If you want to preserve your country's culture and people, take a photograph. They never change, no matter how much time passed.
Even when they're beheading babies in Eaton Square.

He wasn't beheaded for everyone's information.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by pumkinandstorm.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by chicchorea. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Man-With-Bloody-Hands-Tries-To-Justify-Beheading-of-Soldier

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video ujio beheading deleted scene-the last samurai. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

yo. I've seen some fucked up shit on the net. This takes the cake. I found this unbelievably disturbing and hard to watch. (and there was no gore or beheadings)
srs. tho. wtf?

Ok, I'm sure to be attacked, but here's my take on it. We are ALL under surveillance in some shape or form? The police could not operate without public information. We are all encouraged to be vigilant and report our suspicions. The incitement part of this report is the only thing the police did wrong. Our enemies hide behind the very constitution they wish to destroy. Are Christians, Jews,or any other religion, carrying out beheadings, car bombings, or murdering authors and cartoonists, simply for "offending" their religion? Is there any other religion that has called for Jihad, Sharia, and death to "infidels?" I think it is extremely naive, and dangerous, to say; "we have to wait until they do something before acting." A group of Muslims are on trial in England. The carnage they planned was stopped before it happened. How do you suppose the intelligence service knew about it? Big Brother IS watching and, for my part, if they use surveillance, bugging, computer hacking etc, to prevent the atrocities we have all sadly witnessed, then I'm afraid, it is a necessary evil. Oh, and btw, was it constitutional to lock up Japanese Americans during WW2? Weren't they, also, innocent until proven guilty? of course they were, but who then would have taken the chance?

>> ^ctrlaltbleach:

I'm afraid one of these days a prank like this will end badly.


I'm waiting for some poor sap to get beheaded/shot/stabbed/runover because he was a really effective zombie.

I'm just going to give my opinion here, mostly because George Carlin is my hero, and because I'm interested in the topic:

Regarding things being offensive:
There isn't any topic known anywhere to human kind that won't offend someone. Whether it's daisies or pancakes or pinwheels someone, somewhere, can be offended by it. I guarantee it. This is just my opinion, but I don't think that anyone has the right to 'not be offended.'

Regarding comedians:
People mostly don't seem to realize the importance of humor in all of our lives. Comedians play a very important role in the collective human community that cannot be replaced. They help us deal with parts of ourselves that would otherwise be unacceptable for us to even sometimes think about. Just like the court jester who might otherwise get himself beheaded if he were a normal person suggesting the king was fat. Almost all humor, successful or not, makes people feel uncomfortable. The very best humor makes people really uncomfortable. Laughter itself is a response to these same situations and events that we just have a little-bit of a hard time dealing with. I think this is why comedians, while onstage, are given a free pass. Even their televised specials get edited for content, but the only time a comedian gets kicked off stage in a club is when no one is laughing. What they're saying implies a lot more about the people laughing than it does about the comedian. Follow me?

And it's important to remember that most comedians are artists who are immersed in their material. Most have specific routines that are worked out over and over again, tweeking the tone and meter until they become almost meaningless to the comedians themselves. This is why you rarely see experienced comedians laughing at their own jokes, they've just heard them too many times. And even when they are performing improvisationally, like Tosh was during the event in question, they aren't saying things that they think are funny, specifically, they are saying things that they think the audience will find funny. It may seem like a small distinction, but it can make a big difference in understanding why some jokes are made. Some comedians have a style based on saying shocking, offensive things, and it's they're job. They are paid to make an audience laugh, and whether you like him or not, Tosh gets paid.

And the particular incident and joke:
This whole thing was brought up by a woman who was at a show and heard something she didn't like. She retorted back from the audience that rape isn't funny. To which Tosh retorted back that it would be funny if the woman was "raped by like five guys." Now, according to the woman, that made her actually fear for her safety and she got up and left. I'm not going to debate her sanity, if she really felt threatened, then that's terrible and I feel bad for her. But there are a few things that need to be pointed out here:

1: Tosh didn't threaten anyone. Had he said: "you five guys over there should rape this woman," it would not only be offensive to many people, but it also could have been perceived as a legitimate threat that, maybe, could have been pursued legally.

