I don't understand why she doesn't do what most women (and men) who don't want to be approached (be it by men, women, panhandlers, whomever!) while walking through a city do, and wear earbuds??? It's a very simple solution and provides an easy and practical way of ignoring most of these attempts (if not dissuading them altogether).

Also.. This.

And:
"Let's all stop and focus our attention on "catcalling" women. Let's forget the drone bombings of entire cities, the fact that the US has 900 military bases in over 153 countries, the fact that you are almost 9 times more likely to be killed by a police employee than a terrorist....let's take a break from that and focus on the fact that sometimes men are creepy to pretty women."


And:

"The path to empowering women is not by disempowering men.
While many feminist campaigns and viral videos are great at expressing the (superficial) problem, they're not helping to solve it. Prolonging the "battle of the sexes" and "blame game" mentality will never stop rape, harassment, or abuse. All that's being done is expressing pain and anger, which is fine, unless it's directed at another. Attacking men for attacking women isn't going to solve anything.
We need to go so much deeper than this. So much deeper.
We don't need to see more proof of "how fucked up society is"; this only propagates stereotypes that induce resentment and fear. We need to see the power of compassion, love, forgiveness, healing, empathy, and acceptance between both sexes. We need to learn why people hurt other people (hint: it's because they're hurting themselves) and how to heal it and empathize with it.
We need women to open up and love in the face of men approaching, not shut down and run away. We need men to open up and love in the face of rejection, rather than becoming bitter or forcing our will upon another.
Unabashedly, I do not support or promote campaigns that are based in pain, resentment, anger, or fear, no matter how noble the cause. I wish to lift up both sexes – nay, all people – without perpetuating the pain and conflict.
This darkness has been illuminated out in the world, now it's time to illuminate the darkness within ourselves and heal it. What we see out in our culture is a reflection of how so many of us are unable to resolve the conflicts, rejection, and hurt caused by the masculine and feminine inside of us. We can not fix this by signing new laws or going out and trying to control everybody; we do this by starting the forgiveness and healing process within ourselves and going out into the world shining love instead of hate."

Only someone who shouldn't be trusted to put their trousers on in the morning would allow the law to develop without questioning its validity. You are literally and voluntarily giving up your right to self determination by doing so, and putting your future self determination in the hands of fallible lawmakers.

Why do you think that those in power are perfect? And if not, why do you keep acting like you do - i.e. trusting and allowing anything and everything they say to be your moral compass?

But believers demonstrably don't use the word of their god (or its earthy incarnation) as a moral compass. They all use their own morality and that of the culture they live in to judge which bits of their holy texts to ignore because they are immoral. The revulsion most humans have for genocide and slavery certainly does not come from the desert god Yahweh, who advocates both of those things in the New Testament and the Old. I would say that the opposite of what Harvey says is true: that using the Bible as a moral compass without tempering it with human morality is risky, and people who do so should be avoided.

Steve probably thinks he's badass for his antiquated, thinly veiled bigotry. One thing anyone with a moral compass (I prefer compass to barometer) needs to understand is that these days being an asshole is a schtick. Let's see this for what it is. Assholes spouting received morality as a schtick should not be surprising or insulting. They get paid for it, the other assholes applaud them and they get to feel superior. Circle jerk. Time to move on people.

I have just found out that there are a ton of liberal people on videosift. His point of view is just as valid as you left-wing dorks. He makes perfect sense to me.

He's saying that a moral compass without a divine being behind that compass is risky. That's all he's saying.

I hate the word "homophobic." I'm not homophobic. I'm homoadverse. I'm not an Islamaphobe, I'm Islamicadverse. I'm not afraid of gays, I just don't like them.

I don't care if you're offended or not. That's your perogative.

...and a compass only points to magnetic North, not true North. Pretty sure a religious compass works similarly.

I talk to people all the time... "I'm an atheist" ... I just walk away

So... in addition to:
- sleeping in on sunday
- eating whatever the fuck you want
- not worrying about going to hell
- have the best comedians

we now have yet another benefit to being an atheist! Thanks, moron!

Sweet monkey jesus, it just gets worse.

The "restraining order" bit? Hah! Stalking women is fucking hilarious!
The "men and women can't be friends"? WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU? and he accuses atheists of lacking a moral compass?

May it happen peacefully and quickly.


I really don't understand people who are against this. It's like they are void of compassion and empathy. No act of compassion is greater than one that makes you do something you absolutely wouldn't do, just to take someone else's suffering.

I got recommended to read Atlas Shrugged by a friend of mine. That friend turned out to be a beret-wearing high-art-snob ponce, but i didn't know it at the time.

I managed to finish it and whilst there were reasonable ideas in there that i think in some way we have paralleled in reality - whilst i find that most of her characters are sociopathic to some degree, i can very much sympathise with the idea of being led by the least capable in society who abuse the system of power that they shape and build to implement bad ideas badly.

I like the idea that the world would grind to a halt if the morons in charge did not have the ordinary, hard working people to keep things afloat... but that's about all i like about it. And i think we genuinely can see it happening in the world today in a less exaggerated fashion - the recent recession clearly demonstrated that the people in charge of money and property do not understand what they're doing and ignored the warning signs for years. Furthermore, our feckless leaders have done nothing about it, property bubbles continue to grow and bonuses for the upper echelons are still outlandish whilst the lower workers are struggling to get by in the recession. And then the expenses scandal of the MPs in Britain literally stealing money from the public pocket to have their moats cleaned (that actually happened) and such. Yesterday the watchdog looking into the scandal has decided that the investigation will take place in secret from the public and punishments will also be kept secret. Et voila, two clear instances of those in charge having no clue and no moral compass swept under the rug and forgotten about.

