Also, @MarineGunrock

FYI, it wasn't a dupe. It was filmed on the same day by a different person and had different footage. But then they made it private. Was gonna kill it anyway because I couldn't find a replacement, so thanks I guess.

In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
*isdupe>> ^MarineGunrock:

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Russian-backhoe-swimming-pool

5 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

*isdupe>> ^MarineGunrock:

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Russian-backhoe-swimming-pool

@lucky760 "Why does it matter that they’re married? Well, because in some jurisdictions, when the question of gay marriage comes up, those who object to it say that gay marriage is associated with low moral character and a general erosion of public ethics. It’s a belief you’d have to be mad or terrified to embrace, but perhaps some of those scared or crazy people will have their hearts softened by this incredible example." From the article.

I have extended family members who honestly believe gays and lesbians are hell-bound deviants. As someone who is bisexual---no, not barsexual, ugh. There's a lot of hatred for bisexuals from both sides <_<--, I'd like to see more stories like this..

>> ^catbutt:

Cry us a river, Mazzeo - your cops act like a bunch of kids in a playground, handing out tickets to cars parked more than an inch away from the curb, and you're bitching now because the people are pissed off and threatening the police force? Tough shit. If your cops want to play games, of course they're going to invite threats. Take measures to bring them in line, don't fucking support them and promote their behavior. Idiot.


"Games," as you say, versus, "I will murder you while you sleep" definitely seems tit for tat. *Bullshit* And it certainly adds to the debate. *Bullshit* I wonder if you skipped someone in line at the grocery store and they threatened to murder you and your family because of that game you just played, would you be fine with it? "Boohoo, you cut in line like someone on a playground. Now I want you to die..." That somehow doesn't seem right--but from what you said, it seems you would be fine with it...

Sorry, but upping the ante with threats of violence is wrong. It is wrong for COPS, especially cops, and it is wrong for civilians. Excusing that is unacceptable. And before I finish; threats of violence lead the weak minded to act on violence. It is an entire culture we create, which we don't think of, that acts on the violence... And these real life consequences are getting both sides killed. Young thugs (And old crazy people) who think it's cool to take threats they hear about and act on, and officers... Both sides. Sad.

watching crazy people is weird.

@Gwiz
Yes, but crazy people with assault riles rarely do those types of things to police officers. Yes, officers die commonly enough--but not an everyday occurrence when you include mad firepower, and veterans at that. Just like police brutality, that's an ultra rare occurence. I understand why you note what you note--and personally, we just disagree on the heart of the matter. It's a difference of opinion is all. However, you do explain things in *wiener* a way that I can appreciate; you have a better personality in regards to reaching my line of thinking.

The only true things that get under my skin are peoples comments, like the one that viewed the cop as less than human, like some ape scum that deserved to be shot and laughed at. Yes, that's assuming the worst about the vague comment, but we are adults and can logically do a case by case assessment.

On the note you made; what do you think about the second admendment and assault rifles? I believe in reasonable arms, and that does not include those. Obviously most agree--but I also view the law as more important than my own feelings. With that said, arms can be regulated, I think, within reason. *handguns versus assault rifles for example*

@bareboards

It's funny--I would have thought this sift talk would have prohibited an external link too, since it's just another way of posting snuff into the site--albeit in a round about manner. That's why I never thought of using Sift Talk as an outlet. Now that I know--thanks to you and Sagemind; I can use this format in the future. Which, although it doesn't completely change my opinion, at least helps with the limits and therefore improves my disposition of the sift.


***On a side note, and no offense to you lucky, why does the Lucky Charms' icon make me twitch with agitation? That's not normal, I don't think. That's outside of the cereal-box thinking. Sorry, I couldn't resist the pun.

@Lawdeedaw I just like to mention my colossal wiener.

Regarding snuff, in the history of the sift, we've always done it on a case by case basis, which I do feel is the optimal way. Endless rules lawyering would be much worse than a relaxed approach like we have. Some times that means we have to let the poor admins get in there, and other times the community handles it for itself. It's not about persecuting anyone - but you know that - it's about trying to keep videosift sober and honorable (you know, as much as we can be).

Videosift shouldn't be a central for death videos or porn for that matter, that would diminish what we are. On the other hand, we should not shy away from it on the grounds that it's "dirty" or whatever. We want to keep the sift a reasonably respectable place to be, while having some things for everyone.

When a cop misuses his power and an innocent is killed that's newsworthy, because it's not supposed to be like that - cops should be trusted, so when that trust is breached it's important that people know that it happen, so the police are accountable.

Seeing a random crazy person shoot someone until they are unrecognizable is less newsworthy because that's what crazy people do. In that case, it's not really necessary to know how he went crazy and emptied his weapon in someones face, it's quite sufficient to know that he did it. It is a terrible event, certainly, and in that light someone might want to see it, but, for me at least, I can't justify it to myself to willingly let it stay. We have removed things as snuff for less before, and in the end I think that's probably a good thing. Videosift should not become snuff central (or porn for that matter), but if there is sufficient reason that something that would otherwise fall into that category should be sifted, then you should try it and justify it either in the description or in a comment - if someone disagrees enough with you, or more do, then it will be discussed and decided on. If you feel that it shouldn't go they way it did, then you can appeal to us all in a talk post like this - it's all good. We're just people, we all want what we think is best, so speak your peace, sway some minds, or fight the power.

