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

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Brawl-at-Chinese-Restaurant-Montreal

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Hive13. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082228/YouTube-video-Montreal-Chinese-restaurant-brawl-New-Years-Eve.html

>> ^Yogi:

Stupid fucking sport played by the stupid fucking spawn of stupid fucking morons.

Tell me how you really feel.

Sheesh, what hockey player pissed in your cheerios this morning?

Personally I like hockey, I think parents and coaches that don't teach their kids to be good sports are definitely a problem in any sport. So I guess I could say I somewhat agree with the last part of your derogatory and somewhat offensive emote.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, and to quote Cassandra Clare:

“Sarcasm is the last refuge of the imaginatively bankrupt.”

It's a tool passive aggressive people use to make the point about you, to delegitimize your point of view. It is just thinly veiled mockery. For a theist, ridicule from atheists, or more commonly, militant antitheists, is a daily event. It's just something that you get used to. It is rare to find rational discourse on this subject, although a few people on this board have stepped up to the plate.

It is about ego, and prejudice. Since he has decided to bash me in this thread, let's take HPQP as a good example of this. You only have to look at his videos to see that he has quite a lot of hatred stored up in his heart for Christianity. Thoughtful people aren't going to dedicate their time to trashing something they disagree with. This is clearly obsessive behavior fueled by anger and resentment, and most likely an underlying inferiority complex.

But, this is the way of the culture. Rudeness and intolerance is becoming the norm, especially in these United States. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705331806/Poll-Americans-are-becoming-more-rude.html

I appreciate you advocating for more decorum on here. On this subject particularly, if you watch some of the debates, like say dawkins vs lennox, you can see it is possible to discuss these issues in a respectful and civilized way, that is even intellectually satisfying. Even Hitchens said that the question of God was the greatest conversation you could have because it was a subject that led to every other important subject. It's sad that many people here don't seem to realize that and go out of their way to stifle discussion.




>> ^SDGundamX:

@hpqp
Thanks for explaining why you @GeeSussFreeK and I.
I'd like to explain my position more clearly. I'm not saying sarcasm is bad or should be banned or anything. I'm not saying "don't be mean to Shiny." I know you can't regulate people's behavior on the Net and I'm not about to try.
If I understand what you wrote correctly, you're saying using sarcasm is still "being a dick," it's just not nearly as much of being one as replying "you're a fag" to someone's argument. If that's what you're saying I agree with you on both counts (i.e. that using sarcasm is rather boorish behavior but it's not nearly so bad as resorting to direct insults).
Sarcasm can indeed be useful depending on what you intend to use it for. If you're looking to boost your own ego at another's expense and look intelligent while doing so, then really sarcasm is exactly what you're looking for. So too if you're hoping to get comment upvotes on the Sift--it seems like many of us Sifters appreciate a good burn.
But sarcasm also has a number of drawbacks and I personally find these to outweigh the benefits. The first drawback is adding unnecessary confrontation to a discussion. Sarcasm is an in-your-face ploy. It's personal. It might not be a punch in the face like "you're a fag" is, but it's at the least an back-handed bitch slap. Its goal is to belittle. If the target of the sarcasm wasn't aggressive before, they most likely will be when they reply because--let's face it--who wants to sit around and be insulted? Sarcasm exponentially increases the odds that a thread is going to devolve into a verbal brawl and that the original points being debated will get lost. Why introduce that risk into the argument? Why not just rationally argue your points?
Which brings me to the second drawback--sarcasm stifles debate. Sometimes this is intentional--rather than argue the points under discussion, the poster is looking to score ego points (or upvotes or whatever) because they really don't have anything substantial to contribute. I think, though, more often here on the Sift the debate gets lost unintentionally. People are so busy grandstanding and showing everyone how witty and sarcastic they can be that they forget to address or flat-out ignore valid points made by the opposition.
This is what I was trying to point out in the other thread. People dog-piled on Shiny not because of his main point (about the irony of toasting what he perceived to be an alcoholic/excessive drinker) but because he suggested praying for Hitchens (which, as far as Shiny goes is pretty mild in terms of the evangelical department). As I've said before, you actually were the only person to respond to the content of Shiny's comment rather than attack Shiny himself--your quotation implied that Hitchens would be pleased with the idea since he felt his drinking to be more of a benefit than a hindrance. It moved the conversation forward, if only for a moment. Things went rapidly downhill from there.
I know that sarcasm is all the rage these days--the fact that we now have a 'sarcasm' button for our comments on the Sift is telling. But reading the threads here on the Sift I can't help feeling it is detracting more than it is contributing. If the goal of posting is to feel good by belittling others, well I guess that's fine and dandy then. But if our goal of posting here is to approach the truth through dialogue, then I think the sarcasm is getting in the way of that.
Ultimately, of course, everyone is free to choose how they act on the Sift. My hope is that people who read this post who may be considering being sarcastic in a reply to another poster will think a bit more about what their goal is before posting. Looking to feel superior to another person? Flame away! But if you're looking to make a valid point and further the discussion, maybe sarcasm isn't way to go.

