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

Bah humbug? No but really, Merry Christmas Ant.

Bah-Humbug. I suppose he had to find something, at this time of good cheer, to stimulate his vainglorious existence.
Still, could've been worse. He might of shattered the faith of our little ones by saying that Santa doesn't exist, and far from rewarding well behaved children, Santa is simply another marketing tool invented by the EVIL corporations.....
Merry Xmas Russell, you sad individual.

This makes so much sense. Why would you thank someone who spared you but murdered all the people around you? He should be chastised for killing all the others instead of thanked for saving you.

Bah humbug.

My assumption is that people don't do these things because they are intrinsically better (even though I can accept that they could easily be), they do it to make themselves seem important and special.

Eating sushi in "the correct way" is also not popular, the wrong way is popular - who's the one trying to avoid conforming to the peasantry now?

People make fun of this video, because it's not about teaching you how it should be done, it's about him showing off all the fancy things he knows about sushi and talking japanese; Look I'm so cool, I do it the right way. It reminds me of that hilarious application video that was spoofed by Michael Cera: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_Is_Nothing_(video_r%C3%A9sum%C3%A9)

If the main point is to teach people to do something right, then teach it nicely - it's even more compounded by the level of self-importance in this thread.

Some times there's a correct way and there's another perfectly fine way - I know, shocking. People don't all like the things you like, oh gosh, say it isn't so.

You, @NinjaInHeat and @arekin (and I suppose the guy in the video) are the three amigos who want to cram the "correct sushi" down everyones' throats - I am not trying to force you to eat the regular rice-cake sushi that normal people do, you can do what you want.

In essence what you would call "correct sushi" is an entirely different dish than what is normally known as sushi, so it's sort of a silly argument in the end.

I guess my main point of contrition has nothing to do with sushi, but to do with the way in which it is presented. It stinks of aristocracy - people who know the right way and therefore snub their nose at all the others who clearly "just don't get it" - well fuck, there's not really much to get, you like to eat it in a certain way - whoopdefrickingdoo.

"You know, real hambruger is hand picked from the kobecow and processed right in front of you. And be careful to only use a light touch of ketchup as a pallate cleanser, and to convey the intended feelings of camaraderie that the chef wanted you to feel with him and his cultural heritage.. and be sure to drink plenty of Sprite - this is the way to properly enjoy hamburger, otherwise you might as well just eat some raw fish or something like a fucking retard who don't even know that you only lightly dip the corner of the bun in grey poupon mustard".

Bah humbug.

Bah humbug. Everything on videosift is infringing on something. All music, all clips.

http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/knatw/brocas_aphasia_talking_without_words/ Hey faculty, go take down reddit and youtube instead of us and whatever the hell poeTV is.

>> ^lucky760:

>> ^gwiz665:

DMCA doesn't apply, since videosift doesn't host. They can go to youtube and ask to have it removed.

As much as I appreciate your expert legal opinion, VideoSift could in fact be held liable for knowingly providing access to infringing content. Consider BitTorrent trackers who never see one byte of copyrighted content, but are still deemed responsible for infringement. Besides, I'm sure the folks behind VideoSift don't care to get involved in a legal battle.

Hehe, it's gonna be great.
In reply to this comment by hpqp:
I have to disagree with you there, feminism and chauvinism only share three letters, but then again so does racism. I'm thinking of doing a Siftalk on "feminism" vs "equalism", inspired by your comment, but you'll have to wait till September to read it, got to much to do until then. And yes, I know you are simply dying to read/hear more about feminism.. *trollface*

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Heh, I didn't see it there, only when bb @'ed me. I think it was making a stupid point, because what it sets up as feminism vs male-ism is not that. It's self-indulgent and essentially does exactly what the comic accuses others of doing. So bah humbug! Feminism is bullshit, so is chauvinism.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
I see what you mean, but I hardly think the reference to this comic was particularly topical; it seemed more about having a laugh about the not-so-funny topic of sexism on the webs in general (stg which seems extremely rare on the Sift, one of it's many selling points). At least that's the reason I posted it to the femithread.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Straw man.
>> ^bareboards2:

Ooooh my gawd! Is that absolutely pitch perfect or what?
(snip)
I'm sure I am forgetting someone. But that comic is GREAT.
In reply to this comment by Fusionaut:
You might get a kick out of this:http://www.gabbysplayhouse.com/?p=1444

I have to disagree with you there, feminism and chauvinism only share three letters, but then again so does racism. I'm thinking of doing a Siftalk on "feminism" vs "equalism", inspired by your comment, but you'll have to wait till September to read it, got to much to do until then. And yes, I know you are simply dying to read/hear more about feminism.. *trollface*

