this, eventually, a break may be enforced. Thanks.


In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
Starred what out Dag? Point of fact, you/she/others may construe or infer to your mind's content or discontent. By design or otherwise, it is rather up to the mind(s) of the reader(s). However, it does indeed seem you are 'bots looking for bad words. Are you going to ban me for *'s. I have seen much worse here, by far. That is neither here nor there. It is your cite after all.

BTW, this unfortunate situation was promulgated by this individual(**********) calling me names and accusing me deleteriously and not just once. Hence my ire and venom. I rather feel like not letting it go as have I before, other cheek and all that.

While not generally given to responding in kind. I unfortunately feel justified if not morally on the high ground.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Just becaused you starred it out - it doesn't make it OK. We're not 'bots looking for bad words. These kinds of ad hom comments are against the guidelines of the Sift. Please desist.

In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
Awwwww...poor whiny *****...don't worry, you'll always be Queenie of the dupes.
In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
http://videosift.com/poll/Would-it-be-helpful-to-have-a-notadupe-invocation

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

Rather than dissect and analyse your comment and mine - or call out other users for similar action, how about you just be nice and perhaps stop commenting to this particular user.

If you don't think this is possible - or you don't understand my intent, perhaps take a break from the Sift - go out and smell the flowers, take some time off. If you're not capable of this, eventually, a break may be enforced. Thanks.


In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
Starred what out Dag? Point of fact, you/she/others may construe or infer to your mind's content or discontent. By design or otherwise, it is rather up to the mind(s) of the reader(s). However, it does indeed seem you are 'bots looking for bad words. Are you going to ban me for *'s. I have seen much worse here, by far. That is neither here nor there. It is your cite after all.

BTW, this unfortunate situation was promulgated by this individual(**********) calling me names and accusing me deleteriously and not just once. Hence my ire and venom. I rather feel like not letting it go as have I before, other cheek and all that.

While not generally given to responding in kind. I unfortunately feel justified if not morally on the high ground.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Just becaused you starred it out - it doesn't make it OK. We're not 'bots looking for bad words. These kinds of ad hom comments are against the guidelines of the Sift. Please desist.

In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
Awwwww...poor whiny *****...don't worry, you'll always be Queenie of the dupes.
In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
http://videosift.com/poll/Would-it-be-helpful-to-have-a-notadupe-invocation