Borders are about to be history. It is only a matter of time. The more connected the people of the world are the less accepted it will be to draw arbitrary lines in the sand to divide us up.

-karl

I do personally deal with racism in my family. My father knows that if he uses the n word in my presence, I will warn him that I will leave the room if he says it again. So he doesn't.

Same thing here, except bobk is warned that the door will be locked to him if he continues.

Except for Burd, nobody thinks bobk should have been permabanned, do they? So can we drop that argument? Burd has told me that he has once again left the Sift because of the tolerance for racism here, so you are arguing with no one, blankie.

So.... Can we now discuss whether dag is correct to draw the line in the sand, blankie? We all agree a permaban is not appropriate. But what about dag's line in the sand?

You think that bobk's comment is benign, along with some others who agree with you. You know that many others do not see it as benign, they see it as destructive.

Dag has announced how he feels -- do it again, and you are gone.

Are you okay with what the community has settled on, blankie? Community seems to be very important to you. And this is your Sift blog, so I am directing this question to you, rather than generally. Are you okay with where we ended up?


>> ^Ryjkyj:

I have friends who are racist. Hell my own father and grandfather are racist. Does that mean I should remove them from my life because they would be uncomfortable with me dating a black woman?

>> ^blankfist:

What do you mean "safer"? Are we worried about physical violence all of a sudden? I think we've already built a good community by example, and we need to hold to it by doing much less to improve it by way of banning or drawing lines in the sand.
When we do that, we create boundary pushers and a litigious community. That always makes things more tedious than helpful. If someone does something really bad, we'll all know it - calling someone the n word directly, for instance. But growing a bit of thicker skin is preferable in these mildly offensive situations.


So what about people who don't have thick skin, and don't want to have to grow it to participate in VideoSift's community?

Not to mention, aren't we talking about racist comments? Why should anyone have to be "thick skinned" about that?

What do you mean "safer"? Are we worried about physical violence all of a sudden? I think we've already built a good community by example, and we need to hold to it by doing much less to improve it by way of banning or drawing lines in the sand.

When we do that, we create boundary pushers and a litigious community. That always makes things more tedious than helpful. If someone does something really bad, we'll all know it - calling someone the n word directly, for instance. But growing a bit of thicker skin is preferable in these mildly offensive situations.

blankfist, your 45 minute ban wasn't because of favoritism. dag drew a line in the sand, which you immediately crossed. dag obviously doesn't like drawing lines in sand or disciplining people who call his bluff, which is why he is trying push that responsibility onto us. I too would rather see the admins take care of these kinds of issues rather than implementing some kind of complicated scheme, but dag doesn't want to be bothered with it, and it's his site, and I completely understand where he is coming from - he's got better things to do, like grilling shrimps on barbies, petting kangaroos and going on walkabouts in the outback.

If anything, favoritism works in your favor, since you are such an old and prominent member of the community. If a probie had dished out those ad homs, he'd probably be gone for good. Choggie is another example of favoritism. No one has abused the system more then he, and he's been banned dozens of times, yet he's allowed to stay because he is a colorful character who has become a fixture to this site.

If a system need be put in place, Genji's seems pretty smart. If it is abused, the admins can remove the offending sifters privileges.

hahaha... joedearth awkwardly barges in after a long hiatus and promptly gets himself banned. Classic. >> ^joedirt:

You are a dumb cunt. I've seen people run off the sift, some good women even.
You decide to make a line in the sand with cunt punching? I hope you realize that video is basically making a Jackass(tm) equivalent for tomgirls that have reached the same level of horsing around as men. It might be the most feminist video on the sift, but you got your panties in a bunch (yes I know degrading and sexist, but you are weak-minded it appears).

Of all the times to fight against misogynists, I think you fell on your crippled vag.

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

This kind of hateful namecalling is a pretty blatant violation of our guidelines JD. I don't want to let this go and I'm imposing a 2 week ban on your account.

In reply to this comment by joedirt:
You are a dumb cunt. I've seen people run off the sift, some good women even.

You decide to make a line in the sand with cunt punching? I hope you realize that video is basically making a Jackass(tm) equivalent for tomgirls that have reached the same level of horsing around as men. It might be the most feminist video on the sift, but you got your panties in a bunch (yes I know degrading and sexist, but you are weak-minded it appears).


Of all the times to fight against misogynists, I think you fell on your crippled vag.

>> ^joedirt:

You are a dumb cunt. I've seen people run off the sift, some good women even.
You decide to make a line in the sand with cunt punching? I hope you realize that video is basically making a Jackass(tm) equivalent for tomgirls that have reached the same level of horsing around as men. It might be the most feminist video on the sift, but you got your panties in a bunch (yes I know degrading and sexist, but you are weak-minded it appears).

Of all the times to fight against misogynists, I think you fell on your crippled vag.


As hilarious as this comment is for all its crass wrongness, I will go on record saying I agree with joedirt for the content of the comment. Of all the things to get ireful about, a woman voluntarily exercising her sameness with men isn't one.

Maybe if there was a video of sexual harassment in the office everyone was going goo-goo for? But this seems to be simply something some of the more dramatic women on here consider to be showing other women in a light they dislike.

