....and to interject here for clarity and general edification and enlightenment, that the OVERUSE of the words 'just', 'actually', and my personally-peevish pet-polemic, 'CLEEEARLY' -(God, I fucking detest the abuse of this particular word esp. when used to begin a sentence/statement with a view to arguing some complete and utter bullshit with very telling emotionally-fueled, idiotic prattle), should sound as a warning to all that what you are about to read is a load of self-delusional horseshit.

Please smarty-pants, argue and defend MORE bullshit and reveal to all your lifetime extant of dysfunctional programming with these flaccid idioms designed to abuse logic, reason, and common-sense and experience the warm sensation of having your fuck-shit-stack of words inserted gently into and up your own ass.

Ahem. That said, any psychoactive drugs (some are better than others) combined with proper navigation through a qualified proctor, set, and setting can be utilized to re-write or substantially inhibit or reverse the ill-effects of traumatic imprinting and programming.

OK, So maybe it was worded odd for you - Sometimes clarity in my head, isn't always clarity out loud!
Cheers!

I can see his point though. Founding fathers were far from perfect..and he's right, they are idolized. If we were to meet the founders right now, I'm sure they'd say some fucked up shit even the most conservative would now think of as barbaric. I think at the very least, they definitely favored landowners over non. They certainly didn't think women should vote. so they certainly weren't strangers to the idea that some people had more rights than others.

We make the same argument about weapons, that the founding fathers never could have foreseen how guns have advanced and proliferated in present day so we routinely argue that the 2nd amendment needs to be revisited. The left focuses on "well regulated" and the right focus on "shall not be infringed" No matter what side of the aisle you're on...it needs to be revised if only for clarity.

By that same token, I don't think the founders could have foreseen how powerful corporations have become or income inequality problem. Gov't used to have the power to revoke a company charter pretty much on whim...that ability is long gone

Where was this 'clarity' in that 'defense'? Beyond the understandable defense of your punctuation mistake, I didn't see it.
Question...IMLTHO? Does this mean In My Lithium Taking Hilarious Opinion? I've honestly never seen this abbreviation before.
Interesting, so you do understand that YOU are the problem, so much that the sift had to invent an ignore 'button' largely to allow others to ignore you, you just insist on being the problem and forcing the community to 'gang up on poor little you' so you can whine about the unfairness of life and other people? Why? Has no one ever told you that 'poor little bully' isn't a good look?
Wait a second...I thought you were the 'waiting for a chance to fuck with others' robot program...is that why you're mad, someone else is appearing to infringe on your domain?

Might I remind you of a previous chat we had....

newtboy said : ...Or perhaps (and this seems the most likely) you're a feckless and feculent fecal philiac in love with reading your own sophomoric posts.

chingalera said :Guilty an all charges Von Astute and might I add, how refreshing your critique of my lack of forethought when responding to regular fare here....



Newts don't buzz or attack, but we are deadly when bitten. ;-}

Perhaps the clarity of my last defense will un-thicken yer skull a bit and shut-down the "waiting for a chance to fuck with me" robot-program??

Again, the "ignore' feature was made available here on the Videosift due in no small part to my infamous process of poking paper nests with sticks-Bzzzzzzzzzzzz! OW!

It's not a conscious choice to use those methods, they just are what they are.
And I don't measure density, honestly, I have no reason to.

And I am a graphic designer, and when I'm designing for the web, pixel is the Only way to go, as all dimensions in the CSS and HTML are indicated in pixels.

- A web graphic is always 72 dpi, unless for some strange reason its
needed at higher clarity, then I use 96 dpi.
- Images for ads in news print are usually good at 200 dpi.
- Graphics used for full colour print use 300 dpi
I instinctively know the size on the image as it adjusts between the different dpi settings. it's part of the job from doing it for so many years (lol - plus, Photoshop tells you as you reduce the dpi what size it is )

But like I said, if I'm designing for print, then I use Points and Picas - not pixels.

Sorry for the lack of clarity, but it isn't that unclear unless you would be stunned with disbelief by the answer. We, America--as I said--we understand how fucked up the system is. Through apathy or fear or some other reason, we, America, don't care.