2: Hecklers are always dealt with harshly. And so should they be. Complain all you want about a person outside of a show but when you go to a comedy club, you have agreed that it's that person's time to talk. And so has everyone else who paid money to listen to them, not you. They're up there making a living, succeeding or failing at the expense of their own ass, not yours. It should be noted here that the woman said she left the room to the laughter of the entire audience.

3: You do not have the right to not be offended, especially if you are at a fucking comedy club. There was a pretty famous incident with Joan Rivers when she was joking about deaf people on stage, and a man in the audience stood up and started yelling at her because his daughter was deaf and he didn't find her jokes funny. Well, Joan Rivers responded that her own mother was deaf, and that she'd had to deal with that on her own terms. Comedy was something that helped her deal with that (because comedy is a useful tool) and if he didn't like it, he could go fuck himself. And that's the thing, you never know people's story. The girl at Tosh's show couldn't know Tosh's experience with rape, just like he couldn't know hers. And if you don't think people who've experienced a major tragedy can joke about the horrible events in their lives, I invite you to go watch some Bob Saget material. Humor is subjective. Saying you don't think something should be allowed because it's not funny, is exactly the same as saying something shouldn't be allowed because you don't think it's funny. Whatever it is, you can bet that someone out there finds it funny, even if it's nonsense.

Rape jokes are hardly ever funny. Even Carlin's few never got much of a laugh. But jokes are thoughts, and I'd really rather people stop trying to police thoughts. If someone finds a joke threatening, then deal with the threat, not the joke. And if someone finds a joke offensive, well...

This. Frankly the most offensive part of the story was that someone actually paid to see Daniel Tosh.

But also
* Dane Cook was mentioned without anyone calling for him to be beheaded publicly.
* No-one mentioned Reginald D Hunters hilarious routine on the subject.

>> ^kymbos:

I think the problem was that his joke was shit. It wasn't clever, thought-provoking, intellectually challenging. It was boring and lazy and unimaginative

Chase is only doing good because they havent been caught yet... and they ended the no-min balance free checking WAMU had in place. Same with Bank of America.

I seriously had bank of america drain my $25.00 account I opened in 2008, telling me they charged a fee one year after the account was opened. Only they decided four months ago. When I went to the bank, they said if I didnt pay another $25.00 in overdraft because they were charging me because they already took my cash, I would be sent to collections. So bank of america stole $50 dollars directly from me, not to mention all the other money they must steal. Run out? Print more, steal more. Buy goods and services and real estate that can't be refunded or liquidated, rinse, repeat.

Fucking assholes.

There was no help for me. I can afford the loss, I'm too smart to know nothing will ever happen to get my money back, and im too dumb to keep track of my money so i put it in a bank and they stole it. I really am not too good at life.


Maybe in the end, there can be only one. And then we can all stfu or gtfo! it would be easier than pretending there was a solution.


ps I'm a white male aged 18-34 with a high 700's credit score and no outstanding debts... i had money to spare... but that doesn't mean the bank can steal it... i could have used it for something too, and it was mine. wahhhhh!!!


geez i sound almost as bad as the corporate babys and other crooks who are sad they can't steal so easily. wahhhh!!! i have to work to live in a country where im not as likely to be raped for an AIDS cure or/and beheaded for my religion!!! communism!!! black people!!!

>> ^messenger:

