Unless you count the sift I’ve never been on any social media platforms at all, but I’ve also never owned a cell phone. I can’t count the number of times I’ve been the only person in a crowded room not glued to a tiny screen.
I’m a weirdo, and I like it that way.

I hope you’re wrong and the sift endures and thrives again by itself for its (as far as I know) unique curation of YouTube (and other site’s) videos, but that will take more than a handful of users posting. If it merges with a big chat site it’s going to become a different, more impersonal animal, maybe an animal no one likes.

I took a break from social media a few years ago. Life's much simpler now!

Videosift needs to integrate with a popular chat platform - or several. Discord, Reddit, something like that. They all have their downsides, but if we want to keep Videosift alive, we've got to plug into the mainstream.

Here is the complete show. If you watch it on YouTube, in chat, he talks about the production. Answering viewers questions.

Could that be Hunter, the DC DA and the Georgia DA that all are now ‘sposta file charges…because reports are all 3 have begun that process.

She sent the same revenge porn in a non age gated newsletter to her constituents in Georgia, sending porn directly to children and posting revenge porn…two crimes in one.
That’s industrial level child sex grooming from the cuckholding manly tranny Greene. 😂

Georgia law- Revenge porn is an aggravated misdemeanor if the offender posts the photograph or video on any other electronic means. This offense carries a prison sentence of up to 12 months and a $5,000 fine. Repeat offenders face harsher penalties as second and subsequent revenge porn charges become felonies. In that case, repeat revenge porn is punishable by one to five years in jail and/or a fine of up to $100,000.

The second offense in one day, so it’s already into the “subsequent charges” phase. She sent it over 100000 times, she could get the longest sentence in history, 100000-500000 years just for Georgia! Holy shit!

Also Georgia law- (e) (1) A person commits the offense of obscene Internet contact with a child if he or she has contact with someone he or she knows to be a child or with someone he or she believes to be a child via a computer on-line service or Internet service, including but not limited to a local bulletin board service, Internet chat room, e-mail, or on-line messaging service, and the contact involves any matter containing explicit verbal descriptions or narrative accounts of sexually explicit nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse that is intended to arouse or satisfy the sexual desire of either the child or the person, provided that no conviction shall be had for a violation of this subsection on the unsupported testimony of a child.

(2) Any person who violates paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years or by a fine of not more than $10,000.00; provided, however, that, if at the time of the offense the victim was 14 or 15 years of age and the defendant was no more than three years older than the victim, then the defendant shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.
Another 1-10 years for every minor that got her newsletter!

DC law- If the sexual image is shared with 6 or more persons through “publication,” either directly or by uploading to the Internet, then the offense is First-Degree Unlawful Publication of a Sexual Image. This is a felony offense punishable by up to 3 years in prison and/or a fine of $12,500.

Because this is a crime, not legislative activity, and transmitted both in the form of an electronic newsletter (uploaded to the internet) and statement to the press, she has no immunity….specifically listed in the speech and debate clause as exemptions to immunity.

Hunter also has civil cases in both DC and Georgia worth tens of millions each. Bye MTG. 😂

Not to mention the federal laws she broke by publishing the documents she swore under oath to not share or publish before she could see them.

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2021/11/04/texas-real-estate-jenna-ryan-prison-january-6-capitol-riot/

Excuse me, I meant to say put people in prison. More traitors to lock up, no time to chat.

the republican tears in this chat are great! i desire moar of your sadness!!

Somebody needs to stand their ground against these armed, violent, and abusive gang members trespassing, spying through bedroom/backyard windows, and harassing citizens in their homes without cause. Knock on my door like that at night without a warrant, you’re not leaving my porch alive.

Make no mistakes, this is the Gestapo style of policing DeSantos wants to bring nationwide.
Note, it’s not just a policy of ignoring the civil rights of people on probation, or even just those charged but not convicted of a crime, it’s also any family member or acquaintance….which includes almost every person in America.

My question, why aren't they having a chat with the ex president twice daily if being charged with a crime and spending time with other criminals is how they determine who to harass? There's no criminal in the state with more criminal charges pending, more convictions, and more criminal associations who's not in prison than Trump.