Thank you for this response. I find the discussion about civility, tone and sarcasm in debates to be an interesting one indeed, and intend on creating a sifttalk post about it in the near future. I will be sure to let you know when I do.

In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/hpqp" title="member since July 25th, 2009" class="profilelink">hpqp

Thanks for explaining why you @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/GeeSussFreeK" title="member since August 1st, 2008" class="profilelink">GeeSussFreeK and I.

I'd like to explain my position more clearly. I'm not saying sarcasm is bad or should be banned or anything. I'm not saying "don't be mean to Shiny." I know you can't regulate people's behavior on the Net and I'm not about to try.

If I understand what you wrote correctly, you're saying using sarcasm is still "being a dick," it's just not nearly as much of being one as replying "you're a fag" to someone's argument. If that's what you're saying I agree with you on both counts (i.e. that using sarcasm is rather boorish behavior but it's not nearly so bad as resorting to direct insults).

Sarcasm can indeed be useful depending on what you intend to use it for. If you're looking to boost your own ego at another's expense and look intelligent while doing so, then really sarcasm is exactly what you're looking for. So too if you're hoping to get comment upvotes on the Sift--it seems like many of us Sifters appreciate a good burn.

But sarcasm also has a number of drawbacks and I personally find these to outweigh the benefits. The first drawback is adding unnecessary confrontation to a discussion. Sarcasm is an in-your-face ploy. It's personal. It might not be a punch in the face like "you're a fag" is, but it's at the least an back-handed bitch slap. Its goal is to belittle. If the target of the sarcasm wasn't aggressive before, they most likely will be when they reply because--let's face it--who wants to sit around and be insulted? Sarcasm exponentially increases the odds that a thread is going to devolve into a verbal brawl and that the original points being debated will get lost. Why introduce that risk into the argument? Why not just rationally argue your points?

Which brings me to the second drawback--sarcasm stifles debate. Sometimes this is intentional--rather than argue the points under discussion, the poster is looking to score ego points (or upvotes or whatever) because they really don't have anything substantial to contribute. I think, though, more often here on the Sift the debate gets lost unintentionally. People are so busy grandstanding and showing everyone how witty and sarcastic they can be that they forget to address or flat-out ignore valid points made by the opposition.

This is what I was trying to point out in the other thread. People dog-piled on Shiny not because of his main point (about the irony of toasting what he perceived to be an alcoholic/excessive drinker) but because he suggested praying for Hitchens (which, as far as Shiny goes is pretty mild in terms of the evangelical department). As I've said before, you actually were the only person to respond to the content of Shiny's comment rather than attack Shiny himself--your quotation implied that Hitchens would be pleased with the idea since he felt his drinking to be more of a benefit than a hindrance. It moved the conversation forward, if only for a moment. Things went rapidly downhill from there.

I know that sarcasm is all the rage these days--the fact that we now have a 'sarcasm' button for our comments on the Sift is telling. But reading the threads here on the Sift I can't help feeling it is detracting more than it is contributing. If the goal of posting is to feel good by belittling others, well I guess that's fine and dandy then. But if our goal of posting here is to approach the truth through dialogue, then I think the sarcasm is getting in the way of that.

Ultimately, of course, everyone is free to choose how they act on the Sift. My hope is that people who read this post who may be considering being sarcastic in a reply to another poster will think a bit more about what their goal is before posting. Looking to feel superior to another person? Flame away! But if you're looking to make a valid point and further the discussion, maybe sarcasm isn't way to go.

@hpqp

Thanks for explaining why you @GeeSussFreeK and I.

I'd like to explain my position more clearly. I'm not saying sarcasm is bad or should be banned or anything. I'm not saying "don't be mean to Shiny." I know you can't regulate people's behavior on the Net and I'm not about to try.

If I understand what you wrote correctly, you're saying using sarcasm is still "being a dick," it's just not nearly as much of being one as replying "you're a fag" to someone's argument. If that's what you're saying I agree with you on both counts (i.e. that using sarcasm is rather boorish behavior but it's not nearly so bad as resorting to direct insults).

Sarcasm can indeed be useful depending on what you intend to use it for. If you're looking to boost your own ego at another's expense and look intelligent while doing so, then really sarcasm is exactly what you're looking for. So too if you're hoping to get comment upvotes on the Sift--it seems like many of us Sifters appreciate a good burn.