Not being sarcastic, just pointing out that America is different from other Western nations, and not in a good way. When I say "we" I don't mean all Americans. Just enough to keep universal healthcare out of our laws.

Honestly not sure what your point is here.

Are you saying I don't understand how fucked up your system is?
Or that you appreciate how fucked up it is and I don't?
Or that it's not fucked up?

I'm all for pithy responses, but you really need clarity as well as brevity.

Thought the same thing when I found this and it was unpublished, especially in light of recent events on a personal level where, at a couple of key moments of clarity with regard to relative rights of cops and citizens, having pre-scripted responses to their bullshit and some rehearsed scenarios could have helped me tremendously.

Oh. My humblest apologies to anyone who I have lambasted for talking shit about Texas, my home state. I redact my support for the state as her government has become a beast unfriendly and aggressive towards her citizenry, as the system's standard of ethics, morality, and I.Q. minimums-for-cadets is at an all-time low and there's more bottom below.
I DO NOT recognize her any longer, or her developmentally-disabled masses. Change only for the worse as we brace for impact of comet Police State.

> "you are sounding more and more like an anarchist.
> you didnt click the link i shared did you?
> it explained in basic form the type of anarchy i subscribe to. "

The link is about libertarian socialism, not strictly anarchism. I consider libertarian socialism, not left-libertarianism, but rather a contradiction. Coherent left-libertarianism, like that of Roderick Long, is for free market, not the traditional definitions of socialism. Different people define these differently. I use libertarianism to mean adhering to the non-aggression principle, as defined by Rothbard. But whatever it means, socialism, communism, syndicalism, and similar non-voluntary systems of communal ownership of "property" cannot but interfere with individual property rights, and by extension, self-ownership rights. These also need rulers/administrators/archons to manage any so-called "communal" property, so it cannot fit the definition of anarchy. If you don't have a bureaucracy, how do you determine how resources get allocated and used? What if I disagree from how you think "communal" resources should be distributed? Who determines who gets to use your car? It is a version of the problem of economic calculation. That wikipedia article conflates several different "libertarian socialist" positions, so which one does he adhere to?

> "i agree with your position.
> i may word mine differently but our views are in alignment for the most part."

This may be true, at least once we do away with any notions that socialism, or non-voluntary "communal" property can be sustainable without a free market and the notion that you can have any such thing as "communal" property, owned by everyone, and not have ruler/administrators/government to make decisions about it. that shirt you are wearing, should we take a vote to see who gets to wear it tomorrow? How about if there is disagreement about this? Anarcho-socialism is unworkable.

> "what i do find interesting is how a person with a more right leaning ideology will
> point to the government and say "there..thats the problem" while someone from a
> more left leaning will point to corporations as the main culprit."

Governments exist without corporations. Corporations cannot exist without government. Governments bomb, kill, imprison, confiscate, torture, tell you what you can and cannot do. Apple, Microsoft, Walmart do not and cannot. Government produces nothing. Corporations produce things I can buy or not voluntarily and pay or not for them. There is no comparison in the level of suffering governments have caused compared to say Target.

If you disobey the government, what can happen? If you disobey Google or Amazon, then what?

> "in my humble opinion most people all want the same things in regards to a
> civilized society. fairness,justice and truth."

Yes, but some want to impose (through violence) their views on how to achieve these on everyone else and some (libertarians) don't.

> "i agree the federal government should have limited powers but i recognize
> government DOES play a role.i believe in the inherent moral goodness of
> people.that if pressed,most people will do the right thing."

If people are inherently good and will do the right thing, then why do we need government/ruler?

Why not just let everyone do the right thing?

> "this is why i think that governments should be more localized.we could use the
> "states rights" argument but i would take it further into townships,local
> communities and municipalities."

I agree. And from there we can go down to neighborhoods, and then households. And of course, logically, all the way to individuals. And any government a voluntary one where everyone unanimously agree to it. But this is not longer government per se, but rather contracts between voluntary participants.

> "for this to even have a chance this country would have to shake off its induced
> apathetic coma and participate and become informed.
> no easy task.
> in fact,what both you and i are suggesting is no easy task.
> but worthy..so very very worthy."

