Maybe, (suggestion for @dag?), there should be another channel /tag for this that allows for us to post thoughtful-but-offensive clips (that won't just pave the way for a slew of porn or violence).

RE: the 'educational' value-- maybe a "human condition" or "humanity" tag would be good? I know there's already 'humanitarian' but the difference in meaning is probably clear. There must be a term to categorize videos like this under exclusively... "Graphic Content"? Some way to respectfully post videos that encourage sincere, humble thoughtfulness about our world and lives, that can show content like this in that light for the sake of seeing the gravity of our existence face to face. These events, actions and consequences are all reflective of all of us.

I also have certain content that I refuse to put my eyeballs on, and would get extremely offended if I opened the Sift one day and found it at the top of the page, but I'm more in favor of giving videos like that a proper place rather than censoring it entirely.

Not true, and that's why I posted the actual definition, rather than my personal feeling on what the word means. Then we can all start from the ACTUAL definition(s) rather than just making some up and arguing about it.

Your second paragraph/sentence makes no sense at all to me, and sounds like a disjointed red herring/straw man/bad attempt at creating a false argument you can shoot down....but it's so all over the place it's unfollowable.

You continue to confuse feminism with Feminism, and also continue to paint all Feminists in the worst possible light based on a few overboard examples rather than describing the normal, average Feminist.
For instance, many Feminists see pornography and prostitution as empowering and taking control of their own sexuality, and it was actually prudish anti-feminist men who tried to censor it in the courts.

In fact, there ARE many people in the civilized world who still think women don't deserve the same rights as men in many areas, and insist they are unable to perform tasks men can perform, must be coddled and subservient, and are lesser beings based purely on gender, despite all evidence to the contrary.

It's only because of this continuing misunderstanding on your part that you claim anyone said anything like "The implication, in any event, that this is somehow a novel position, for which we have feminist advocacy to thank... "...you are again confusing feminist with Feminist, and using the wrong one. We don't have Feminist advocacy to thank, we do however have feminist advocacy to thank for the advancements in women's rights...it's what the word means.


It doesn't sound at all like you 'appreciate the attempt at consensus building', or even understood my point, since you continue to conflate feminism with Feminism. I can't be certain, but it seems you are doing that intentionally in order to argue a moot point.



EDIT:sorry, I thought I quoted you @gorillaman, so I'll cut and paste....

gorillaman said:
Everyone has a different definition of feminism; that is to some extent the problem. Rather, this is the final bulwark to which its advocates retreat when their main arguments have been punctured and deflated.

"But surely," says the distorter of domestic violence and rape statistics - says the agitator who runs dissenting professors off campus - says the censor of allegedly harmful pornography - says the fascist who criminalises prostitution or BDSM - says the conspiracy theorist who sees systemic sexism in places it couldn't possibly exist, like science and silicon valley (and videogaming, and science fiction) - says the proponent of patriarchy theory in societies in which men are routinely sacrificed to war, to dangerous jobs, to extreme poverty; whose genitals are mutilated; whose children, houses and paychecks can be taken away essentially at the whim of their partners; for whom there is vanishingly little support in the event of domestic abuse or homelessness; who are assumed to be rapists and wife-beaters and paedophiles; and who are told, throughout all of this, that it is their privilege - "I'm just claiming that women have rights. How can you disagree with that?"

The implication, in any event, that this is somehow a novel position, for which we have feminist advocacy to thank and to which there is actually anyone in the civilised world who objects, is a laughable and insulting one.

Still, I'm sure we all appreciate the attempt at consensus building.

Everyone has a different definition of feminism; that is to some extent the problem. Rather, this is the final bulwark to which its advocates retreat when their main arguments have been punctured and deflated.

"But surely," says the distorter of domestic violence and rape statistics - says the agitator who runs dissenting professors off campus - says the censor of allegedly harmful pornography - says the fascist who criminalises prostitution or BDSM - says the conspiracy theorist who sees systemic sexism in places it couldn't possibly exist, like science and silicon valley (and videogaming, and science fiction) - says the proponent of patriarchy theory in societies in which men are routinely sacrificed to war, to dangerous jobs, to extreme poverty; whose genitals are mutilated; whose children, houses and paychecks can be taken away essentially at the whim of their partners; for whom there is vanishingly little support in the event of domestic abuse or homelessness; who are assumed to be rapists and wife-beaters and paedophiles; and who are told, throughout all of this, that it is their privilege - "I'm just claiming that women have rights. How can you disagree with that?"

The implication, in any event, that this is somehow a novel position, for which we have feminist advocacy to thank and to which there is actually anyone in the civilised world who objects, is a laughable and insulting one.

Still, I'm sure we all appreciate the attempt at consensus building.

