Reading the comments, my fear is that the outrage people are feeling is being framed in the wrong context. If we don't get the proper handle on this, all that outrage is going to fall on deaf ears. The people who are at the root of this are going to sense that we don't understand what's going on and dismiss all protests as irrelevant.

This is certainly not an issue of "evil government" or "power hungry institutions". This is an issue that involves people. People that are just like you and me. In fact, the ones who are responsible for the monster that's been created ARE people with the same motivations and rational capacity as you and I.

"We have met the enemy, and he is us." - Pogo

We are almost all guilty of making personal, selfish, idealistic and altruistic choices with blinders on to the larger impact of our choices. We all have a frustrating capacity for focusing on small picture goals and ignoring the big picture results. How many of us work for industries that have horrible environmental and social impact? Do you ever take into account the contribution you make to those disasters? Or are you comfortable in the belief that one person, "you", making fried chicken isn't responsible for the agregious level of child obesity in your country? Or you satisfied that building servers for BP doesn't in any way make you culpable for the massive negative impact of the industry as a whole?

We want to frame the ills of our societies in terms of villains which we can name...and even put a face on. But in the large chain of decisions that must be made and actions that must be taken, there is almost never one individual with the power to change the course of events. If one is ever identified, that person is almost certainly a scape goat, selected by popular consent for the very purpose of putting a face to the atrocities.

Governments and corporations are collections of individuals with the same strengths, weaknesses and short sightedness that we all posses.

So this problem arises from a troubling mentality that's very common in all orginzations. The tendency to view our individual actions and contributions as discrete from the larger result of the group. A small minded focus on results over impact.

This issue needs to be addressed in those terms, the troubling realization that good people with good intentions lost sight of the bigger picture. Only then will our protests ring true to the people involved.

And understand what's being discussed here also. This is not about personal invasion of privacy. That's certainly not how the architects of this see it. This is not the local police wire tapping "you". This is about a massive collection of data that could never be utilized effectively in those terms. It's complete historical data that exists for the purpose of analyzing as a whole, to learn the patterns that signify the actions of people who would do you harm. It is at the point such patterns are identified that investigation at an individual level, within that data, would begin. Perhaps that's why the people who created and manage this system don't feel it's a threat to you. Because they have no interest in you and didn't design the system for you...assuming you're not a terrorist.

But the danger that WE know is real, that they've lost sight of, is a matter of degrees. What happens when the definition of "enemy" begins to slip? What happens when, over time, all dissent is viewed as disruptive to the security of the country?

That's the big picture and that's the danger. Make sure you're protesting the right thing, if you want to be heard.

This woman has wreaked havoc in our societies, her teachings are what has lead to "financial crisis" where few people who have it, are pure selfish asshats and continue to steal as much as they can and no matter what it does to others.. She teaches that Darwinism is the only way, helping the poor is unnatural etc etc. If we would be strictly a "biological" society (bacteria..) instead of this highly cultural and basically altruistic one, she would have a point. She did not know what love was and never understood what it's powers are. And her followers are in power. That is scary, bunch of people whose ideology is "justified" by Rand: "Be selfish, it's the best thing you can do!"

'Rescue' is definitely a mischaracterization. The wolverine was expecting dinner, not acting in some altruistic manner.

http://imgur.com/a/EmhRt
So, the first part is just me moving around a few things to make more room, because I think the top of the site is wasting lots of space.

I think the Promoted videos loks sort of like ads, but the sift of the week is exactly like an ad to me - look at picture 2 where it has an ad right above it.

I would like to see the whole right side bar only use small things, while the left main page can show big things.

When something is promoted to the front page like bareboards2's post, I would want that above the promoted videos, as it seems to break the flow of reading - and * frontpage should be more powerful than * promote.

