Somehow, I think TYT sort of missed the point of their own argument when processed from Facebook's shoes.

Is Facebook just feeding us a line of crap when they say that they pulled the add because they are against all tobacco products? Yes. Clearly. "Spin".

However, are they turning away perfectly good advertising revenue and offending pro-legalization supporters to an extent that might encourage them to do their social networking elsewhere? That one doesn't easily boil down to black and white.

Yes, they are turning away an advertising client. Presumably they have done that before with standard tobacco companies. However, I seriously doubt that in either case the decision to disallow the ads was made with morality or ethics being the primary impetus. I'm sure it was $$$. Facebook is concerned that if they accept the "perfectly good" advertising revenue from pro-pot (or pro-tobacco) clients, they risk offending other, bigger sources of advertising revenue.

This is why you don't see porn on the sift. Advertisers see any content that can offend people as carrying a risk of "guilt by association". They think it isn't worth the risk, so they pull their ads and go elsewhere.

The more logical among us can see that just because Facebook might allow an ad supporting the legalization of pot, it doesn't necessarily mean that Facebook must be the "High Times" of social networking, and might not even preclude them from taking advertising dollars from a contrary viewpoint and running anti-legalization ads also. However, there are a whole lot of illogical people out there, and advertisers are in the business of knowing what spooks the herd, er "target demographic". So, their assessment of what risks offending their audience are their own to make, whether we agree with them or not.

Of course, TYT is also making a $$$ based decision to approach the pro-pot group and encourage them to become an advertising client. Their accountants just ran the numbers and came to the opposite conclusion, probably because they don't have any existing advertising accounts that they feel they risk offending. I guess one can think about it all and become cynical and annoyed with how shady everything is, or they can bask in the glorious machinations of capitalism.

Awesome! An internet cartoon just for me!!

I am internet famous now!

*Matthu basks in the glory of his 15 minutes of internet fame*

feels good man

(Ok not like Jessie Slaughter or Epic Beard Man famous, but still)

Edit: Honestly, the last shot of me feeling like a badass is spot on, great cartoon man, thanks!

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
On the other hand, O'reily is an patronizingly, mean bastard. Even Glenn Beck is a nice guy even though he panders to a different audience, I wouldn't mind having a beer with him or her, but O'Reily can bask in the radiance of his own piousness.


Really? I agree what you say about O'Reilly, he's arrogant and pompous but at least he maintains a modicum of consistent in his beliefs and I can remotely respect him for that.

In a far fetched way I can agree with what Jon Stewart said about O'Reilly when he was on his show, that he's the only sane voice of reason on the network, even though he's for the most part a wing-nut.

Beck on the other has shown he's more than willing to change his views for the highest bidding network, goes on personal vendetta to destroy people's lives purely for vengeance or otherwise incidental personal or strategic gain and generally comes off as a genuine sleaze-bag.

>> ^bobknight33:

I am sad that there are people like her. Sad that there is a MSMBC
GE is a pathetic left wing liberal Company. Disgusting.


I like her actually, she seems like a decent person. I don't see eye to eye with her ideologically, and she does a bit of pandering, even so, she is a decent human being in my mind.

"So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts."

-James Madison

On the other hand, O'reily is an patronizingly, mean bastard. Even Glenn Beck is a nice guy even though he panders to a different audience, I wouldn't mind having a beer with him or her, but O'Reily can bask in the radiance of his own piousness.

Sweet! Now BASK IN MY MAGNANIMITY.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Holy shit. That video made number one. Thanks for that.

@everyoneinthisthread

It's Hawking. Not Hawkins, Hawkings, etc. lol.

@SDGundamX, you seem to have a skewed view of the situation. You say doctors used the scientific method to predict how long it would take for Hawking to succumb to his disease, and that their failure to be correct somehow means science failed and didn't work.

You've got it backwards. The scientific method explicitly claims the opposite...that out of all the predictions we make, only a few are ever close to the real truth. Science basks in wrongness all the time. Being wrong in science is a boon, because being proven wrong means you're just a little closer to the truth.

It's the people who make predictions or observations about the world and never admit they can be wrong who are a problem.

