Choose someone as successor and you will inevitably be succeeded. Choose someone hungrier and you will be devoured. Choose someone quicker and you won't dodge the blade at your back. Choose someone with more patience and you won't block the blade at your throat. Choose someone more devious and you'll hold the blade that kills you. Choose someone more clever and you'll never know your end. Despite these cautions, an apprentice is essential. A Master without an apprentice is a Master of nothing.

―Palpatine

My guess is that her Sith Lord Master is not going to live very long.

"Its an odd sight to watch an insect devouring a mammal"

YEA NO SHIT ! thats what I was thinking " Woah that's screwed up ! "

http://www.americanhumanist.org/who_we_are/about_humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Wow, humanism indoctrination video. I hope everyone can see through the brainwashing. And people say humanism isn't a religion..
I think this video is actually risky because it is such painfully obvious propaganda. It might actually serve to wake people up to the humanist agenda.
All I have to say is just wait until the one world government comes, then the true meaning of "we got scared" will come to light.

You're ignorant, greedy and careless. You'll consume and devour your way through 80 years worth of resources, using more than you should, caring less than you should, making this planet a slightly worse place to live. And there's enough of you that, together, you'll make this planet an unbearable place to live in your desperation to get as many little pieces of paper with "£20" written on it as you can before you die.
How is it humanist propoganda? How is it brainwashing? Provide at least a cursory attempt to qualify your statements. People do not get indoctrinated to believe that life is beautiful and needs no purpose. They realise it for yourself. I consider it an evolutionary step achieved through enough introspection and education. Hopefully, one day, consumers like you will catch up with us and we'll have enough time left on earth to have some fun with it.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Wow, humanism indoctrination video. I hope everyone can see through the brainwashing. And people say humanism isn't a religion..
I think this video is actually risky because it is such painfully obvious propaganda. It might actually serve to wake people up to the humanist agenda.
All I have to say is just wait until the one world government comes, then the true meaning of "we got scared" will come to light.


You're ignorant, greedy and careless. You'll consume and devour your way through 80 years worth of resources, using more than you should, caring less than you should, making this planet a slightly worse place to live. And there's enough of you that, together, you'll make this planet an unbearable place to live in your desperation to get as many little pieces of paper with "£20" written on it as you can before you die.

How is it humanist propoganda? How is it brainwashing? Provide at least a cursory attempt to qualify your statements. People do not get indoctrinated to believe that life is beautiful and needs no purpose. They realise it for yourself. I consider it an evolutionary step achieved through enough introspection and education. Hopefully, one day, consumers like you will catch up with us and we'll have enough time left on earth to have some fun with it.

>> ^SWBStX:

Either this deer is a pet and the owner put a hunter vest on it in the hopes that hunters wouldn't shoot it. Or... it just killed a hunter and is playing coy before it devours these poor fisherman.


I dress my pet deer in leather and pumps.

Either this deer is a pet and the owner put a hunter vest on it in the hopes that hunters wouldn't shoot it. Or... it just killed a hunter and is playing coy before it devours these poor fisherman.

dannym3141:

Claiming that people should stop burning fossil fuels would HEAVILY dent the income of just about every country because of how much tax they can charge from it. Britain's economy is almost based on fossil fuel tax. How can you possibly argue that they are a politically influenced source over fossil fuel use when they criticise such a money earner?

Politics aside, fossil fuels remain the cheapest, most abundant source of energy, and new supplies of it are being discovered all the time. I never said people should stop burning them.

I hesitate to even mention that "science" as a global community is above reproach in ways that hardly anything else can be due to the method of a scientist. If you are not performing science for truth and discovery, you are not a scientist, so you're not part of the community anymore. That's why it's above reproach. I'm sure you'll argue with me about that, but i know that you'd argue about the time of day if you were proven to be wrong.

I'm not arguing, but I am astonished you would believe scientists are above politics (and reproach), not because the scientific method is flawed, but because scientists are fallible humans with their own beliefs and interests. As W. Pennypacker said in so many words, governments reward scientists which confirm a pre-determined outcome (like secondhand smoke killing 100 billion people a year). Junk science is real; it may not be everywhere, but it's out there. And not just "the oil companies" which have "scientitians" in their corner.

Another thing, gang. Over the last few years, global warming hysteria has been relentless. It's the alarmists who declared, "The debate is over." There was even one smug a-hole who compared "climate deniers" to Holocaust deniers. Classy! There was the faked data scandal. These are not the actions of scientists confident in their conclusions. Yet the lazy media continues to back the alarmists without question.

