Yeah, but it's like when Donnie Yen as Yip Man trains all of the factory workers to fight over the course of months; yeah you can take one, two, maybe three or four peasant workers down, but then you get clubbed on the head by like 7 other women with bo staffs. Meanwhile, female Donnie Yen -- Michelle Yeoh is stalking your every move and you don't even see as she breaks every rib in your body with quick successive punches.

Congratulations! Your comment on Honest Trailers - Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 13 Badge!

Your video, Honest Trailers - Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Not a joke when this happens in a sugar factory:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg7mLSG-Yws

No, being on RT does not negate his reputation, but it tarnishes it, imo. It doesn't make him a liar, it makes him SUSPECT....less trustworthy, not untrustworthy.
I think using the reporter's chosen organization's reputation as one piece of evidence to make that determination is proper, I think we may just disagree on the weight we give that piece of evidence.

I explained that he doesn't have to stoop to the level of demagogue to serve the propaganda machine by lending them his reputation, and that harm's his rep. He may be 100% honest and factual, but he still helps spread obvious propaganda just by his presence, and I think both he and they know it well, and that's a huge disappointment from him for me.

Yes Chomsky is a good example of how, even though he's correct in his assertions, he gives a skewed view by omitting a comparison with the only alternatives (in speeches).

Again, imo, all news is suspect, there is hardly an example of "hard hitting journalism" in main stream media today that's not tainted with bias either by the reporters or the news organization that employs them. I'm not special, I don't have access to good news, and I'm not sure I could recognize it if I did, at this point. I think most reporting done today is at least in part an echo chamber/bubble meant to reinforce bias, which is why it bothers me so much when one of the few decent reporters takes a job with a propaganda factory...choices matter, who you surround yourself with matters, and surrounding yourself with unapologetic liars should hurt anyone's rep, especially a reporter with a reputation for telling unbiased truth.

Being critical of power doesn't cut it for me if it's designed to hide or excuse other criticism of another power....that's why I need to see him be critical of Putin on RT to regain some trust...until then, bye Felicia.

29 comments, most of them rather long and more-or-less well reasoned, yet none about the content.

I get if you don't trust RT. It's a propaganda outlet of a foreign government, after all. But RT is not Chemical Ali style of propaganda: it is solid, well-researched reporting on many topics, subtly slanted on others, and completely balls-to-the-wall denial of reality on others again.

You want to take that as a reason to ignore it entirely? Knock yourself out.

I won't. Which isn't saying much, because I prefer text over video.

Anyway, they regularly offer a valuably "Korrektiv" with regards to reporting in the mainstream media. Of course I would prefer if I could get that from a less-dubious outlet like, maybe, the Indepedant, or the NZZ, but I can't.

Let's talk about the content of this clip, shall we.

Hedges references the Prop-or-Not pieces run by the WaPo. Does anyone here disagree that those were a total and utter smear job? Painting Truthout, Truthdig, Counterpunch, Alternet, BlackAgendaReport, NakedCapitalism and others as stooges of the Kremlin is such an obvious attempt to discredit dissenting voices that it's, quite frankly, rather offensive. Yves Smith and Glen Ford as mouthpieces of the Kremlin... my ass cheeks.

On the other hand, quite a lot of journalists in the US seem to have embraced the Red Scare with open arms, seeing as it gives an excuse as to why their previous HRC lost against the orange-skinned buffoon. Kyle illustrated it nicely with Rachel Maddow.

Second point: they had James Clapper present the report. Seriously? The fucker was caught lying under oath during the initial stages of the NSA revelations. Wasn't the fuckface also in charge of the satellite reconnaisence prior to the Iraq war, who could have presented imagery that debunked the claims of WMD "factories", and decided not to? He is just as trustworthy as Chemical Ali, but less entertaining.

Third: half the report was about RT. Why? I thought it was meant to outline how they "hacked" the election? What does their propaganda outlet have to do with that? And the critique they presented... has anyone read the passage about the "alleged Wall Street greed"? They are having a laugh, and people take it seriously.

Fourth: it distracts from the aspects of HRC's loss they don't want to be a subject of public discussion: class issues. They offered nothing for the working class, who got a shoddy deal over the last decades, and tried to focus entirely on identity politics, completely denying even the existence of class issues. Which is also why it's now the "white, male worker" who is to blame. Nevermind that >50% of white, female workers also voted Trump. Nevermind that significant portions of non-white working class folks also voted Trump. Can't be. According to the narrative, these people are minorities first, working-class second, and identity politics always trumps class politics. Except it didn't.

All this rage at the "deplorables", the "less educated"... it just reeks massively of class bigotry. Those plebs decided to vote for someone other than our beloved Queen HRC? How dare they...

And finally, RT's own part of this segment, about the credibility of the intelligence community's claims. Any disagreement on this? Anyone? Anyone think the torturers at the CIA are trustworthy enough to take their word without hard evidence?

While I agree, being on RT does not mean the story is falsified, but it does mean you can't assume it's not.

When propaganda machines masquerade as news, you're better off just ignoring them, even though they will likely tell the truth every now and then. The issue is you can't tell, without extraordinary investigation, which is real reporting and which is pure propaganda, and which is a mixture. What this means is most people who get their news from these organizations will be constantly misinformed and less knowledgeable about the actual facts, having been duped by propagandists.

No reputable reporter would tarnish their reputation by joining one of these lie factories, IMO. That Chris Hedges ended up here means he made a HUGE mistake somewhere and is no longer working as an actual reporter but instead has become a purveyor of biased opinion.