Hey, not all women moan about how terrible the men in their lives are. Some of them have actually good experiences with us, and believe it or not they actually like us. And we like them. Hell, we also love them. We love them because just like misery loves company for maybe some of you so does happiness. We choose the people we interact with on a day-to-day basis, and that includes those who treat us well or those who don't.

See, @berticus, I say some serious shit sometimes that doesn't involve statist idiots.

You are a dumb cunt. I've seen people run off the sift, some good women even.

You decide to make a line in the sand with cunt punching? I hope you realize that video is basically making a Jackass(tm) equivalent for tomgirls that have reached the same level of horsing around as men. It might be the most feminist video on the sift, but you got your panties in a bunch (yes I know degrading and sexist, but you are weak-minded it appears).


Of all the times to fight against misogynists, I think you fell on your crippled vag.

>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^westy:
I think what this video inadvertantly highlights is that Education is directly tied with atheism the more intellectual/educated sum-one is the harder it is for them to believe in bullshit and the more likely it is they will do things based on facts of reality to improve reality.

You should check out this study, which basically shows that isn't the case. The high proportion of atheist scientists compared to the general population seems to be a function of upbringing (i.e. they were raised in homes that didn't place much importance on religion). The increased education seems to have little effect on those who enter the field with religious convictions. In other words, those raised in non-religious households seem to self-select disproportionately highly into the sciences. The study states that more investigation is required before coming to any conclusions as to why, but they didn't see any indication of people giving up their religious beliefs as they advanced in their education or career.


One interesting aspect coming out in psychological studies versus genetic backgrounds shows one interesting aspect of people that have Asperger's being unable to relate to religion and are constantly looking for a more rational explanation for any event. Likewise, some people may show an inclination to be religious via their genetics.

Most likely this is due to a preference in the way the brain decides to use information. Such as: the right hemisphere versus the left; or even to the extent of specific areas on one side--like math over chemistry.

This is VERY new information. Their was another study out on Friday I believe (look for it at physorg.com) that showed that people that were religious tended to be more healthy both mentally and physically. However, the study (from what I could find) doesn't really say whether they took the disparity between population numbers into account. Also they never took into account situations like autistic savants, Asperger's, bi-polar, and other conditions that tend to "create" extremely smart people, comparatively(I'm guessing this might happen as they tend to favor the left hemisphere and also have a very different perspectives than your normal healthy average human--giving them "fresh eyes" and a new perception intrinsically).

This video is definitely made to provoke. I don't necessarily like how it does it and I'm atheist. While I disagree with religion in any capacity where it wants to use faith/belief to solve a situation instead of the logical tried and true method, that is where I draw a line in the sand (like Creationism; it's useless to us in every aspect: it explains nothing, is useless in practice, and assumes everything). Religion doesn't necessarily bother me when it's used in a social setting. The only time this isn't true is when it crosses the "religion/state" barrier and rights of others; as is the case for many gay people. I know a lot of religious people that sit on a logical side of the fence and many that sit on the other side and try to (in my estimation) usurp the rights of others for poor reasons and in fact religious ones (state vs. religion again).

Lot's of the religious people (I'm in Utah so I know my situation is semi-unique) I know that refute many logical tenets, like evolution, tend to do so in a way that shows they are INCREDIBLY insecure when it comes to "smarts". I've had some people tell me they belong to MENSA and in the same sentence tell me evolution is fraud and it should be obvious as to why this is true (they usually have no "logical" reason to explain why this is true other than faith; I have yet to hear a good reason...). This may also be an indication that even in religion there is a disparity between other religious people and that it may even be a psychological/physical condition that causes it via genetics.

It would be a new world if you could wager whether someone is religious or not, before they are even born. To me that is a game changer, but to others I know they will not see why that is true.

/edit

>> ^NetRunner:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/GeeSussFreeK" title="member since August 1st, 2008" class="profilelink">GeeSussFreeK you want to make an argument to go along with your factoid? Are you saying Libyan oil production doesn't affect oil prices?
Believe me, this is one I want to be wrong about. I wish I believed it was all about noble notions. Maybe for a lot of the people out there calling for intervention, it is. But I don't buy it. I'm willing to believe it's a confluence of oil, nobody liking Gaddafi, and the fact that he's murdering civilians. But we don't like lots of people, and to be frank, lots of dictators murder civilians. Yet Libya is where we're drawing a line in the sand, and quickly too.


O ya, don't throw me in the support camp by any means. Just pointing out that we aren't in a "real" threat of oil not being at the gas station any time soon or something. You are attesting to a thing that is hard to know, but most likely some truth. It's why things like wikileaks are nice, get to see the REAL reasons behind political actions. This all seems like a boondoggle in the making.

@GeeSussFreeK you want to make an argument to go along with your factoid? Are you saying Libyan oil production doesn't affect oil prices?