100 storylines blaming climate change as the problem:

1. The deaths of Aspen trees in the West
2. Incredible shrinking sheep
3. Caribbean coral deaths
4. Eskimos forced to leave their village
5. Disappearing lake in Chile
6. Early heat wave in Vietnam
7. Malaria and water-borne diseases in Africa
8. Invasion of jellyfish in the Mediterranean
9. Break in the Arctic Ice Shelf
10. Monsoons in India
11. Birds laying their eggs early
12. 160,000 deaths a year
13. 315,000 deaths a year
14. 300,000 deaths a year
15. Decline in snowpack in the West
16. Deaths of walruses in Alaska
17. Hunger in Nepal
18. The appearance of oxygen-starved dead zones in the oceans
19. Surge in fatal shark attacks
20. Increasing number of typhoid cases in the Philippines
21. Boy Scout tornado deaths
22. Rise in asthma and hayfever
23. Duller fall foliage in 2007
24. Floods in Jakarta
25. Radical ecological shift in the North Sea
26. Snowfall in Baghdad
27. Western tree deaths
28. Diminishing desert resources
29. Pine beetles
30. Swedish beetles
31. Severe acne
32. Global conflict
33. Crash of Air France 447
34. Black Hawk Down incident
35. Amphibians breeding earlier
36. Flesh-eating disease
37. Global cooling
38. Bird strikes on US Airways 1549
39. Beer tastes different
40. Cougar attacks in Alberta
41. Suicide of farmers in Australia
42. Squirrels reproduce earlier
43. Monkeys moving to Great Rift Valley in Kenya
44. Confusion of migrating birds
45. Bigger tuna fish
46. Water shortages in Las Vegas
47. Worldwide hunger
48. Longer days
49. Earth spinning faster
50. Gender balance of crocodiles
51. Skin cancer deaths in UK
52. Increase in kidney stones in India
53. Penguin chicks frozen by global warming
54. Deaths of Minnesota moose
55. Increased threat of HIV/AIDS in developing countries
56. Increase of wasps in Alaska
57. Killer stingrays off British coasts
58. All societal collapses since the beginning of time
59. Bigger spiders
60. Increase in size of giant squid
61. Increase of orchids in UK
62. Collapse of gingerbread houses in Sweden
63. Cow infertility
64. Conflict in Darfur
65. Bluetongue outbreak in UK cows
66. Worldwide wars
67. Insomnia of children worried about global warming
68. Anxiety problems for people worried about climate change
69. Migration of cockroaches
70. Taller mountains due to melting glaciers
71. Drowning of four polar bears
72. UFO sightings in the UK
73. Hurricane Katrina
74. Greener mountains in Sweden
75. Decreased maple in maple trees
76. Cold wave in India
77. Worse traffic in LA because immigrants moving north
78. Increase in heart attacks and strokes
79. Rise in insurance premiums
80. Invasion of European species of earthworm in UK
81. Cold spells in Australia
82. Increase in crime
83. Boiling oceans
84. Grizzly deaths
85. Dengue fever
86. Lack of monsoons
87. Caterpillars devouring 45 towns in Liberia
88. Acid rain recovery
89. Global wheat shortage; food price hikes
90. Extinction of 13 species in Bangladesh
91. Changes in swan migration patterns in Siberia
92. The early arrival of Turkey’s endangered caretta carettas
93. Radical North Sea shift
94. Heroin addiction
95. Plant species climbing up mountains
96. Deadly fires in Australia
97. Droughts in Australia
98. The demise of California’s agriculture by the end of the century
99. Tsunami in South East Asia
100. Fashion victim: the death of the winter wardrobe


Do you really expect free people to surrender to THIS?

>> ^NetRunner:

If you asked everyone "do you want the news to focus on bullshit, or important stuff?" do you think people would overwhelmingly respond "I want bullshit"?
If you asked everyone "do you want the news to lie to you, or do you want them to tell the truth?" do you think people would overwhelmingly respond "I want to be lied to"?
It's true that people watching Hannity like Hannity. But why does Hannity have a show in the first place? Because someone decided produce a show where ideological propaganda would get sold to people as news.
Who made that choice? Were people complaining that the news was just too truthful?
What choice do you think people tuning into Hannity think they're making? "I want to be told comforting lies?" or "I want the truth, and only Fox News has it?"
As for who should hold news corporations responsible, of course it should be the consumers of news, and people generally. But first you have to get people to stop defending the news media by saying things like "Blame the idiots who devour this garbage" or "to blame corporations is the same as blaming a snake for biting you" and generally get in the face of someone who says "that's not what they're supposed to be doing" when they cut away from Pelosi when she says she won't talk about Weiner!

"If you asked everyone...?


It's a loaded question. Of course, most people are going to respond that they don't want to be lied to. The problem is, it's not a lie if the person lying to you agrees with you. That's just affirmation.

Let's say there is a magical room that "everyone" can sit in. On the left side of this room there is serious debate being honestly reported and covered by good journalists over the fiscal solvency of social security. On the right side of the room is a Bugs Bunny cartoon (or a Jerry Springer episode, a Lady Gaga video, an Alex Jones bit .. ie. anything else). In which direction do you think most of "everyone" is looking?