There's something off about the promoted videos. They obviously try to squish in the title in small font so it can be shown, but at the same time it feels weird I think. Compare a promoted thumbnail with a regular one:
http://i.imgur.com/GFnBp.jpg
The bottom bar on the regular one actually presses in vital information about comments, which is the centerpoint of the sift, together with the videos themselves. This should not be overlooked - the promote needs something like that.

The "Featured" banner is unnecessary - "show, don't tell". We know it's featured, because the damn thing is right in our faces!

I also can't see who posted the video, which is part of my "1 second evaluation" of whether or not I should give the video a chance. There are people I know have tastes that correspond to mine, so this will often give a video that I've already "passed" a second chance at my precious vote/view.

Here's a quick mock-up of a different, but similar way of doing it:
http://i.imgur.com/Hqets.jpg

As for the mechanical way of having only three at the top at any point, I think it gives the wrong incentives.

They will only rotate out when someone "knocks another one down", so there's inherent trolling in that.

There's uncertainty in what you get for your precious powerpoint, uncertainty ALWAYS lead to inaction - so people are scared off and won't use them at all.

@dag mentioned the guiding principles:

"1. Changes should promote altruistic social behavior and limit self-interest (that's been with us since the beginning)
2. Changes should increase the usefulness of the site"

If you can align both points in the first, that's much better. People are inherently self interested first and altruistic after that. Just "consuming" videos is a self-interested thing as well, so we have to make it as easy for someone to absorb the content as possible. For the posters, we also must give the fitting incentives for providing value to the site, but the two types of visitors and two very different animals (although almost all posters are also viewers).

I feel the promote system limits the usefulness of the site for the posters. I don't really want to promote anything, because it'll just be gone again as soon as anyone else gets the idea of posting. I also have to consider whether or not I want the currently promoted video to stick around a little longer before posting - maybe the promoted videos are something I don't like, so me and my posse of late night sifters keep promoting them away from the promote reel with our videos of Maru, the wonder-cat, jumping into things.

I hope my ramblings and child-like drawings make sense.

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

I would say that we have been as inclusive in the development process as possible. We had several rounds of feature request discussions, we let testers in as early as possible and we implemented *many* features directly from ideas thought up by Sifters. The maximum power points by year limitation, for example.

I don't know how we could have been more inclusive. At some point Lucky and I have to make decisions and implement.

No, we did not implement everything that everyone asked for - a camel is a horse designed by a committee. We were going for horse - not camel.

we do have a couple of guiding principles though that we use for making changes:

1. Changes should promote altruistic social behaviour and limit self-interest (that's been with us since the beginning)
2. Changes should increase the usefulness of the site

I'm not saying we succeeded on those points - but that's what we're always going for.

>> ^Sotto_Voce:

Praising his action as "honest" suggests that there was a "dishonest" path available to him which he rejected. But there wasn't! If he had kept those bonds he wouldn't have been able to cash them. So the options available to him were: (a) return the bonds and get a bunch of free publicity, or (b) hold on to the bonds and get a bunch of free useless bits of paper. Option (a) doesn't sound all that altruistic when you put it in perspective.
A nice surprise for the people who got those bonds, but the junk guy isn't some selfless hero here.
>> ^Barseps:
Ok, whether genuine or not, it don't change the fact that he did an honest thing.
Promote
Quality



You mean like drop some cash on fake documents to cash bonds at what would probably be an over worked financial office?

Then again he could be more heavy handed and just approach those people saying he had them, and if they wanted to split it he would not destroy them. As you said he had nothing to lose by shredding them if the kids did not comply.

Where was it ever said that the only actions worthy of note or credit were those that were 100% selfless, that guy just handed those people enough cash to improve their life noticeably and they were more than grateful to him for it, what more reason is needed to pat the guy on the back?