@bobknight33, would like your take. Are you siding with the DeSantos Gestapo or citizens and their constitutional rights? You can’t have both.

@lucky760 seems you are entering and leaving the chat lounge every minute since you were in there this AM.

...

siftbot: lucky760 left the lounge at June 12th, 2021 5:43am PDT
siftbot: lucky760 entered the lounge at June 12th, 2021 5:44am PDT
siftbot: lucky760 left the lounge at June 12th, 2021 5:44am PDT
siftbot: lucky760 entered the lounge at June 12th, 2021 5:45am PDT
siftbot: lucky760 left the lounge at June 12th, 2021 5:45am PDT
siftbot: lucky760 entered the lounge at June 12th, 2021 5:46am PDT
siftbot: lucky760 left the lounge at June 12th, 2021 5:46am PDT
siftbot: lucky760 entered the lounge at June 12th, 2021 5:47am PDT
...

"What on earth are you talking about?"
-newt

The rules for property and income when one or both parties decide they no longer want to be in the relationship.




"not having a marriage means you almost certainly will pay for them for 18+ years but won't have many rights to be in their lives"
-newt

Incorrect. If you are on birth certificate, you have the same rights and obligations.
The only pitfalls are that :
- Child support is calculated from the income of the parent with less custody (rather than from the true cost of raising a child).
- Women almost always get custody if the choice is between two parents (like when they live far apart and child can only be at one or the other).



"and may lose your rights to any assets if she grabs first"
-newt

Negative. Co-parenting does not conflate property.

Shared assets when not married are divided either by percentage of purchase price contribution, or by percentage stated in a contract.




"My brother paid well over a hundred thousand dollars for his divorce in Texas"
-newt

"My brother won."
-newt

Won by your own definition. Hence I congratulate.




"You assume women take off time to raise the kids"
-newt

No assumptions. Although afaik they still do it more often.




"You start from a false position that men work both harder and better, but you have no data to back that up. "
-newt

Top result from a zero effort google of "men working hours vs women working hours"

https://towardsdatascience.com/is-the-difference-in-work-hours-the-real-reason-for-the-gender-wage-gap-interactive-infographic-6051dff3a041




"Um...so since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that"
-newt

I admit that women [as a group] under 35 out earn men under 35 because of preferential admittance (such as to higher education) and preferential hiring (such as to managerial positions).

I did not say that women earn more in the same position for the same hours worked. Young men are simply getting shut out of opportunities, so their incomes are lower. As by design.

It does however highlight how affirmative action is being poorly controlled.
The target statistic is based on overall population at all ages.
The adjustment is skewed to younger ages (school admission is typically for younger people).
So the system is trying to balance out incomes of older men by trimming up incomes of younger women, with no accounting for the effects on younger men or consequences of older men retiring.
The situation is doomed to overshoot with time.

A natural result is the popularity of people like Jordan Peterson, with messages like : "Young men, nobody will help you, stop waiting for someone to help you, stop lamenting your situation, you gotta pull yourself up by your boot straps. Start by cleaning your room, then go make something of yourself".






"Bullshit. You said you would immediately dismiss any woman who has...
"Long dating history? Too much risk[etc]" -scheherazade "
-newt

Straw man argument.

You know I stated that those marriageability criteria exist specifically due to risk of consequences of divorce.

I never stated that I have personal issues with those attributes.
I have dated women on that list. I didn't /marry/ them.

My only criteria for a relationship that I am happy being in is :
- We are mutually attracted
- We like each other
- We are nice to each other
I don't care what your religion is, your politics, your family status, whatever. It's all just noise to me.





" And again, prenuptial. Do you not know what they are?"
-newt

Prenups can be negated by these simple words :

"I did not understand what I was signing"
or
"My lawyer was not present".

Poof. Prenup thrown out.




"their husbands are more likely to break their vows first"
-newt

A woman to cheat needs a willing man (easy)
A man to cheat needs a willing woman (hard)

Times have changed. Online dating made chatting someone up in person and make an impression uncommon, and even considered creepy/unusual. Now people are picked on their online profile based on looks/height/social-media-game.