In conclusion, Ayn Rand is a very small minded individual who thinks that everyone in the world must think like she does. That is the only reason i can think of for the approximately 30 pages i read about the female lead character's personal sexual obsession with being taken aggressively by a man and made to feel defiled and used, and how all women feel that and all men wish to dominate and use a woman in turn.

But i think she got it spot on about how being led by those least capable morons will bring the world to its knees, and it won't require the hard workers to quit either. It just requires them to let it happen. And there's no little paradise to run off to, there's just Earth.

@artician - that's exactly it. The characters have no human empathy in Atlas Shrugged. I don't understand why it has to be all or nothing for most people - all conservative or all liberal. Why not the best of both? It IS possible to be ethical, productive and innovative at the same time.

First, regarding your statement and this video, it's not a matter of "that cop should act perfectly." It's more that the officer had no reason to handcuff a guy who is not a threat has already been searched and is sitting there doing nothing.

But in general, the bigger problem is not with this specific cop's actions; it's that this kind of behavior is indicative of a systematic problem in law enforcement and society's lack of concern for how their abuse of power is not being kept in check. It's becoming more and more acceptable for police to separate individuals from their civil rights and with less and less reason, motivation, or consequences.

The explanation is really not just that "Hey, cops are human, bro. They totally make mistakes. They can't all negotiate perfectly. They can't all have compassion. They aren't all like super-patient. They can't all only shoot guilty people." That's quite a bit of a naive opinion.

The issue is that cops are no longer just making mistakes and bad judgement calls. At least that kind of thing could be chalked up to human error or inadequate training.

They're now intentionally deciding to do things to people they know they really have no legal explanation for and that they will face no consequences for.

If you're really defending that, then what you're really saying is cops should be able to do whatever they want, to whomever they want, whenever they want, just because they want to, and everyone else should shut up and take it because everything any cop does is acceptable because of the very fact that they're a cop. And besides, it's not going to happen to "the vast majority of people," so who cares, right?

Bullshit. Maybe in communist Russia or China, but not in the land of the "free."

The vast majority of people never have contact with police officers.

The vast majority of people who HAVE contact with police officers are treated civilly and go on with their lives.

The vast majority of people know that you don't give a bunch of shit to police officers. If you do, you take a chance on an outcome that won't make you happy.

The vast majority of people who are arrested on a weekly basis know that they will pay a small fine, or do a couple of days in jail, and take it as a cost of doing business.

A small number of police contacts end up with someone being treated for a bruise or cut, or a loose tooth, or pepper spray in the eyes.

A small number of police contacts end up dead and the vast majority of them instigated the violence.

You people expect cops to act perfectly, have the negotiating skills of Henry Kissinger, the compassion of Mother Theresa and the patience of Job, the martial skill of a UFC fighter, and the targeting skill of Annie Oakley, when what you should be doing is looking at your own behavior and seeing how that leads to your own fate.

Agreed, if the 'word of god' is debatable, it can't be infallible, can it?
Once you think for yourself, you have suddenly become philosophic, not religious, in my eyes. For some, many don't realize the transition happened and continue on with the trappings of religion while not really 'following' it.
It's those (and they are many) that look to religion for their moral compass that bother me. Since it is interpretable to mean near anything, it can't be a moral compass (or it's the kind of compass that Jack Sparrow had, that just points to whatever you want at the time).
I find it funny that many are called 'fundamentalist Christians' yet I haven't heard of a Christian stoning for a while now, and it is the clearly prescribed treatment for infidels. Clearly even the fundies pick and choose what to follow.

The word of God is infallible but human beings are fallible. We all struggle with a sinful nature and are subject to futility. There is one truth, and many flawed individuals trying to grasp that truth through their own peculiar biases and weaknesses of character. No scripture is of private interpretation, but holy men of God spoke as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit who teaches men to understand the word of God, but since men are imperfect and ignore or suppress the truth, they will not always listen to the Holy Spirit and come to differing interpretations. There is only one true interpretation, but often that in itself has various facets as you examine the text for different contexts, such as spiritual connotations and applications.

Agreed, if the 'word of god' is debatable, it can't be infallible, can it?
Once you think for yourself, you have suddenly become philosophic, not religious, in my eyes. For some, many don't realize the transition happened and continue on with the trappings of religion while not really 'following' it.
It's those (and they are many) that look to religion for their moral compass that bother me. Since it is interpretable to mean near anything, it can't be a moral compass (or it's the kind of compass that Jack Sparrow had, that just points to whatever you want at the time).
I find it funny that many are called 'fundamentalist Christians' yet I haven't heard of a Christian stoning for a while now, and it is the clearly prescribed treatment for infidels. Clearly even the fundies pick and choose what to follow.

To be fair, I believe it is a matter of some debate even among theologians.

My fundamental issue with it (and religion in general) is that ultimately you must decide for yourself what is right and wrong, and as soon as you have to do that, then clearly the "word of god" (at least as delivered to humans) is not infallible, and therefore clearly not divine.

Most Christians / Jews / Muslims / Hindus / whatever are good people, but that is in spite of their religion not because of it. Their inner moral compass leads them to ignore the aspects of their faith that are offensive to modern sensibilities (slavery, racism, etc).

Ironically, the people who actually follow their religion to the letter of the law are called fundamentalists and generally shunned by society.

I find this hilarious.