Ok.

> "when we consider the utter failures of:
> our political class.
> the outright betrayal of our intellectual class who have decided to serve privilege
> and power at the neglect of justice and truth for their own personal advancement,
> and the venal corporate class."

So if people are basically good and do the right thing, why has this happened? Then again, when have politician not been self serving kleptocrats?
few exceptions

> "we,as citizens,have to demand a better way.
> not through a political system that is dysfunctional and broken and only serves the
> corporate state while giving meaningless and vapid rhetoric to the people."

True.

> "nor can this be achieved by violent uprising,which would only serve to give the
> state the reason to perpetrate even greater violence."

True.

> "we cannot rely on our academic class which has sold itself for the betterment of
> its own hubris and self-aggrandizing."

True.
Nothing a libertarian anarchist would not say.

> "even the fourth estate,which has been hamstrung so completely due to its desire
> for access to power,it has been enslaved by the very power it was meant to
> watchdog."

I have not gone into this, but you can thank "democracy" for all this.

> "when we look at american history.the ACTUAL history we find that never,not
> ONCE,did the american government EVER give something to the people."

Yeah, governments are generally no-good.
Let me interject to say that I agree that plutocrats cause problems. I certainly agree that kleptocrat cause even more problems. But I am not ready to exclude the mob from these sources of problems. As Carlin said, "where do these politicians come from?

> "it is the social movements which put pressure,by way of fear,on the political
> class."

The mob can and does often get out of control.

> "we have seen the tea party rise and get consumed by the republican political
> class."
> "we saw occupy rise up to be crushed in a coordinated effort by the state.this was
> obama that did this yet little was ever spoken about it."
> "power is petrified of peoples movements."

I don't disagree. But people's movements are not necessarily always benign. And they have a tendency to fall in line with demagogues. Plutocrats bribe kleptocrats. Kleptocrats buy the mob. They are all guilty. I know, you say, they people need to be educated. Sure, like they need to be educated abut economics? How is that going to happen? If everyone was educated as an Austrian libertarian economist, sure, great. Is that the case? Can it be? Just asking.

I do support any popular movement that advocates free markets and non-aggression. Count me in.

> "power is petrified of peoples movements."

People's movements are often scary. And not always benign. But non-aggressive, free market ones, like Gandhi's, sure, these are great!

> "because that is the only way to combat the power structures we are being
> subjected to today. civil disobedience. and i aim to misbehave."

Maybe. This is a question of strategical preference. Civil disobedience. Ron Paul says he thinks that maybe that's the only option left or it may become the only option left sometime in the future. But, like you said, secession to and nullification by smaller jurisdictions is also a strategy, although you may consider it a "legal" form of civil disobedience. You seem on board.

I see great potential for you (writer), once you straighten out some economic issues in your mind.

> "there will be another movement.
> i do not know when or how it will manifest.
> i just hope it will not be violent."

If it is violent, it is not libertarian in the most meaningful way, adhering to non-aggression.

> "this starts exactly how you and i are talking.
> it is the conversation which sparks the idea which ignites a passion which turns
> into a burning flame.
> i am a radical. a dissident. but radical times call for radical thinking."

If you want something not only radical, but also coherent and true, here you have libertarian anarchy.

> "you and i both want fairness,justice and truth. everybody does."

Yep.

> "some of our philosophy overlaps,other parts do not.
> we discuss the parts that do not overlap to better understand each other."

Yes, good. Keep listening, and you will see for yourself.

> "this forms a bond of empathy and understanding.
> which makes it far more harder to demonize each other in terms of the political
> class and propaganda corporate tv."

And for clarity, I don't say the corporate is made up of saints. I only point out that their power to abuse comes from government privilege that they can control. Whether corporations control this power or the mob does, either way, it is a threat to individual liberties. Break the government monopoly, and let the market provide for what we need, and they will have little power to abuse, or as little as possible, but both more power and incentive to do good.

> "I don't say the corporate world is made up of saints"

As long as government and not the market distributes the spoils, abusive plutocrats will arise.