>> ^Sotto_Voce:

Praising his action as "honest" suggests that there was a "dishonest" path available to him which he rejected. But there wasn't! If he had kept those bonds he wouldn't have been able to cash them. So the options available to him were: (a) return the bonds and get a bunch of free publicity, or (b) hold on to the bonds and get a bunch of free useless bits of paper. Option (a) doesn't sound all that altruistic when you put it in perspective.
A nice surprise for the people who got those bonds, but the junk guy isn't some selfless hero here.
>> ^Barseps:
Ok, whether genuine or not, it don't change the fact that he did an honest thing.
Promote
Quality



I'm sure he could have got something for them if he was so inclined..

Praising his action as "honest" suggests that there was a "dishonest" path available to him which he rejected. But there wasn't! If he had kept those bonds he wouldn't have been able to cash them. So the options available to him were: (a) return the bonds and get a bunch of free publicity, or (b) hold on to the bonds and get a bunch of free useless bits of paper. Option (a) doesn't sound all that altruistic when you put it in perspective.

A nice surprise for the people who got those bonds, but the junk guy isn't some selfless hero here.

>> ^Barseps:

Ok, whether genuine or not, it don't change the fact that he did an honest thing.
Promote
Quality

>> ^Sagemind:

Ya,,, well..., perhaps he deserves a little free publicity
>> ^spoco2:
"It warms my heart to get all this free publicity, it really does"



Yeah, maybe he does, but just pointing out that it's not being done completely altruistically. If it were he wouldn't have alerted media before taking the bonds over there and have them tag along, and posed in front of his truck with his phone number.

He could have just found them, and returned them, no media involved.

Then he would have deserved any free publicity someone wanted to bestow upon him.

Dude, why would they do some altruistic humanitarian venture? They're fucking Taco Bell. I like tacos. I especially like free tacos.

>> ^spoco2:

@seltar My issue is with you labelling it 'a nice thing to do'. A nice thing to do would be for Taco Bell to do some sort of humanitarian work in the town, maybe build a community centre, a library, just provide something the town needs.
Hey, they could have even pretty much done what they did here... They could have flown in stuff for them to make their tacos and served them for free and that would have been an awesome response to the hoax.
BUT
What they did was, make a spectacle of it, send in a film crew, chopper in the van (when that was entirely not needed) make a little documentary about it, get people saying how wonderful Taco Bell is.
If they had just gone in, done it as a goodwill thing, and then any publicity that OTHERS made of it would have been great.
But that they sent their own film crew and are putting this in their TV ads now... THAT'S what's wrong with this. There's no altruistic, simple case of 'hey, you know, I think people might think better of us if we just turn up there and dish out free food. And if people tell others how nice we were, that'd be great, but it's not what's really important'.
It's a fricken military operation robbed of any 'niceness' by it being SO overproduced and it being shoved down everyone's throats as to just how 'nice' Taco Bell is.
The more I explain it, the more I dislike it, because if they'd just done it without the fan fare, without the EXPECTED mass publicity from it, then I would have applauded.

@seltar My issue is with you labelling it 'a nice thing to do'. A nice thing to do would be for Taco Bell to do some sort of humanitarian work in the town, maybe build a community centre, a library, just provide something the town needs.

Hey, they could have even pretty much done what they did here... They could have flown in stuff for them to make their tacos and served them for free and that would have been an awesome response to the hoax.

BUT

What they did was, make a spectacle of it, send in a film crew, chopper in the van (when that was entirely not needed) make a little documentary about it, get people saying how wonderful Taco Bell is.

If they had just gone in, done it as a goodwill thing, and then any publicity that OTHERS made of it would have been great.

But that they sent their own film crew and are putting this in their TV ads now... THAT'S what's wrong with this. There's no altruistic, simple case of 'hey, you know, I think people might think better of us if we just turn up there and dish out free food. And if people tell others how nice we were, that'd be great, but it's not what's really important'.

It's a fricken military operation robbed of any 'niceness' by it being SO overproduced and it being shoved down everyone's throats as to just how 'nice' Taco Bell is.