EDIT: I just have to add...you're totally simplifying the doctor prediction example. You weren't there when the doctors gave their information to Hawking. Maybe they said, "It is likely you'll die by XX age, but we don't know for sure." Doctors are constantly asked to give people certainties when there are none to be had. Yet, people use this as "evidence", saying that if science doesn't know everything then it isn't worth using. Just because a doctor can't tell you exactly when you're going to die doesn't mean science "doesn't work". This logic illustrates a misunderstanding of what scientific methods of experiment and thought claim to accomplish.

Hrm, tad off pon. Yes, children are prone to imagine what they are taught AND what they are not taught. My daughter at two and a half was pretending to be a nurse and talking about her awesomely pronounced "stethoscope" and blood pressure cuffs. But she WAS taught that--as you say. At three, however, it became all her imagination! I don't teach her half the fairytales she recites, yet she brings shit out of the closet that amazes me... Really deep too... She does this often, as smart children do.

We do not simply demand to understand as you so narrowly define humanities' natural instinct of belief. Otherwise, we would have flocked to science and would have abandoned religion hundreds of years ago. Look at how we flock naturally to the easier way of everything else in life (Such as technology,) and science certainly is easier than religion! However, we, as a species, do not do this? Ever ask why? Because we imagine, even to this date, and we do it well. Hell, we read imaginations, watch imaginations, even live imaginary lives every day! And you say we are just curious! Lolz, yeah, that’s why we watch Harry Potter too! Lolz.

No, it is not that we are curious---we dream, we fly, we bask in our own delusions. Thor did not just explain thunder---he was thunder and a way of life that excited people.

Do not get me wrong pon, I understand your dislike of religion and those that push/force it upon weaker people. Just like any government, religion is 100% a form of exerted control upon others.

Now, just to point out something, not all religion is based on threats. Buddhists, and hell, even Jehovah's Witness do not preach doom and gloom (My mother was/is a devote Witness and for that I became an atheist. However, they never once preached hell and eternal suffering.)

Also, if we did not have religion---the blame-peice of humanity and our woes and evils---we would still have our woes and evil. And probably the same amount too.

The world wars for control, finate resources and personal amusement. It does not fight over ideals, although we hide behind those ideals so we can feel virtuous.

Lastly, religion does not have to stand on its own logic. See, if god exists, he is the single most powerful creature to ever exist. And if he does not exist? He is the single most powerful IDEA to ever exist. Not much difference huh? Same effects...
You point out that religion cannot stand on its own logic… Well, faith is not logical anyways! Not logical at all. How many times as a boy did I have faith in my mother only to be deceived and let down time and time again? Hundreds, because she was constantly lying and I constantly wanted an honest mother. But, like a fool I believed. How many cancer patients have faith that they can get better? Should we tell them how insane their beliefs are? (Because their beliefs are insane.)

See, that's the beauty of faith. It deceives whether in religion, family, friends, health, etcetera. Everyone's mother will let them down, yet most will have faith nevertheless.

Just let it go pon, we have always had irrational faith and always will. Try to live the best you can until the day that you cannot live anymore. It is all we can do. Try to change the heart of man, not his faith.