Most people honestly don't give a shit, they are struggling with their own lives and a quick escape is what they're after. When it's time for news, they don't want honesty, they want the comfort of a voice that confirms their own beliefs. I don't think Hannity viewers (for example) are making a choice between "comforting lies" and "I want the truth, and only Fox News has it?", I think they are comforted by lies because it confirms the easily digestible "truths" they already hold and they're either unwilling or unable to invest more time or intelligence to understand the complexity of reality further.

McCain/Palin got around 46% of the vote in 2008. That means 46% of people were comfortable with the idea of Sarah Palin having the nuclear launch codes of the U.S. arsenal if McCain died (a real possibility considering his age). Don't overestimate people.

This is sort of a silly argument at this point, but I'd like you to understand one thing. I'm not defending the way news is handled. I've said several times that it's awful and shitty .. but it is reality. You don't want it to be reality. Neither do I. But the solution to changing it starts with the consumers, I guess that's where we disagree. The only reason they cut away was for ratings. Again! Yes! That sucks. But that is what a money making machine will do in response to ratings based revenue. Ratings. Ratings. People Watching. People. There's your problem.

If you asked everyone "do you want the news to focus on bullshit, or important stuff?" do you think people would overwhelmingly respond "I want bullshit"?

If you asked everyone "do you want the news to lie to you, or do you want them to tell the truth?" do you think people would overwhelmingly respond "I want to be lied to"?

It's true that people watching Hannity like Hannity. But why does Hannity have a show in the first place? Because someone decided produce a show where ideological propaganda would get sold to people as news.

Who made that choice? Were people complaining that the news was just too truthful?

What choice do you think people tuning into Hannity think they're making? "I want to be told comforting lies?" or "I want the truth, and only Fox News has it?"

As for who should hold news corporations responsible, of course it should be the consumers of news, and people generally. But first you have to get people to stop defending the news media by saying things like "Blame the idiots who devour this garbage" or "to blame corporations is the same as blaming a snake for biting you" and generally get in the face of someone who says "that's not what they're supposed to be doing" when they cut away from Pelosi when she says she won't talk about Weiner!

>> ^burdturgler:

What makes you think people 'in power' need an excuse?
You're comparing buying gas and clothes to watching cable news. They're not the same thing. People don't need to watch Hannity, they do it because THEY LIKE IT. The masses don't stand up to stop it because they're busy diving face first into the trough and gorging on it.
Yes, the corporations that produce "news" should be held accountable. But if not by their consumers then who?

I'll help, @siftbot (devour me last!)

*kids *wheels

Well, I for one and glad you've gone from not understanding the point of the video, to thinking the point the video makes is so obvious that it's stupid to make a fuss about it.

I blame lots of people for lots of things, but "being stupid" isn't one of them. It's the smart people who know better, but are doing shit like this I'm mad about.

They're working very hard to make sure the stupid stay stupid, and sometimes it's so obvious it just makes me sick.

>> ^burdturgler:

You're saying that cable news channels broadcast based on ratings? I'm shocked. I thought they were all funded through C-Span.
Blame the idiots who devour this garbage. The vast majority is a shitty stew of stupid and doesn't give a fuck.

You're saying that cable news channels broadcast based on ratings? I'm shocked. I thought they were all funded through C-Span.

Blame the idiots who devour this garbage. The vast majority is a shitty stew of stupid and doesn't give a fuck.

Have to admit, I wrote a ton of reactionary shit here, and I felt like I was devouring myself writing it. Deleted it all .. Truth is, I hate affirmative action. I hate it. It was created to counter the racist hiring practices which do still exist today, but no one should ever be hired based on race. If there are disparities in qualifications between races then we need to address the social issues that cause that. Not hire people based on skin color to shore up the numbers. I think the fact that the disparity still exists means we aren't committing enough to education, especially in urban areas. We have to re-double our efforts to assure that everyone who is willing to work to get an education and an opportunity gets exactly that.

I do think it's shitty that this video compares someone's "right" to play on a basketball team to someone who can't feed his family because he won't be hired for a job based on his skin.

Thank you voice of reason. Crazy people are just crazy, end of story.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Um, she wouldn't have tried to kill herself and her children if it weren't for her crazy religious beliefs.
If she was crazy - but only believed that skittles are dangerous and must devoured on sight - her kids would be fine & she'd only have diabeetus. [instead of prison]
>> ^campionidelmondo:
>> ^shuac:
For good people to behave insanely requires religion.

Don't you rather mean: "For crazy people to act crazy requires nothing at all"?



>> ^campionidelmondo:
Crazy people often do more violent things than eat skittles. I don't see the connection between her crazy actions and religion. Linking this to religion is just like linking school shootings to violent video games. No, nothing that's being mass consumed drove this person from being the nice neighbour to slaughtering people. Stop looking for the fault in the things you don't like and accept the fact that some people are just crazy.