Dating apps and sites publish their statistics. Nowadays, around 20% of men match with around 80% of women.
Most men aren't having sex. Most men can't find a match to cheat with if they wanted to.

The tall cute photogenic guys are cleaning up.
The 20% of men that match the bulk of women are going through women like a mill. They will smash whatever bored housewife crosses their path.

A 2 second google result :
https://usustatesman.com/economics-of-dating-2-the-brutal-reality-of-dating-apps/




"Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches"
-newt

Agreed.

Fortunately, I never say that about women.






" you can't grasp that a codified, delineated, agreed to partnership is almost always better, more fulfilling, and has many benefits cohabitation lacks"
-newt

False equivalence.

Cohabitation and Partnership are mutually independent.
Meaning both can exist at the same time.


-scheherazade

72 million, plus or minus, supported the man who attempted the coup...mindlessly. According to polling, over 50% still support the coup outright, the other near 50% still support the man and party and want to ignore the coup or blame it on political enemies despite all evidence to the contrary.

Only a few thousand participated, millions still think it was a good thing that didn’t go far enough. In fact, indications are there are similar actions planned in all 50 states and more in DC before, during, and probably after the inauguration.

If your club decides it’s going to break the law and murder people to complete its goals and you stay in the club, continue to pay your dues, and vocally defend it with zeal but won’t kill anyone yourself, and perhaps most importantly you don’t tell police they’re planning murders, you’re complicit, part of the crime, and deserve to be lumped in with the murderers.

I haven’t heard of any right wing whistleblowers that warned police that the murderous threats were being acted on. The FBI had to find out for itself at the last minute by sifting through encrypted right wing chat rooms on the dark web and their warnings went mostly ignored. They are still finding more planning for more attacks, yet no one on the inside is telling them. That puts all 72 million square in the membership of a domestic terrorism organization.

How do they want terrorists treated? Treat them like that. Rendition, torturous interrogation, and life in gitmo is what they think should happen to anyone belonging to an organization that attacks America, and their families. They should all fear their own criteria and punishments will be applied to them.

I definitely think that’s appropriate for any law enforcement officers that participated, gitmo or firing squad, loss of all benefits, and fines in the millions that their families have to pay.

Congratulations! Your video, Guy in VR Chat Talks About Their Worst Day as a Soldier, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 66 Badge!

Your video, Guy in VR Chat Talks About Their Worst Day as a Soldier, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 53 Badge!

For those who may want to see what they chit chatted about. Starts @1:20...

As an aside, the last time this was brought up it was in the late 30's.

"Aside from President Franklin Roosevelt’s ill-fated threat in 1937 to add new Justices who sympathized with his policies to the Supreme Court, the number of Justices on the Court has remained stable.

Roosevelt was particularly upset by the Court’s 1935 decision in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States. The unanimous decision invalidated a key part of the National Industrial Recovery Act, one of the projects passed during FDR's 100-day program in 1933. President Roosevelt did not mince words a week later when he talked to the press. “You see the implications of the decision. That is why I say it is one of the most important decisions ever rendered in this country,” Roosevelt told reporters on May 31, 1935. “We have been relegated to the horse-and-buggy definition of interstate commerce.”

As Roosevelt started his second term, he used one of his fireside chats in March 1937 to make his case to the American people for adding more Justices to the Supreme Court who agreed with him. “This plan of mine is not attacking of the court; it seeks to restore the court to its rightful and historic place in our system of constitutional government and to have it resume its high task of building anew on the Constitution ‘a system of living law.’ The court itself can best undo what the court has done,” Roosevelt said.

The legislation struggled to gain traction and it was opposed not only by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes but also by Justice Louis Brandeis and members of Roosevelt’s Democratic Party."

Woo boy, this is a doozy! The fact of the matter is a video comment section is not the place to have this conversation. There's too much to discuss, too many questions from one another that are best asked soon after they're conceived, etc. I frankly just don't have the time to respond to everything you said. Don't take this as acquiescence; if you'd like to have a Zoom chat some time, I'd be down.