>> ^ponceleon:
Sorry Lawdeesaw, but children are NOT prone to "believe" the way you mean it... they are prone to LEARN. It is only ADULTS that fill their mind with bullshit that make them christians, muslims, scientologists, etc.
In fact, religions have to resort to THREATS (you will go to hell) to brainwash their young into suspending their disbelief at all the crap that DOESN'T make sense.
Take my 4 year old god-daughter for example. She's constantly asking questions about her parents faith which they have to answer with "because God wants it that way."
Really? Fuck that. Religion can't stand on its own logic, so it had to start mostly with the mentally vulnerable, which usually equates to children which are impressionable by fairy tales and threats of eternal damnation.
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/Ugandan-Minister-Making-A-Huge-Fool-Of-Himself#comment-1008434'>^Lawdeedaw</a>:<br />
Otay...<br> <br> @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Seric" title="member since May 20th, 2008" class="profilelink">Seric</a>; Good points. That is how I believe (Though I worded it differently.) I simply realize that when you take the plastic face away, these same men and women who use religion as a justification will still be just as hateful.<br> <br> @BiycleRepairMan; Thanks for furthering my point, albeit unintentionally. Hitler was allowed because of the evil of people (Even good people can be evil.) There was no mask, there was no reason "decent" people were psychotic. It just happened, mostly because they were sheep. See, without religion, people will move on to find another reason to hate, kill, murder, rape and plunder. Economy? Perhaps... Race? Sure. Humans will be just as evil.<br> <br> But religious people are insane? Are children insane because they believe in superstitions? Santa? You are insane kid!!! Tooth Fairy?! Insane, take this child to the asylum! (By your technical explanation, children are insane to you… ) You also discredit the billions of people religious and spiritual as insane... Well, I guess it is human nature to be insane which makes them the sane ones?! Crap, I am screwed.<br> <br> "Bigotry? Check. Racism? Check. Sexism? Check. Discrimination? Check. Superstition? Check. Martyrdom? Check. Obedience to authority? Check." I was unaware that all religions taught that stuff... Well, the Native Americans cannot be so preachy now can they! Druids too! Ha, in your face! Buddhists? Bwaha.<br> <br> Oh, and half the people don't follow the good parts of religion anyways... Why, because they are evil people. You give too much credit to the average person who hides behind a "good" idea... The average German was a psychopath because they allowed Hitler his rule; and so is the average American who walks by a man just ran over by a car---and takes a photo with his cell phone.<br> <br> @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/ponceleon" title="member since February 8th, 2008" class="profilelink">ponceleon</a>; Explaining religion because it is a natural part of human thought is okay. Justifying actions because of religion is not. No one "justified" religion because of anything.<br> <br> Children are prone to belief because they are built that way. You cannot stop it, just curb it with time. It is built into us. I.e. explaining religion, not justifying it.<br> <br> On the uneducated part, my father, myself, brothers and all had an eighth grade education and guess what? Atheists all...<br></em>

I used to love Final Fantasy games, but for me it started going downhill after whatever FF3 for SNES was in the Japanese numbering... 5? 6?

However, I won't fall into the trap of claiming that FF3(6?) was actually better than the more recent endeavors -- the real difference is that I personally grew out / away from them. Some of that stems from my being roughly 10-15 years old when I was massively intrigued with FF2 and FF3, but I don't want to overstate that and suggest that an older player can't enjoy the series. What I really grew dissatisfied with is the leveling system that is so prominently featured in JRPGs, and to a certain extent western RPGs as well.

My specific problem is this: I start out as a level 1 peon, with 100 health points. My level 1 stick of smiting does 10 points of damage, and the imps I am fighting have about 50 health points each. I grind away for a while, slowly being spoonfed a storyline that isn't exactly Pulitzer material.

Pretty soon, I bask in my own splendor at having reached level 10. At level 10, I have 1000 health points. I now have an iron sword which does 100 damage, and I'm now fighting ogres that have 500 health points each.

By the time I reach the final boss (or actually in the case of FF games, only after spending some significant grind time after that point) I'm up to a godly level 100, and I now have a massive 10,000 health points. My heavenly sword of deadliness hits for a staggering 1000 damage, but the drakes I am fighting are up to a beefy 5000 hp each.

What's wrong with this picture? Only the fact that the entire leveling system is completely meaningless. The proportions between my level, health, damage, and enemy strength remain essentially constant. At the end of the game, I'm basically doing the exact same things to win a battle that I was at the start. All of the flashy new skills, spells, etc. that I have access to provide me with very brief moments of new gameplay experiences that merely serve to emphasize how consistent and predictable 99% of the rest of the game is.

My foes are visually much more impressive and intimidating by the end of the game, but those looks can't really hide the fact that inside they are just a level 1/10/100 "angry bag" that functions in basically the same way from start to finish. There are exceptions, but not in any truly profound way.

Practically every RPG falls prey to this problem, but the ones that annoy me the most are those that utilize leveling that results in characters that are statistically orders of magnitude more powerful at their final level than they were at the start. Growing to be ten times more effective in combat after training / battle experience? Maybe, depending on where you place the baseline / "level 1". 100 times? I doubt it. 1000 times? Um, no.