You're putting words in the commentators' mouths by assuming the answer to your opening question. These two would not characterise Islam moderate, and they suggested nothing of the kind. That's equivalent to me just assuming that you support the actions of Anders Brevik because you're afraid of a European takeover of Islam. Fair?
And FWIW, everything you said about Islam and the Quran also holds true for Christianity and the Bible (except of course for the etymology). For example, the Bible is very clear on the mandate to spread Christianity -- where do you think Islam got the idea? These commentators are derisory of the material taught in this course, derisory of the same things you just said were "extreme" and "ridiculous", so I'm not sure what point you're making except that you're a wee bit xenophobic.>> ^A10anis:
So, how would these two guys characterize the islamic faith? Would they say islam is benign and wants to co-exist peacefully with the west, allowing freedom from religious intrusion, equality for woman, gays, and those of other faiths? The evidence shows the opposite. The very word islam means submission, it is not just a faith, it is a theocracy and dictates every facet of daily life. Dooley's first comment about Hiroshima was extreme, and the FBI comment about Obama being influenced by islamic extremists was ridiculous. But the quran -despite people claiming it is taken "out of context"- is very clear on the propagation of islam. The quran must be followed by every muslim and In 50 years- it has been predicted- muslims in europe will have the balance of voting power. If that happens the commentators, who are so derisory today, will be able to see just how "moderate" islam will be.


I suggest you read my comment again, slowly. Far from putting words in their mouths, I pose the legitimate question; "how would they characterize islam?" Please observe the question mark which, funnily enough, denotes a question NOT a statement. However, they certainly DID suggest what their answer would be. My inference is based upon their demeanor of derision and incredulity at anything said by Dooley, and the fact that they openly condemn him as a war monger. The two comments that I said were "extreme" and "ridiculous," were just that. The other comments made by Dooley were legitimate. Your Brevik comment is absurd and, as such, is not worth commenting on. As for you comparing islam with christianity? What are you talking about? I am an atheist and deride ALL myths. However, in defence of Christianity; When was the last Christian suicide bomber? When was the last time Christians flew planes into buildings? When was the last time a Christian stoned a woman to death or carried out an "honour" killing, or hung gays from a crane? When was the last time a christian beheaded a non-believer, etc, etc? Comparing the two is ignorant and intellectual laziness. If by xenophobic you mean I am afraid of those who wish to radically change our lives and drag us back to the bronze age, then yes, I am very afraid. Islam is an insidious threat, one we ignore at our peril. Finally, If you wish clarification on any other points that you don't understand, I will happily explain them.

No, no, this "non-Samaritan" attitude goes back centuries. It has nothing to do with modern notions of liability.

The Chinese culture is very different from Western culture. "Saving face" isn't a light topic there. Suicide to save the family's honor has been part of their culture, hasn't it? I'm not that well versed in the differences of the various Asian cultures.

Hari kiri is the Japanese equivalent, yeah? The most honorable way to die is to disembowel yourself with no assistance. Most chose to have a trusted relative or friend behead them so they died quickly -- after stabbing themselves in the gut. I learned all this from Hollywood movies and novels -- so maybe it is all a load of crap.

So I"m sticking with my plausible interpretation that it is POSSIBLE that this was orchestrated by the government. Maybe it was just the government taking advantage of a true kind impulse on the part of the taxi driver -- but they do control the media still, yeah?

Cynical. That's me!




In reply to this comment by longde:
damn, you are cynical!!! It's sad that some of the bad infrastructure in china make this story perfectly plausible.

I think this attitude has to do with the ease of liability being assigned to the helper. In this case, there is no way any reasonable person would think the cab driver was responsible for the girl's injury. As opposed to a driver stopping for an injured pedestrian.>> ^bareboards2:

Here's another topic missed by this video --
Remember when that little girl got ran over by a truck and everyone walked by? The only person who went to help was a very poor woman?
Apparently there is a culture in China of NOT helping others. What I read at the time was if you help someone, then you become responsible for them. Which is why only the very poor woman went to help -- she had nothing to lose.
The Chinese government has been attempting to change that culture, in part by changing laws (I think. Didn't I read that somewhere?)
Here is how calloused I have become -- I thought for a moment (and I still sort of do) that this was a set up by the Government. A visual campaign to educate the public. They made the guy a hero, showed how the government has the services to help. The hole in the pavement was too weird, as noted here, people crowded around the hole with zero concern that more would give way. They didn't interview the girl at all, didn't show her face.
It's not a bad thing, to attempt to create a Good Samaritan culture in the face of thousands of years without one. I am just cynical about the feel-goodness of this clip.
Calloused. I am calloused.