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Heh, I didn't see it there, only when bb @'ed me. I think it was making a stupid point, because what it sets up as feminism vs male-ism is not that. It's self-indulgent and essentially does exactly what the comic accuses others of doing. So bah humbug! Feminism is bullshit, so is chauvinism.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
I see what you mean, but I hardly think the reference to this comic was particularly topical; it seemed more about having a laugh about the not-so-funny topic of sexism on the webs in general (stg which seems extremely rare on the Sift, one of it's many selling points). At least that's the reason I posted it to the femithread.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Straw man.
>> ^bareboards2:

Ooooh my gawd! Is that absolutely pitch perfect or what?
(snip)
I'm sure I am forgetting someone. But that comic is GREAT.
In reply to this comment by Fusionaut:
You might get a kick out of this:http://www.gabbysplayhouse.com/?p=1444

Heh, I didn't see it there, only when bb @'ed me. I think it was making a stupid point, because what it sets up as feminism vs male-ism is not that. It's self-indulgent and essentially does exactly what the comic accuses others of doing. So bah humbug! Feminism is bullshit, so is chauvinism.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
I see what you mean, but I hardly think the reference to this comic was particularly topical; it seemed more about having a laugh about the not-so-funny topic of sexism on the webs in general (stg which seems extremely rare on the Sift, one of it's many selling points). At least that's the reason I posted it to the femithread.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Straw man.
>> ^bareboards2:

Ooooh my gawd! Is that absolutely pitch perfect or what?
(snip)
I'm sure I am forgetting someone. But that comic is GREAT.
In reply to this comment by Fusionaut:
You might get a kick out of this:http://www.gabbysplayhouse.com/?p=1444

>> ^youdiejoe:

I'm calling a "Broadcast News" foul on the insert cut to Sigourney Weaver on this video
http://www.tubechop.com/watch/181528


Bah Humbug! ;-) The BBC got cameras every where!



But you are right, the one shot is probably fake.

My cards on the table, what I said about "every high school" was actually about Canada. I heard it from a police officer who gives talks about drugs to grade school students. I'm assuming the same is true in America. I'm also going to assume you're not high school aged anymore, and so like me, might have more trouble than the average 16-year-old finding a source.>> ^gwiz665:

We live in very different countries evidently. I have to go to some pretty seedy neighborhoods if I want weed here, which makes the "barrier to entry" relatively high. I'm all for selling it in pharmacies or even on the same level as cigarettes and alcohol. More people will try it, because they can get it legally, and that's fine.
>> ^messenger:
Right. And this bill will make it harder to get weed. Right now, weed is for sale in every high school in America. How much easier could it get? State control of weed would kill the illegal trade.>> ^gwiz665:
No. If it's easier to get it, more will use it. Same with guns.
That doesn't mean we should prohibit either though. Pot is less harmful than guns, or hell, arguably even cigarettes, why are they legal while pot is not?
Arbitrary laws based on flawed morality. Bah humbug.

We live in very different countries evidently. I have to go to some pretty seedy neighborhoods if I want weed here, which makes the "barrier to entry" relatively high. I'm all for selling it in pharmacies or even on the same level as cigarettes and alcohol. More people will try it, because they can get it legally, and that's fine.
>> ^messenger:

Right. And this bill will make it harder to get weed. Right now, weed is for sale in every high school in America. How much easier could it get? State control of weed would kill the illegal trade.>> ^gwiz665:
No. If it's easier to get it, more will use it. Same with guns.
That doesn't mean we should prohibit either though. Pot is less harmful than guns, or hell, arguably even cigarettes, why are they legal while pot is not?
Arbitrary laws based on flawed morality. Bah humbug.

Right. And this bill will make it harder to get weed. Right now, weed is for sale in every high school in America. How much easier could it get? State control of weed would kill the illegal trade.>> ^gwiz665:

No. If it's easier to get it, more will use it. Same with guns.
That doesn't mean we should prohibit either though. Pot is less harmful than guns, or hell, arguably even cigarettes, why are they legal while pot is not?
Arbitrary laws based on flawed morality. Bah humbug.

No. If it's easier to get it, more will use it. Same with guns.

That doesn't mean we should prohibit either though. Pot is less harmful than guns, or hell, arguably even cigarettes, why are they legal while pot is not?

Arbitrary laws based on flawed morality. Bah humbug.
>> ^MarineGunrock:

Also, what fucking logic are people using when they claim that legalization will have a direct effect on consumption? If someone wants to smoke, they will, regardless of legality.