It's not videosift and its principles vs. the world, or vs. lawdeedaw, or vs mediocrity. We are the sift, the sift are its users. For better or worse.

The guidelines/rules are there as directions - it's about the spirit of the rules, not the letter. The more it is narrowed down, the more will slip by that's undesirable.

The video was a great platform or starting point to talk about the 2nd amendment, I think, but while the video itself should probably not be sifted - you are welcome to make a talk post and embed the video there with the goal of, for instance, discussing that.

I'm rambling because it's late. I've already said too much.

Colossal wiener.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I am a little confuzled about calling @Skeeve and my conversation both true and a non sequitur. I guess because I am addressing a more theoretical, man kind building question and you a more practical one. Your talking about the more practical, of making things work now, I am talking more about how I want things to work, for always. A the difference between the tangible and the ideal I guess.

It seems you weren't all that confused, that's exactly what I was getting at.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I have been considering the statement "the needs of the many..." for the course of a few weeks now.

...

I find that the statement of "the needs of the many..." very closely relates to the Democratic position.


I think the "the needs of the many..." quote is a pretty crude statement of the type of moral reasoning you find on the left. The more refined version can be found described in John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism, but if you want a brief synopsis of the philosophy, try this.

I would also say most modern liberals tend more towards a Rawlsian political philosophy.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
When your tribe is 20 people, and the fate of your people all hang in the balance of routine decisions, evolutionary speaking, to survive, it is easier to remove the rational component of this choice. The rational implications of every choice you make determining the fate of your entire race is a burden that doesn't aid in decision making. It is much "better" to program in an emotional response and have that being post-rationalize later, intelligence is actually more of a burden than a tool in this area. This way, we remove the impotence one might face in the light of such a larger than life issue, and set in that mind a continuing sequence of emotional ties to the event through post-rationalizations.

I totally agree. I tend to think of a lot of what humans use rationality for is to rationalize decisions they really made at a gut/emotional level.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think the reason Democracy works so well, given this situation, is it very closely mimics the "rules of the jungle." By that, I mean force. Democracy is an interesting formalization of the rules of the jungle. Instead of the force being a stick or a knife, it is a vote.

This, on the other hand, I think is totally false. Democracy is a tool to try to tie large, diverse groups into a single tribe by getting rid of the "tribal leader makes the decisions for the tribe" aspect of tribal society. The reason we want to do that is that even though we're no longer just a pack of 20 trying to deal with tigers in a jungle, we are still facing all sorts of threats from the outside world (e.g. disease, natural disaster, food scarcity, water scarcity, etc.), as well as threats generated by our inability to cohesively work as a unified tribe (war, pollution, persecution, extreme resource inequality), and that we should all be united in dealing with that common cause.

The "rules of the jungle" is more something you see in markets. The idea in most right-wing philosophy is to keep the idea that tribes should stay entirely hierarchical, and that no tribe should feel fundamentally obligated to any other tribe. Strong tribes should be allowed to amass resources they take from weaker tribes, and weaker tribes get killed off. Theoretically there's some method for preventing these inter-tribe conflicts from being violent, but nobody's worked out a way to do that other than creating a state who will use sticks and knives (and guns and nukes) to make people play by the rules of the market by force.

The evolutionary component of markets is really the key to what its proponents like -- evolution brings us forward progress, after all. The position over here on the left is that morally speaking, evolution is cruel. People like me see the benefits of markets, and the moral downsides, and want to try to find a way to make markets less cruel. People much further to my left are moral absolutists who want them destroyed because they're inhumane.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
The course of discovery seems to be without end for man. It seems inevitable, that in time, each human will have access to such a level of technology that any one person could end all life on the planet with little to no effort. Our only current solutions for it are that of liberty, which would only take one crazy person to end it all, or regulations, of which would have to be of the most extreme kind to protect against knowledge that is easy to acquire and use. It seems that the current rules that bind this planet along with mans advancement in technology have set us on a collision course with a cruel destiny. While not a certainty, I do believe it is certain that the tools of Democratic force will not save us from our own self imposed destruction.

I think the way to deal with it is to realize that the choice between "regulations on world-destroying weapons" and "liberty demands that crazy people have the right to own world-destroying weapons" is actually a really, really easy choice, since one of them ends with no one left alive on Earth...

Will "democracy" protect us from being stupid about that choice? No.

But if humanity is ever going to make it through its technological adolescence, we're going to have to set aside these childish notions that "liberty" only exists if you can completely disavow any sense of obligation to the rest of humanity.

These guys are one of the 3 groups of crazy people who get paid to do stupid shit: Dudesons, Jackass, and Dirty Sanchez. And that video... was insane. That last bit with the demolition, was beyond insanity. It actually was so insane, it became sane again, and then went insane one more time.