In any event, I'll respond to what I find either the most important or at least most interesting:

Having theories is definitely the best way to go about most of the things you consider fact (for the moment), but the fact of the matter (no pun intended) is that at some point you'll need to use some of those claims as fact/belief in order to take action. And it's just human nature to, if one believes in a claim for long enough, it becomes fact, despite all your suggestions of objectivity. It's easy to say you're a scientist through and through, but if you're really someone who doesn't believe anything and merely theorize things, I think you'd be a sad human being. But that's a claim that I leave up to the scientists.

> Yes, and I eat animals because they're delicious.

You think that's a defensible moral claim? I find that disgraceful. If you truly think your own pleasure is worth sentient beings' lives then... I don't know what to say to you. That strikes me as callous and unempathetic, 2 traits you often assert as shameful. This is my point. You sound pretty obstinate to at least a reasonable claim. To respond with just "they're tasty". You don't sound reasonable to me.

> You may be correct, but eating meat is hardly the worst thing humans are up to.

Aw, come on @newtboy, I thought better of you than to give me a logical fallacy. The fact that you're resorting to logical fallacies wwould indicate to me that either you're confronting some cognitive dissonance, otherwise why would you stoop to such a weak statement?

> I gladly discuss vegetarianism with honest people, but I'm prepared when they start spouting bullshit like " eating any red meat is more harmful than smoking two packs a day of filterless cigarettes" ...

There is a lot of scientific research (not funded by Big ___) that is currently spouting this "bullshit". What happened to your receptive, scientific, theory-based lifestyle? It's true nutrition science is a fucking smog-filled night mare considering how much money is at stake, but I find it telling that a lot of the corporations are using the same ad men from Big Cigarette to stir up constant doubt.

Again, I find it peculiar that you are highly suspicious of big corporations... except when it comes to something that you want to be true.

Again, this is my point. Take a moment, take a few breaths, and look inside. Can you notice that you're acting in the exact same fashion as the people you purport to be obscenely stubborn?

Check out NutritionFacts if you want to see any of the science. Actual science. I would hope that it would give you at least somedoubt and curiosity.

That's a true scientist's homeostatic state: curiosity. Are you curious to investigate the dozens (hundreds?) of papers with a truly non-confirmation-biased mind? How much of a scientist are you?

> I've never met a vegan that wasn't a bold faced liar in support of veganism, so I'm less likely to give them a full chance at convincing me.

This, for me, raises all sorts of red flags. That's quite a sweeping claim.

> Again, that would be long held theories in my case, and it's not hard to change them. Mad cow disease got me to change until I was certain it wasn't in America. No, I'm not recoiling. I'll listen to anyone who's respectful and honest.

So, you're willing to make decisions based on self-interest and not morality? Well, duh. Everyone does that. It doesn't sound like you had a self-reflective moment. It sounds like you merely had a self-interested decision based on the risk to your own health.

And finally, all your talk about Bob -- of course he acts, consistently, like a twat. I just don't like feeding trolls. I don't think there's anyone on Videosift who's on the precipice and would be pushed over into the Alt-right Pit by Bob's ridiculous nonsense.

> Edit: in general I agree that dispassionate fact based replies with references are better at convincing people than derision, there are exceptions, and there are those who are unconvinceable and disinterested in facts that don't support their lies.

Ironically, I think science has disproved this. Facts don't change minds in situations like this. There are lots of articles on this. I didn't have the wherewithal to dig into their citations, but I leave that (non-confirmation-biased) adventure for you. [1]

---

I knew I wouldn't make this short, but I think it's shorter than it could have been.

Lastly, I'm with @BSR; I do appreciate your perseverance. Not everyone has as much as you seem to have! Whenever I see Bob... doing his thing, I can always be assured you'll take most of the words from my mouth. [2]

[1]
Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds | The New Yorker
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

This Article Won’t Change Your Mind - The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/this-article-wont-change-your-mind/519093/

Why People Ignore Facts | Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/words-matter/201810/why-people-ignore-facts

Why Many People Stubbornly Refuse to Change Their Minds | Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/think-well/201812/why-many-people-stubbornly-refuse-change-their-minds

Why Facts Don't Always Change Minds | Hidden Brain : NPR
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/743195213

[2] This comment has not been edited nor checked for spelling and grammatical errors. Haven't you got enough from me?