But sarcasm also has a number of drawbacks and I personally find these to outweigh the benefits. The first drawback is adding unnecessary confrontation to a discussion. Sarcasm is an in-your-face ploy. It's personal. It might not be a punch in the face like "you're a fag" is, but it's at the least an back-handed bitch slap. Its goal is to belittle. If the target of the sarcasm wasn't aggressive before, they most likely will be when they reply because--let's face it--who wants to sit around and be insulted? Sarcasm exponentially increases the odds that a thread is going to devolve into a verbal brawl and that the original points being debated will get lost. Why introduce that risk into the argument? Why not just rationally argue your points?

Which brings me to the second drawback--sarcasm stifles debate. Sometimes this is intentional--rather than argue the points under discussion, the poster is looking to score ego points (or upvotes or whatever) because they really don't have anything substantial to contribute. I think, though, more often here on the Sift the debate gets lost unintentionally. People are so busy grandstanding and showing everyone how witty and sarcastic they can be that they forget to address or flat-out ignore valid points made by the opposition.

This is what I was trying to point out in the other thread. People dog-piled on Shiny not because of his main point (about the irony of toasting what he perceived to be an alcoholic/excessive drinker) but because he suggested praying for Hitchens (which, as far as Shiny goes is pretty mild in terms of the evangelical department). As I've said before, you actually were the only person to respond to the content of Shiny's comment rather than attack Shiny himself--your quotation implied that Hitchens would be pleased with the idea since he felt his drinking to be more of a benefit than a hindrance. It moved the conversation forward, if only for a moment. Things went rapidly downhill from there.

I know that sarcasm is all the rage these days--the fact that we now have a 'sarcasm' button for our comments on the Sift is telling. But reading the threads here on the Sift I can't help feeling it is detracting more than it is contributing. If the goal of posting is to feel good by belittling others, well I guess that's fine and dandy then. But if our goal of posting here is to approach the truth through dialogue, then I think the sarcasm is getting in the way of that.

Ultimately, of course, everyone is free to choose how they act on the Sift. My hope is that people who read this post who may be considering being sarcastic in a reply to another poster will think a bit more about what their goal is before posting. Looking to feel superior to another person? Flame away! But if you're looking to make a valid point and further the discussion, maybe sarcasm isn't way to go.

The video doesn't really show it, but I don't see how the fan caused the brawl? I mean the players are frustrated because they're losing and such and someone says something and they come to blows that makes sense. I guess the fan delaying the game could've caused that to happen, but I wouldn't necessarily say it's his fault.

Good sportsmanship is great, and a good thing to encourage. However, this rule doesn't punish "bad" sportsmanship, unless your standards for "bad" sportsmanship are so ridiculously hair-triggered that you'd prefer to watch all sports being played by Robots versus Vulcans.

It is possible to be a gracious winner and yet remain visibly happy that you won. What does any any Olympic athlete do after winning a race, landing a tough jump, setting a new record, or having any other momentary success? They give themselves a little fist-pump, grin like idiots, puff out their chest and hold their head high -- and that is probably the bare minimum for even the most stoic competitor ever. Is that bad sportsmanship? No.

What happens at the end of every World Series, Superbowl, or Championship of any sport ever played? One team jumps up and down in a mass hug, acting like schoolgirls and completely unashamed of doing so, while the other team has their arms at their sides and stares blank-faced at the ground 3 feet in front of their feet. Is that bad sportsmanship by the winners? No.

I love the tradition in NHL hockey where at the end of any playoff series, the entire roster of both teams lines up and shakes hands with every member of the opposing team. This can happen after 7 games fueled by hatred and bad blood, bench clearing brawls, or whatever. They put that aside, line up, shake hands, and congratulate each other on a well-fought series. Is that good sportsmanship? Yes!

Encouraging good sportsmanship makes sense. Coming up with punishments that can potentially alter the outcome of games for some behavior that is arbitrarily decided is "bad" sportsmanship is crazy.

Of course it takes two people to exchange punches. But if one party has a recent history of instigating violence.......I mean, the Georgetown team had every reason NOT to brawl, given that they were on a diplomatic mission, far away from home, with the Vice-Prez in town.

>> ^longde:

Hard fouling and over agreesiveness from players and fans is actually a new tactic from Chinese teams. This had nothing to do with GT, and has happened to other international teams. Apparently they've thought their players were wimps, and decided to overcompensate with over-the-top violence: http://www.nbcwashington.com/blogs/capital-games/128022218.html


I've never seen any sports game that went to become a brawl because of one team. Two teams are on the court/field/pitch along with their coaches on the side and the referees. So without seeing the game in it's entirety I can't agree that it's all the Chinese players fault.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

this is just dumb people fighting..


This is not a normal video of dumb people fighting. It's packed with comic relief. Thanks for the downvote!

Thought you were talkin about the chat there for a second.

In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
this is just dumb people fighting..

>> ^budzos:

I don't understand how less than 5% of people who view this are voting for it. Maybe if Rachel Maddow showed up or some idiot chinese animators re-enacted it!


Well I liked it. Especially the part where they fell in the pool.