This is wonderful. But. It's more of a eulogy for Pink Floyd than a critique or analysis of the song.

I love it. But it's the weakest in a fantastic series.

But. This and its predecessors have definitely convinced me that I want a subscription to Nebula for Christmas. A thank for a job well done. My attention is limited, but I can see myself spending a bit less time here on the sift than I have, just because the sift has been so good.

Let's see. I'm not leaving you all. At all. Let's see.

@newtboy

That'd be an obvious no to taxation strawman, and the "cherry-picked list" wasn't made by myself, but rather the guy in the video so I think it a fair list to use as a critique of his point. I'm not narrowing or selecting anything to help me out, he did.

My 'logic' was not your taxation throw away, but rather as I stated: "being able to profit of your own ideas and grow your own business and keep the profits from it is just maybe a contributing factor in all that."

Innovation being connected to the ability of the inventor to profit from innovation? Doesn't seem a huge leap, and something that is far more pronounced under capitalism than socialism. So, yeah, when 100% of the examples the guy arguing here came up with all grew out of a nation with an underlying capitalist economy isn't a huge surprise, and makes a bit of case that maybe innovation IS encouraged by that factor of self-interest.

A 5 hour critique of a 2 and a half hour movie? Yikes.

The whole series is excellent, btw.

Not the Hobbit, that's awful, but Lindsay's critique of them.

The end of this video was genuinely depressing.

@kir_mokum, if there's one thing @ant loves more than downvotes... it's inappropriate channel assignments. Engineering?? SRSLY??

I appreciate reading everyone's responses here. It's a very big part of what makes Videosift such a special place.

Here's a link to, imho, a thoughtful and nuanced look at this issue...at least from one side.

A Critique of Politically Correct Language
By Ben O'Neill

http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_16_02_8_oneill.pdf

@bobknight33 @newtboy

Leaving out key information, to the point that what's being said could be easily misunderstood, is a form of dishonesty.

But, Bob, I know we don't talk much, that's mostly because I don't like you. This kind of thing is exactly why I feel this way though.

Let's break down the first few of this commercial...errr propaganda piece.

"Despite our political differences, Russia and the United States have maintained friendly relations since the foundation of our great nation."
--------
Depends heavily on your definition of "friendly." If by friendly, you mean "almost nuking each other over long stretches of time," yeah sure, we're friendly.
------------------

"In fact, Russia and America have worked together, throughout history, to defeat our common enemies."
-------
Ehhh... we sort of worked independently against the same people out of individualized interests, not because we like each other. The video cites Russia "ignoring British requests for naval support during the American Revolutionary War;" except Catherine II basically manipulated the colonists into turning their backs on Britain to suit her own purposes and weakening the countries by splitting them in two.

This video cites the Ghent Treaty, but that was only struck after Napolean had already taken Moscow and an emboldened Russia started the land grab that led to the Crimean War. While getting their commie shits kicked in and losing the land they tried to take and then some, they were worried about not being compensated for American Russia, aka Alaska. So a few years after that, they sold it to the US for a cool $7 mill. (cold joke, get it?)

In short, even if we did get along with each other, it was just barely. Regardless, that was a different country that just happens to be occupying the same land now.

---------

But, you know, nevermind all that. Because that's not what you wanted to debate, was it? (see quote)

So I'll say this: Yesterday, Donald Trump got into a twitter war with the mayor of London, whose city just suffered a terror attack. That's the level of critique and disregard for decorum he has while doing it.

He'll cofefe the shit out of the pope and spit in NATO's face.

AND YETTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

Nothing but positivity for Russia.

Last I remember, you were a fairly large promoter of Hillary's email dumps. Yeah, one of us is drinkin the bad kool-aid alright.

Let's end the suspense. Why not use something less-abstract to rest your laurels on? Hmmm...if only there were something...like...hmmm...something more...hmmm... concrete......hmmmm not like transparent like a fence...fence=fake news (see first presidential address)...hmm if only there were some kind of symbol for just how big of a fucking liar this asshole is....hmmmm ghad why can't i think of this...URGh! I feel like I'm banging my head against....hmmm.