What I think swayed tens of thousands of voters was the reporting of the underhanded collusion between Clinton and the DNC. Most didn't vote for Trump, they didn't vote for president at all, or went 3rd party.

What happened in 2001-2002 was the administration cherry picked and twisted intelligence to make a case for war against a country that had not attacked us, the intelligence community was not on board for the most part, and many declassified reports indicate they were not at all confident about WMD's or them having any hand in 9/11, contrary to the administrations public and zealous position at the time.....but that is why it is relevant. Trump has shown he'll take his own advice and viewpoint over intelligence professionals, so the idea that he'll lie about, twist, and ignore intelligence reports is relevant....he's already done so and he's not even president yet.

Lol. Lebowski.

I'm studying mechanical engineering (hons) with masters in biomedical engineering. It's a head fuck. I don't think anyone offers firearm design as a major itself.

The trigger finger is the primary safety (debatable), and there is usually a secondary safety and sometimes a tertiary safety. It's true that not having it is different than removing it but sometimes they are redundant. For example the palm safety (a tertiary safety on most guns) is often pinned to turn it off permanently because it didn't add any real benefit.

The particular gun in question looks like a CZ-75. A little hunting in the Youtube comments and other people agree. This particular model originally had a firing pin block which was eventually removed on later models (that have the same internals) because it wasn't needed (probably because they also have a thumb safety). This allowed for the short reset disconnector to be put in place (which is a factory part). So CZ ships two lines of the same gun - one with the firing pin block and one without. You're not suddenly unsafe if you remove it from the model that has it. With the quality of the video the way it is though, it could end up being another gun entirely.

Yes, x-ray diffraction is not the only method. It was an example only. The point being that your average gun owner and gunsmiths don't use these sorts of techniques as regular preventative maintenance. And they don't need to, guns are cheap and replacement parts are cheap. If something breaks you replace it. Some parts are replaced on a maintenance schedule (springs spring to mind). Most people never fire enough rounds through their firearms to need to replace anything.

Factory condition firearms malfunctioning is not rare. Factory condition firearms self firing is quite rare. But several model firearms have been affected over the years (meaning millions of firearms). But usually the problem is with a small batch of firearms from within those millions but they always do a blanket recall.

I agree, unintentional firing of a gun is almost always user error.

I still don't believe their is enough information from the video and accompanying text to make a judgment call on this guy.

That's just, like, your opinion, man. ;-) I wouldn't rely on that position to help in court.

If you're really studying firearm design, you surely know different safety devices are on different firearms. Not having a certain device is different from inexpertly removing one.

Xray inspection isn't the only method, there's dpi (dye penetrant inspection) , magnetic particle, ultrasonic, eddy current testing, etc. I would be surprised to find a competent gunsmith that had never done at least one of those...I've done it for car parts in my garage, cheaply and easily.

How many videos would I find of well maintained factory condition firearms malfunctioning and discharging? I would expect that to be quite rare.

Thanks to safety features and decent quality control, unintentionally discharging is almost always user error, not malfunction, with rare exceptions like you mentioned. In this case it seems to be malfunction, both of the aftermarket part unprofessionally installed and the safety feature he removed that may have stopped the discharge even with the original failure. Imo, that's negligence, whether it in fact caused the discharge or not, because it made it far more likely to unintentionally discharge.

That's not true either. Following their directions doesn't mean you won't be negligent. Not following their direction doesn't mean you are negligent. You're conflating things. Each situation needs to be judged on it's own merits.

Removing safety features is not negligence unless you make the firearm unsafe. None of my firearms have a firing pin block from the factory. They're all safe firearms. My triggers have been lightened - they're still safe firearms. I've seen triggers lightened so much that they are unsafe. As before, each instance is judged on it's own merits.

I'll soon finish my mechanical engineering degree (and don't you know it, I'm looking for a job in firearm designing), so I do know a little about this stuff. Whilst with the proper equipment you can detect crack propagation or premature wear, this is not done on consumer products like firearms. That's why I wrote "this sort of item". Unless you're going to spend more money than the firearm is worth trying to detect cracks, you won't know it has cracked until you visually identify it.

Sure proper cleaning and gun inspection is part of having a safe, well functioning firearm. But don't fool yourself into thinking it's an aeroplane or space shuttle in inspections. Go ask your local gunsmith - the best one you can find - how many times he's done x-ray diffraction on a firearm for preventative maintenance. Chances are he's going to say zero.

Spend 5 seconds on google and I know you will find multiple videos of factory condition firearms discharging unintentionally. You'll also find recall information affecting millions of firearms - firearms at risk of unintentional discharge.

I should have qualified "much". More or less than 2500 rounds a year?

*ban
Farm Factory Township
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1CZ0cM-Eg0

Many police think they shouldn't be held to the same standards as the rest of us. It's just like the flap over the Cheesecake Factory recently not seating armed Dept. of Correction officers.

It isn't a corporate policy, but the local store had a rule of no firearms. Rather than lock their guns in the trunk of their service vehicle, they pitched a fit and led to a corporate apology. They weren't even police, but correctional officers.

Thanks for the pointer. Looks like his movie is available on Vimeo- https://vimeo.com/16598921
(24 min, b&w)

And I never said that nerdwriter (or anyone else) isn't allowed to criticize movies.

My point is that anyone looking for art in modern movies will inevitably be disappointed. The art in filmmaking has been replaced with business. And like @artician mentions above, creative work has to appeal to a large audience.

I'm not saying that there aren't any well made artful movies anymore, just that the ratio of those to hollywood-factory-churned-mediocre-fest movies is steadily decreasing.