Might be interesting to compare and contrast how we in the US have handled our laundry list of "bad things we've done in the past" compared to, say, Germany.

I know that the Nazi flag and other imagery are outright banned / censored in Germany. From what I understand, WW2 history taught in schools in Germany is handled very carefully, if not largely glossed over.

In the US, the only bit of history that gets treatment similar to that (in my experience/opinion) is the Vietnam war. I know my High School history classes definitely glossed over it and didn't want to get into any details about why, how, or whether or not we should have been in the war at all.

Compare that to WW2, which was covered in pretty great detail. Very much including actively encouraging students to consider their own thoughts on controversial things like dropping not just one but two atomic bombs on Japan.

The Civil War is also covered much more openly and honestly. I don't think I can recall anyone ever seriously suggesting that the single, most important root cause of the Civil War wasn't slavery. Other umbrella labels like "states rights" might be referred to as the impetus, but yes, any and all of those things really boil down to slavery.



One thing that scares me about the German approach (sweep under the rug and don't talk about it) is that it sort of all too conveniently ignores the reality that these terrible things were done by people who were (disturbingly) not very different from us. OK, Hitler himself might have been a 1 in a million or 1 in a billion combination of evil, crazy, and powerful. But Joe Average from today ... not so different from Hans Average from 1930s Germany.

Celebrating one's heritage and past is OK, sometimes even good. Especially when one can honestly own and try to understand the bad along with the good. I think it is OK to appreciate the Confederate flag, along with historical figures like Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. It is possible to accept that their core motivations were done in support of a very bad and evil institution (slavery), but to still respect or even admire their accomplishments as human beings. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves too, but we are willing to look beyond that when considering his legacy.

Maybe the Confederate flag is tied too closely to the institution of slavery for it ever to be uncoupled from that. Maybe a government that prides itself on being democratic should consider that that connection creates a conflict with many of its constituents. But I hope we never sweep it under the rug and pretend it never happened.

What's the difference between God and a Democrat?

A: God knows He's not a Democrat.
------------------------------------------
You might be a liberal if…

you break out in a cold sweat at the mention of the Constitution.


you believe the Constitution is living but unborn babies aren’t.


you believe that a democrat freed the slaves and a republican created the KKK.

you abhor censorship unless it’s censoring race, religion, Conservatism, Western culture or Rush Limbaugh.

you believe 59% of whites who voted for Romney are racists but 96% of blacks who voted for Obama are not.

@ChaosEngine dissapointed at you. I made NO mistake. Some fascist happy to censor other peoples videos downvoted my video so NO ONE COULD SEE IT, BEFORE ANYONE HAD A CHANCE TO VIEW.

My only mistake was not being aware of what had happened.
I would not re-post AND THEN TELL THE WHOLE SIFT ON SIFT CHAT if I had wanted to be a SNEAKY COWARD.

FUCK THAT SHIT.

Guilt = 0

There's plenty of crass humor outside of the states. Personally, I'm inspired to higher levels of crassness by British comics.

Doesn't comedy always seek to undermine convention? CNN shows that it's not really an accepted American convention, except perhaps to the entertainments sluts such as myself, but I enjoy a wide array of convention. And I'm the only person in my social circle that truly enjoys this humor, more Americans that I know do not.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/entertainment/2015/03/31/erin-pkg-moos-martha-bieber-roast.cnn

But regardless of whether we agree, a roast is intended to be shocking. Comedy is not a self censoring media because it must remain within the realm of knowing thyself. Knowing thyself, one understands the grotesque nature of the human mind in relation to the soft edges we falsify for our neighbor.

Congratulations! Your comment on How they censor Womens Sport Events on Iranian TV has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Your video, How they censor Womens Sport Events on Iranian TV, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

We'll start with the "youtube comments are toxic".

We're in agreement. Even youtube agrees.

While it's unfortunate that the comment cream doesn't rise on youtube..

This still doesn't eliminate that fact that tons of valid criticism is being censored by Sark & plenty of other unscrupulous agenda-pushers.

It's a perfect opportunity to squash any dissent, under the guise of -

"there is no real debate here. only insults & threats. I had to disable comments to spare my audience the vitriol"

However, imagine if the youtuber was an outspoken Scientologist or Creationist..

Snowball's chance in hell you aren't viewing that as a deceitful tactic to avoid scrutiny.

"Everyone knows creationism is easily debunked/scientology is a cult. Clearly they've disabled comments because they want to squash dissent/valid arguments"

Rarely, if ever, would you think -

"Disabled comments? I get it. They probably just got too many death threats. Scientologists have feelings too yuh know"

Nonetheless, when the EXACT SAME scenario is put in front of you..

..with regard to topics that tug at your liberal, tree-huggy sympathies..