The more I explain it, the more I dislike it, because if they'd just done it without the fan fare, without the EXPECTED mass publicity from it, then I would have applauded.

@seltar Fine, you continue to think they're a lovely charitable organization, and I'll sit smugly knowing that they purely did it for the good publicity.

There's nothing altruistic about this at all.

@Diogenes, by "whitewash" I mean he's trying to make ugly antipathy towards blacks look like altruistic behavior towards blacks through dishonesty.

And while I largely agree with longde, I do have to point out that a big part of the proper context is that Newt was asked about the criticism he's receiving for saying:

"I’m prepared if the NAACP invites me, I’ll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps."

Newt then translates this into being attacked for "citing statistics," which is total hogwash. Specifically, hogwash that he's using to whitewash what he'd really said.

And I'll gladly cop to saying hyperbolic-sounding things, but that's because we're in a situation where outright insanity and hatred from a Presidential candidate gets them a standing ovation from the crowd, and most people think there's nothing to be concerned about.

Oh, and @bobknight33, it's racist to pretend that the NAACP (and black voters generally) are only demanding food stamps, and hadn't even considered the idea of demanding jobs.

Visit the NAACP website, you tell me, does it look like they're just looking for government handouts?

In case you're curious, here's what the NAACP said in response to Newt.

I'm not suggesting we silence ourselves, I'm just suggesting we be a little more respectful and a little less evangelical in our approach. Cthulhu knows I've gone through years of spite and aggression - sex on a church alter, ripping the book of Genesis to shreds (in words) at a dinner party and baiting people who are clearly outmatched into a theological debate they have no hope of surviving, among countless other examples. Whatever. It was a phase, and I'm not ashamed of those days, but at the same time I don't really think all that spite accomplished anything but to further alienate people of faith.

I find my older self wanting to be a good ambassador for atheism, rather than a bad-ass, kick-ass sword wielding crusader. I want atheism to appear as calm and mainstream as possible. I want to lead by example. Secular Jesus.

Beyond that, I see how damaging religion is when it's used as a wedge issue, and we contribute to that wedge by terrifying otherwise good people of faith and driving them into the political margins. I believe that people of faith are more susceptible to fear than non-theists, and that in many ways we scare them further to into the arms of fascists and plutocrats when we go on the offensive. Back in the day when democracy was strong, people of faith stood along side the labor movement, the civil rights movement and other importance social movements. All that 'care for the poor, turn the other cheek, love your brother, rich people are going to hell (eye of the needle)' stuff was taken seriously. I'd love to see that altruistic, socially conscious, admirable side of Christianity make a comeback, and drive the free market, homophobic, racist bible belt bullies back into the fucking swamp where they belong.

We don't have to agree, but I want you to at least understand (and hopefully respect) where I'm coming from. Good chat @hpqp.

your response was long and the first half just reiterated me being a gnostic but i am what some may consider a "christian" gnostic.

So, as a Christian gnostic, what parts of the bible do you feel are authorative and what do you throw away? Do you consider the Old Testament to be valid?

so i dont see god as a failure nor evil.
i view god very much like the trinity.
father,son,holy ghost
or..
mind,body,spirit.
both work fine.
also if you changed the word "matter" to represent "ego"
then you would be closer to how i view the battle of "good" vs "evil"
i would say it is ego vs spirit.
you would say god vs devil,but we would be saying the same things.

I take it you don't believe Satan exists? If you don't believe in the fall, what is your narrative as to how things got the way they are?

the inherent differences in our philosophy are simply this:
internalization.
externalization.
i believe the teachings of christ (and others) hold the key to free ourselves from the ego (which is the ultimate liar).salvation starts when we realize we are spiritual beings with the spark of the divine.the creator if you will.spirit,soul,chi work also and that the ego seeks to dominate the spirit,pulling us ever further from our true self and our creator.(indivisible btw).

you view this dichotomy in a totally different light.jesus/god are outside.seperate and only through humility and acceptance that christ is lord and savior and died for your sins can you (or anybody) achieve salvation.(be saved)

I don't think it is that black and white. What you seem to believe is that you're one with God, and that by awakening your spiritual self (through gnosis i assume) you can conquer the ego and be free.. What I believe is that we each have a sinful nature which is corrupt and separates us from God. I believe that Christ conquered that nature as a man on the cross, and that through His substitutionary atonement, we are reconciled back to God and reborn in the spirit.