Crazy lady is crazy. If she had been on Meth (not clear she wasn't from the picture) would you still blame religion? The Hale Bopp people killed themselves because they believed in recycling. Crazy people are crazy.

Your argument that this would not have happened without her religious beliefs is flawed. It's a counter-factual statement. You don't know that she wouldn't have found some other reason to protect her children from their future in a terrible world (e.g. global warming, war, what have you), and performed the same act. What you would need to demonstrate is that there is reliably a higher probability of religious people crazily trying to murder their kids than non-religious people (say just plain crazies) trying to murder their kids. While it may seem to be the case that they do (thanks to the availability heuristic), it is going to be difficult to show because despite the handful of highly publicized incidents, there are a HUGE number of religious people you need to normalize by. Whereas you'll have more difficulty explaining away people like Chuck Manson coming from the relatively smaller reference class of "non-religious" people. In other words, blaming crazy on religion is not a winning game. Worse, it's based in faith based reasoning, not evidence. Better to just identify the crazies, and treat them as crazy.

@GenjiKilpatrick

Yes a catalyst. That can be many things. Seeing the images of the japanese Tsunami, of the violence in the Middle East. Being in a doomsday cult sure didn't help. But blaming religion for this is (as I already said) just like blaming violent videogames as the reason for school shootings. It's peddling simple answers to complex problems. Violent and crazy people do violent and crazy things in the name of _______.

I'll stop here because I'd just repeat what peggedbea already said best.

they are absolutely prime fodder for destructive ideologies.

but i've seen mentally ill atheists take after their bosses with machetes after watching too much anime. i've seen mentally atheists flip out while watching eternal sunshine of the spotless mind.

like at @GenjiKilpatrick said, it usually takes a catalyst for mental illness to turn into violence. but that catalyst doesn't HAVE to be religion. and in the absence of religion something else takes its place.

religions aren't something invented out of thin air. they have existed in every culture i can think of. most of them are really really similar. in the more ancient ones you can trace their dogma to serving an actual purpose benefiting human survival in the region (see cow worshipping hindis, or desert dwelling religions abstinence from pork). they obviously serve a purpose. and they change and evolve over time.

of the billions and billions of devout people throughout time how many of them have brutally slaughtered their children? i know you can list several. but thats out of BILLIONS. i'm not seeking to diminish the atrocities committed in the name of religion. i'm saying correlation does not = causation.

i'll wager my paycheck that there were warning signs leading up to this event. and i'll also wager my paycheck that the people who saw the warning signs were uneducated (about mental disorders) and i'll equipped and scared. declaring religion the cause of these kinds of horror stories doesn't lend itself to prevention very well. perhaps we need to take a better look at our mental health apparatus and not-nearly-adequate outreach, education and support system.

one thing i do think churches could do (and i know many churches that have) is adopt church counseling programs.. staffed by actual trained psychologists and counselors, not seminary graduates. to treat their members and give families an accessible, trusted place to turn to when they start seeing some destructive warning signs.

>> ^Deano:

>> ^campionidelmondo:
Crazy people often do more violent things than eat skittles. I don't see the connection between her crazy actions and religion. Linking this to religion is just like linking school shootings to violent video games. No, nothing that's being mass consumed drove this person from being the nice neighbour to slaughtering people. Stop looking for the fault in the things you don't like and accept the fact that some people are just crazy.

Of course there are connections. Just look at Islam. Christianity isn't as bad but people kill and maim others based on their reading of the Bible.
There's always the "just crazy" view. And I accept that to an extent. But I suspect people like that are prime fodder for destructive ideologies and supernatural thinking.
And she had access to a well established cult that served to radicalise her to a point where her family were no longer physically safe.

>> ^campionidelmondo:

Crazy people often do more violent things than eat skittles. I don't see the connection between her crazy actions and religion. Linking this to religion is just like linking school shootings to violent video games. No, nothing that's being mass consumed drove this person from being the nice neighbour to slaughtering people. Stop looking for the fault in the things you don't like and accept the fact that some people are just crazy.


Of course there are connections. Just look at Islam. Christianity isn't as bad but people kill and maim others based on their reading of the Bible.

There's always the "just crazy" view. And I accept that to an extent. But I suspect people like that are prime fodder for destructive ideologies and supernatural thinking.
And she had access to a well established cult that served to radicalise her to a point where her family were no longer physically safe.

Thank you voice of reason. Crazy people are just crazy, end of story.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Um, she wouldn't have tried to kill herself and her children if it weren't for her crazy religious beliefs.
If she was crazy - but only believed that skittles are dangerous and must devoured on sight - her kids would be fine & she'd only have diabeetus. [instead of prison]
>> ^campionidelmondo:
>> ^shuac:
For good people to behave insanely requires religion.

Don't you rather mean: "For crazy people to act crazy requires nothing at all"?



>> ^campionidelmondo:
Crazy people often do more violent things than eat skittles. I don't see the connection between her crazy actions and religion. Linking this to religion is just like linking school shootings to violent video games. No, nothing that's being mass consumed drove this person from being the nice neighbour to slaughtering people. Stop looking for the fault in the things you don't like and accept the fact that some people are just crazy.