You lose all skepticism. Why is that?

Literally all it takes is a 30 second google search to discover the inconsistencies in Sarkeesian's statements & actions.

From the first article -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the words of Tumblr user robbiebaldwin:

“She says she wants to ‘create a dialogue’ or ‘force video games into open debate,’ except she turns off both comments and even ratings on her videos. Wanting to hear your own voice in an echo chamber is the total opposite of ‘open debate.’”

Leading the charge against Sarkeesian’s decision is Tumblr user amazingatheist, who posted a ten-minute video entitled "Who’s The Damsel Now?"

Arguing that Sarkeesian’s “censorship” of YouTube comments counteracts her message about strong women
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Are you seeing the larger picture now @newtboy @Babymech etc.?

This self-described - "critic of sexism in pop culture" - is espousing a set of ideas & strong statements..

Then completely cowering, juking, and being absolutely non-responsive when called on her shit.

She disabled the RATINGS for FSM's sake!
The neutral, objective, non-threatening, non-absuive RATINGS!

That's the way you stand strong for your cause, right!
By disallowing even your supporters from showing their approval!

And before you even mention that cancel lecture of hers.

WHAM!

BAM!

Straight from Utah State -

"Throughout the day, Tuesday, Oct. 14, USU police and administrators worked with state and federal law enforcement agencies to assess the threat to our USU community and Ms. Sarkeesian. Together, we determined that there was no credible threat to students, staff or the speaker, and that this letter was intended to frighten the university into cancelling the event."

They were all "Please don't cancel. We love con-artists! We're Mormons, remember!"

*TooLong,Don'tGiveaFuck*

Anita Sarkeesian is a self-proclaimed pop-culture critic..

Who claims that she wants to 'create a dialogue' & 'force video games into open debate'..

She then proceeds to disallow any & all discourse or scrutiny of her work - positive or negative - going so far as to disable like & dislike ratings on her videos.

Oh and I forgot to add..

She conveniently forgot to disable the vitriol 'whining' on her Kickstarter page until AFTER those comments boosted her campaign to over $150,000 in donations.

[i'll search for the video while you whine about citing sources]

BUT AGAIN! THIS ISN"T JUST ABOUT HER!
It's the overall debacle & all the stupid articles surrounding it.

Tho first I have to slog thru this shitstorm because you're easily distracted by syntax & word choice.

Shit, this is pointless.

Oh well. Done for now.

I hate censorship, and I do everything I can to put it down, but if I were to be fair, calling it "arbitrary" is a little biased. It certainly follows a logic of escalating offensiveness, but beyond that it's an example of how mislead the ideal of "free speech" is in the "land of freedom".

EDIT: Also, this isn't in support of "boobs", neither the female kind or the kind in front of the camera (though often the latter deserves it so much more). Phrasing your anti-censorship arguments in this way just prove the censors point, and belittle the conversation from the get-go.

Don't confuse the Unions that attack the Mayor with actual people. The Unions are dicks that are a business just like Sharpton (Making them millions) and Wal-Mart. Of course they spout of shit like Donald Trump or Obama on any given day.

Down here many cops state that Brown was a thug who threw around a store clerk in a potentially deadly robbery. There is a reason criminals can be charged for murder if an officer dies on his way to a crime like that. Or if someone gets shot by a store clerk on accident. The inherent nature of violence that Brown brought to the store alone was potentially deadly.

This video is the same as the censored Kim Jung Un video, or half the Epic Rap Battles. I remember my wife crying when they mentioned Merlin Monroe having miscarriages because she had four. But never once did she bemoan the Battles.

And yes, it annoyed me that you made mention that this video was NOT racist but the above sifter not-to-be-named ignored that...shows how much he listens.

Holy crap, this is from Adult Swim? The people that censored "Sweet Zombie Jesus" in Futurama?

Oops, looks like Yogi wasn't the only one. Sorry for the second message, I know you don't like dealing with this bullshit and just want to hang out on your cool site with cool people.

Yeah if you censor that puts you in a particular camp. It doesn't matter how good your reason is, every fucker who ever did it thought they had a good reason. Just stop it man, please.

I don't want you to ban me. Honestly I've expected you to for years - I commend you for your cool temper and grace. But. I don't believe enlightened people should live in chains. Taboos are only that; they hinder free discourse.

And yes obviously - obviously - these things carry no racial significance for me. Race is a superstition and everyone needs to get over it, instantly.

I understand that, but even if you can't change someone's attitude, you can't consider it if you censor it out.

He's free to toss out whatever junk spews from his misfiring synapses. I don't usually feed the trolls but that deserved a response, even if he doesn't read it or care. It cost me little to say and was more for me than for him.