Skills-based leveling limits this problem. Sometimes. But really, I'd love to see an RPG where a max-level veteran is statistically only 3-5 times stronger than a completely fresh noob. But realistically, I know that the only way that system can work is in an open-world sandbox style game, and those seem to be rapidly falling out of favor. A pity, at least to my tastes.

Wait wait wait, he used his medicare to cover the costs of his procedure?

"Rice was treated at Los Robles Hospital and Medical Center. The top joint of his pinky, including his whole fingernail, was severed, hospital spokeswoman Kris Carraway-Bowman said.
She said his treatment was covered by Medicare."
AP Link

Oh the sweet irony. Let me bask in it for a little while longer.

The so-called Smug-Bastard sense, is a sense used to detect those of Demon-kin. The red skinned cloven-hoofed type that invade our plane of existence and try to tempt and turn us into kindling for the big red horned dude under the ground.

All those non-believing non-religious heathen bastards are going to burn in the everlasting flames of hell for all eternity. While... I.. a believer... a TRUE(tm) UNSMUG(tm)believer of the only true faith out of many thousands and thousands throughout human history will not suffer such a fate.

I will fly up into the magical sky heaven and live with winged sky fairies with bird wings, basking in the sun of my bearded white anglo-saxon god.

Now, on the other hand if they would just repent, give in, and profess total and complete belief in the ultiate fairytale known as the Bible.. literally, and unquestioningly supporting EVERY word in the Bible 100% as absolute truth. Then.. and only then would I consider them an equal. An equal under heaven.

I am not smug in the least. I am simply a servant of God. Praised and GLORY to him. God Bless the USA, for God prefers US over them.

Thought process:

"I will enter the water, retrieve the fish and be gone before anyone notices me. After the event, I will sit and watch the fish jerk around the floor, occasionally I will dab it with my paw, but mostly I will look uninterested. After a good two minutes or so I will leave the fish to itself and go bask in the afternoon sun"

My guess anyway.

The first 20-30 seconds of this reminds me of "The Running Man"

The sort of fake over-acting to try and evoke an emotion in the viewer by killian. In that film the aim was to hide the terrible big brother state the world was in, but in this film it's like the terrible big brother state trying to get back in.

The bit where he goes "like Joyce in Melbourne, Florida!"... oh man did i have a spooky de ja vu feeling for:
"maybe even a full pardon like our previous winners, Wittman, Price and Hadad. You remember them, Wittman, Price and Hadad, there they are, and at this very moment they're basking in the beautiful Maui sun"

Before the panties get bunched any further up SiftBot's ass, I'd like to say that I was asleep when I was hobbled. Hence a delayed response. (Maybe someday I'll master surfing the internet while asleep and lo, on that day, the world will be doomed.)

It's really kind of exciting and an honor to be the first one hobbled!

As many of you are aware, the spat between Pinky and I is far-reaching and long and drawn out.

I linked to that picture because I wanted to find an abortion picture that was on a religious site, where, presumably, religious types go to bask in the glow of images of dead babies. The irony? of it amused me. [Especially the fact that religious sites are the first ones that pop up in Google. What does that say, really.]

And the rape thing, that's a long story. Maybe if it really happened to her, it would validate a previous unquotable argument of hers. I can't stand people who lie. [But I've said this, pretty much exactly about that situation before.]

Maybe it's hormones or maybe I normally would have been as pissed. Eh.

I was really surprised, amused and taken aback by burdturgler's response(s). I know he was a little upset last night already. If I've given him an outlet for that anger, all the better. Don't hold it in. Let it explode into everyone's faces.

Et cetera, et cetera. Ad nauseum.

>> ^bcglorf:
"Never argue with stupid people, they just bring you down to their level and then beat you through experience"


...except that here he beat them. I agree with you though that he is sinking to their level. I would rather see the whole Phelps cult ignored. But once in a while it is refreshing to bask in schadenfreude.

This is the bomb.

I haven't alternated between laughing and shaking my head this much since I watched that Briney Spears sympathizer.

I want everyone to upvote this, just so we can bask in the ignorance of the man who created this piece of trash.