Believe me, this is one I want to be wrong about. I wish I believed it was all about noble notions. Maybe for a lot of the people out there calling for intervention, it is. But I don't buy it. I'm willing to believe it's a confluence of oil, nobody liking Gaddafi, and the fact that he's murdering civilians. But we don't like lots of people, and to be frank, lots of dictators murder civilians. Yet Libya is where we're drawing a line in the sand, and quickly too.

>> ^blankfist:

All land is owned but people buy land all the time. There's not some evil Bill Gates sitting on the land, laughing maniacally because he won't sell any of it. If you want to "rent" the land, then it's in the interest of the landlord to offer that land at a competitive price. Again, it's not a crazy Bill Gates charging a poor family a zillion dollars just because he can.

I think you're missing my point. My point is why should I give a shit what Bill Gates thinks? Why does he get to threaten me with violence unless I give him something, just so I can create my own food to sustain myself?

Because he or some government drew a line in the sand, put a gun in my face, and told me I can't?

>> ^blankfist:
What threats of violence? You mean if you "steal" the food from the grocer who in turn had to pay the shippers and the farmers?

Why did the grocer "have to" pay the shippers and farmers? Threats of violence if he didn't?

>> ^blankfist:
If you create a victim out of the grocer and steal his property, then of course he'd have the right to protect it. It seems like you're grasping at straws trying to paint self-defense and defense of property (that which is purchased by the profit of your own labor) as the same violence used by the state. It is not.

Like I said, you might think the violent threats are justified. That doesn't change that you're talking about threatening violence against someone whose only crime is violating the edict of some authority who said "don't eat this food, or I'll inflict violence on you".

All you're doing is saying you side with the violent authoritarian, because you think his authority is legitimate.

>> ^blankfist:
The state, in your scenario, is more like the person who claims he's in need of the food and must take his fair share from the grocer. This is in fact stealing. What's the difference?

Absolutely backwards. The grocer is the one who's saying he must take his "fair share" from the hungry man. If he doesn't get it, he'll use violence. That certainly deters our starving poor from trying to take food from grocery stores without paying the grocer's ransom.

I don't see the difference between what the state does and that, honestly.

>> ^blankfist:
And this is the important part, so feel free to grab your pad and pen: One is offensive violence, and one is defensive violence. There's a big difference between a woman being attacked and using pepper spray versus, say, a group of white Mississippi cops spraying a bunch of "negro" protestors during a 1960s civil rights march.

But those are examples of person-on-person violence. The hungry man who eats the grocer's food isn't being violent at all, yet he will have violence inflicted on him for defying the wishes of the grocer.

Not unlike the poor non-violent resident of California who will have electrodes strapped to his nuts for failing to pay his taxes.

>> ^blankfist:
I don't think California is a "better deal". You're way off base. It's not a better deal. It's my fucking home. The US is my home.

Okay, but it's also not a prison. If you wanted to leave, you could. Staying is a choice, and one you make absent any coercion.

The US is also not your property. The allodial title is held by the US government. Buying real estate in California does not grant you a tract of sovereign territory. You are still obligated to follow the laws of California, and the US, including the ones regarding taxes.

If you don't like the rules and obligations that come with living in the US, you don't have to live in the US, just like if you don't like your local grocer's rule of "no shirt, no shoes, no service" you can shop somewhere else.

In both cases, you can complain all you like, and try to persuade the property owners to change things to be more to your liking. But according to your own views on property, there is no issue of "rights" that would compel either property owner to accede to your desires.

However, if you just take what you think you're entitled to over the objections of the property owner, then you're committing the same crime you accused my hungry man of: stealing.

Thanks so much for the promotes.
In reply to this comment by eric3579:
*double promote

Just like speeding limits will end up with cars being banned. Just like gay marriage will lead to polygamy and bestiality. This is my problem with libertarianism as a whole, it's not an absolutist position in the slightest. It's drawing a line in the sand slightly to the right of the general societal consensus around you in terms of individual ownership rights and liberties.

As for guns in particular:

You have 89 guns per 100 people. The next country down, Switzerland, has half (46 per 100) and is in itself is an outlier:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership

By a conservative estimate on total firearm deaths you are 8th in the world per capita.

On homicides per capita alone you are 10th in the world. The next, and first other developed country down in descending order is Italy with just 23% of the US. The next is Finland with 12%.

On unintentional deaths, you are ranked 3rd in the world. The next developed country down, Spain, has a rate per capita, 42% of the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Now, let's put aside the whole argument over whether owning a gun is a right. Is there really any disputing that high gun ownership rates in the US lead to high death rates a a result of firearms?

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, when it's fear based and affects other people's rights? I'd say that's when fear is bad. It doesn't start with "let's get rid of all guns" which is what most of you really feel. It starts with, "Maybe we should revisit this whole gun control conversation again. Maybe we do little more this time to ensure our safety."
Sure, clips are limited this time around. Next, the caliber of bullet is limited. Those who can own guns is limited further. Where those guns can be located is limited further. Eventually what're we left with? Are the 20,000 gun laws currently on the books not enough? Of course they're not, because they still allow people to own them, and that's really the point isn't it? It's disingenuous and opportunistic (not to mention horrible) to wrap yourself in self-righteous indignation over Green's death and then use it further your political agenda.