So, this isn't externalizing it. We come to Christ to be healed, but that is just the beginning. Being born again means to become a new creation and receive the Holy Spirit. It is not simply to bow to Christ and thank Him for salvation. It is to be remade in the image of Christ, and that is inside and outside.

Neither it is separateness from God, because the body of Christ is unity with God. We are in Him and He is in us and He is in the Father, and the Father is in Him. Christ is the head of the body of Christ, as the Father is the head of Christ. We are sons and daughters of God and co-heirs with Christ.

so when you ask if i believe christ was savior i would answer yes..most certainly,but i come to that conclusion by a different path and different tools.
yet we both use the bible.
pretty neat huh?
but you ONLY use the bible as your authority and that is fine but i tend to use..well...everything..but thats another conversation.

Yet, how can He be savior when you say you can save yourself?

so now we come to what do i tell these lost and broken people who have experienced a crisis of faith.
well...
i dont attack their religion.
i allow them to talk and let that spike of uncertainty bubble to the surface so i can get a better look at it.if i am going to help anyone i have to know where the pain is yes?

you have to realize that the majority of the people i deal with came from very strict,authoritarian and fundamentalist families.they were usually sheltered from the real world (not always a bad thing) and the culture shock alone is a trauma in itself and many times the parents are not exactly curious people but their children are (or the ones that came to me).

the first thing i do is hand them a scofield study bible (i have a stack of them) and tell them to read JUST the words of jesus and get back to me when they are ready.scofield has all the words of jesus highlighted in pink,cant miss em.

now you may ask "why would enoch do that"?
simple.many religions have a long LOOOONG list of doctrine and dogma by having that person read just the words of jesus we get to cut 80% of that crap out and focus on the words of jesus.

Do you believe all the words of Jesus (in the bible) are truth?

here is what "sin" actually is.this may not sound biblical but it actually is.jesus spoke of it often.
sin is when you KNOW/FEEL something is wrong and you CHOOSE to do it anyways.

On the contrary, sin is when you disobey the direct commands of God. Plenty of people don't know or feel it is wrong to commit all sorts of crimes, and wouldn't otherwise know, if God didn't set a standard for behavior. According to this standard, it wouldn't be wrong to murder if someone didn't know or feel it is wrong.

and dont get me started on "original sin" utter nonsense that piece of garbage.the church was unable to make its case centuries ago and still has failed to make the case for original sin. i suspect you disagree...thats ok but dont engage me on this one.i aint budging.

The bible doesn't contain the words "original sin". What it says is that God created the world perfectly, but because Adam and Eve sinned, they brought death into the world through sin. And that since then, man is born with a corrupt nature that is spiritually separated from God. How does your narrative differ from this? Do you believe that God doesn't care about sin?

i mean.
what do you tell a 22 yr old boy who is gay that god has not forsaken him?
that he is not some abomination?
that his father is wrong for beating him with a pipe in a rage and throwing him out of the only house he has ever known?
how can this boy who was raised in a god fearing house believe for a second that god loves him when according to the bible he would not?raised to believe god was not only all-knowing but all-loving except him.

well you point to the scofield bible and ask that boy to find a verse where jesus says he hates fags.thats what you do.
because it jesus doesnt say that.

I'm surprised that this is what you believe.. Of course it isn't right for a father to beat their child and throw them out. That definitely isn't demonstrating the love of God. But that has nothing to do with the boys spiritual situation.