As long as government and not the market distributes the spoils, kleptocrats will seek office to enrich themselves and cronies, as well as for the power trip.
As long as government and not the market distributes the spoils, kleptocrats will bribe the mob (the so-called people) with stolen goods taken from their legitimate owners through force.

The only real positive democracy, is market democracy, the one much harder to exploit and abuse. the one that is not a weapon used to benefit some at the expense of others.

> "the power elite do not want me to understand you,nor you to empathize with me."

But I do empathize with you! And you are making an effort to understand me.
And remember, many not in the "power elite" have been bribed/conditioned also to turn on you and prevent you from understanding/empathizing.

> "fear and division serve their interests.
> hyper-nationalistic xenophobia serves their interests.
> i aim to disappoint them."

Good for you! And for everyone else.

> "maybe it will help if i share the people i admire.
> chomsky,zinn,hedges,watts,harvey,roy,
> just some of the people who have influenced me greatly."

I know them well. Now perhaps you can take a look at things from a different angle, one that I think corrects some of their inconsistencies.

> "nowhere near as polite and awesome as you."

Thanks, man. You too

Made me cry. I've had this happen to me. The inexorable truth that rolls up on you from inside and you come to that moment of clarity.

*quality

Just for clarity, I know it's not a dupe from two things. For one, here is the original description from antonye (don't put it past him to edit it after this)


"The MotoGP Championship is the pinnacle of motorcycle racing; the motorcycle equivalent of F1 cars. Eight-times World Champion Valentino Rossi (#46) is defending his title against his team-mate Jorge Lorenzo (#99) in these last two laps of the Catalunya Grands Prix from 14th June 2009.

And yes, they're doing over 200mph (>325kph) when we first join them!

(commentary in Dutch, but you get the idea...)"


DO YOU HEAR ANY DUTCH IN THIS VIDEO?

Secondly, he posted his video 3 years before the one I posted was made.


Dick.

For sake of clarity I'm using prejudice in the sense of "any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable".

The reason I'm for some amount of prejudice against religion is that some religions/religious views are quite favorable, whereas some others are just bloody dangerous, inherently immoral and wrong, and several are like this by design (death cults for example). And some religions/religious views are just... Silly. While others can be both, like how scientology is silly, but if even part of the controversies regarding them are true then they're also bloody dangerous.

I'm not going to interact the same way with a self-professed death cultist, scientologist, raelian, or a fundamental/extremist of any religion or lack thereof as I do with so called "normal" people. By going that way they've already made some things painfully obvious, by signing up for some specific religious view they've already declared some things they believe in. If I know that some of the tenets of their professed view are just wrong, dangerous or possibly ridiculous, I will interact differently with them. I am also likely to be positively prejudiced towards for example christians from more liberal sects (like those who support gay marriage and women's rights), as opposed to, say, the Westboro Baptists.

Religious views are not something you're born with, they're the result of your own reasoning or some outside influence, but it's always something that can be affected. That puts them on another level entirely when compared to something like race. Whether some amount of prejudice can be helpful in certain situations (dark alley, strange person pointing a weapon at me, I'll initially judge that particular book by it's covers, even if the contents may possibly have some redeeming features), that's debatable, but race and religion aren't nearly on the same platform.

I've got an iPad so that's all I need for screens in front of my face. The reason that I'm excited about Google Glass and thinking of getting it is because I ride a motorcycle everywhere...literally it's my only vehicle. When I ride to someplace with GPS I have my phone giving me instructions through my headphones. With the Google Glass it'll be able to navigate me with a bit more clarity. So it's cool and it's the start of something, not sure if I'll be an early adopter though.

I personally think the true facts related videos is exactly what related was created for. I do however see that the related video is sometimes abused. Maybe @lucky760 or @dag could provide some clarity on how related should be used.

Oh and dont get me started on the crazy abuse of the channel invocations. It's an absolute clusterfuck.

-edit-
from the 5.0 release siftalk - "We've added a new invocation called *related. It's very simple to use. If you find a VideoSift post (and by post I mean video, Sift Talk, or blog post) with content that is related to another post, just invoke related like this: *related=http://videosift.com/video/Crystal-Blue-Persuasion"

So its pretty wide open on what can be considered related. Maybe we could come up with a more defined definition.