What Jesus says is that marriage is between a man and a woman, and sex outside of marriage is a sin. There is no room in Gods plan for homosexual behavior. Now, people are born with all sorts of adverse conditions. Some people are born with cancer, or with deformed bodies. Has God forsaken them? Everyone has their own special challenges. So, a person who has homosexual desires, does he have to act upon them? Some people have sexual desire for children, or animals. Is that right? Weren't they just born that way?

or the girl who was raped and the family convinced her it was her fault because she had sinned against god and that was her punishment.

or one of my most precious whose family member had molested her for years and when she finally got the courage to say something about it only to be told to shut up.that she was a liar (not even possible with this girl) and again...her fault and punishment from god.

i could go on and on and on.

Your examples are people acting sinfully and disobeying the direct commands of God to say that sin isn't what the bible says it is. What this is just proves how bad sin really is.

what i do for these very special people is get them to understand they are spirit.
that they have a spark of the creator (made in "his" image) and that spark is their true selves.
and to cherish that spark.
i show them love.
true love of the spiritual kind.the altruistic love our spirits crave to give and receive.
that it is possible to love themselves and to forgive those who rejected them.judged them and forsook them.

You're forgetting the greatest commandments:

Love the Lord thy God with all your heart, and all your mind, and all your spirit, and all of your strength. And love your neighbor as yourself.

They need to love God first and everything else will follow. I think what you're substituting for the love of God is the love of self, because you perceive you have a piece of God within you. Unless you are born again, you don't have the Holy Spirit. You can't get near a holy God with a sinful nature.

i teach them the power of forgiveness.
to forgive themselves..for to forgive yourself you first have to KNOW yourself and to do that...well..you have to swim through a river of your own shit to truly know yourself.
i teach them to be free.
and in the doing they become free to love others as openly and honestly as they were meant to and to understand that many people,most actually,do not understand the true gift jesus gave us:love and forgiveness=freedom.

The true gift Jesus gave us was His precious blood. What we need is Gods forgiveness for our sins. Without His forgiveness, we will face judgement. You don't seem to believe that is going to happen. If you want to believe that, this is your right. To teach other people this, you are potentially endangering them. What happens if you stand in front of God and He shows you that what you taught people about being free and forgiving themselves sent some of them to hell?

i do not use dogma nor doctrine to teach these things.
i do not seek these people out,they find me and my obligation is to honor that path they found to me as the will of the creator.
some have needed a room to stay and heal their wounds.
i give that place of security for them.( i do this for addicts also)
i do not charge money for i do not consider helping another human being out to find themselves a service but rather a kindness in recognizing another spirit.
and here is the neat part that has always tickled me:i have never wanted for anything.car dies? i get gifted a new one a week later.
short on the electric bill? i find a lottery ticket with almost the exact amount i needed.
needed a vacation to go back home?
friend offers out of the blue to buy me a plane ticket.

Before I became a Christian, I was led like this too, with signs and all sorts of little perks. I thought I was doing Gods work, but it turns out that I was being influenced by evil. There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death. Don't count on those signs because they aren't necessarily from God. If they aren't, how would you tell?

a few that i have helped went back to the church.
one woman i counseled for 12 yrs (really abusive husband) who is now a devout baptist like you!
aaand she is studying at a bible college,which of course i have to mess with her cuz they dont allow women to perform mass but i do help with her homework sometimes.

That's cool..I'm not a baptist though. I enjoy sermons from baptist pastors but I am non-denominational, so I don't ascribe the everything that baptists believe.

ok..now im just rambling.
it is late and im stupid tired but i wanted to respond before i went to bed.busy day tomorrow.
hope this gives you a clearer picture.not gonna proof read so it may just be gibberish.
in any case..
always a pleasure my friend.

I always enjoy our conversations. I hope you don't take offense at anything I said..I am just representing the truth I know and trying to figure out where you're coming from. God bless.


>> ^enoch