Ah well.

p.s. Right here buddy: http://bit.ly/2rNSNsw

*related=https://videosift.com/video/Critiquing-All-30-NHL-Logos-Secrets-and-Hidden-Meanings

Critiquing All 32 NFL Team Logos has been added as a related post - related requested by RFlagg on that post.

Critiquing All 30 NHL Logos Secrets and Hidden Meanings has been added as a related post - related requested by RFlagg.

Critiquing All 32 NFL Team Logos has been added as a related post - related requested by RFlagg.

level 2 societal critique via a high school level art project goes viral

29 comments, most of them rather long and more-or-less well reasoned, yet none about the content.

I get if you don't trust RT. It's a propaganda outlet of a foreign government, after all. But RT is not Chemical Ali style of propaganda: it is solid, well-researched reporting on many topics, subtly slanted on others, and completely balls-to-the-wall denial of reality on others again.

You want to take that as a reason to ignore it entirely? Knock yourself out.

I won't. Which isn't saying much, because I prefer text over video.

Anyway, they regularly offer a valuably "Korrektiv" with regards to reporting in the mainstream media. Of course I would prefer if I could get that from a less-dubious outlet like, maybe, the Indepedant, or the NZZ, but I can't.

Let's talk about the content of this clip, shall we.

Hedges references the Prop-or-Not pieces run by the WaPo. Does anyone here disagree that those were a total and utter smear job? Painting Truthout, Truthdig, Counterpunch, Alternet, BlackAgendaReport, NakedCapitalism and others as stooges of the Kremlin is such an obvious attempt to discredit dissenting voices that it's, quite frankly, rather offensive. Yves Smith and Glen Ford as mouthpieces of the Kremlin... my ass cheeks.

On the other hand, quite a lot of journalists in the US seem to have embraced the Red Scare with open arms, seeing as it gives an excuse as to why their previous HRC lost against the orange-skinned buffoon. Kyle illustrated it nicely with Rachel Maddow.

Second point: they had James Clapper present the report. Seriously? The fucker was caught lying under oath during the initial stages of the NSA revelations. Wasn't the fuckface also in charge of the satellite reconnaisence prior to the Iraq war, who could have presented imagery that debunked the claims of WMD "factories", and decided not to? He is just as trustworthy as Chemical Ali, but less entertaining.

Third: half the report was about RT. Why? I thought it was meant to outline how they "hacked" the election? What does their propaganda outlet have to do with that? And the critique they presented... has anyone read the passage about the "alleged Wall Street greed"? They are having a laugh, and people take it seriously.

Fourth: it distracts from the aspects of HRC's loss they don't want to be a subject of public discussion: class issues. They offered nothing for the working class, who got a shoddy deal over the last decades, and tried to focus entirely on identity politics, completely denying even the existence of class issues. Which is also why it's now the "white, male worker" who is to blame. Nevermind that >50% of white, female workers also voted Trump. Nevermind that significant portions of non-white working class folks also voted Trump. Can't be. According to the narrative, these people are minorities first, working-class second, and identity politics always trumps class politics. Except it didn't.

All this rage at the "deplorables", the "less educated"... it just reeks massively of class bigotry. Those plebs decided to vote for someone other than our beloved Queen HRC? How dare they...

And finally, RT's own part of this segment, about the credibility of the intelligence community's claims. Any disagreement on this? Anyone? Anyone think the torturers at the CIA are trustworthy enough to take their word without hard evidence?

I was with him for the first part.
And it's not that I can't take him seriously because of his hair - I found it very distracting to take singing critique from a Bieber look-alike...
He lost me when he says, "Even though your favorite artists probably cheats a bit in the studio, try to remember that tracks that you love by them might not have existed without this technology speeding up their workflow."

First, I think people like T-pain, Kanye, and Drake are most of what is wrong with the music industry today. So they definitely are NOT my favorite artists. Honestly, I refuse to call them artists. Artists hone their skills through tireless hours, years and dedication. Something these people don't do. (Hence the need for Autotune)

His point is exactly the point. Without Auto-tune, we wouldn't have these songs because they are utter garbage. It's Auto-tune that is the star, not the personas "behind the curtain."

And also, there is no fast track to learning skills. Yes, as he states, "speeding up their workflow" is just that. Workflow. This means it helps them produce tons of this crap without ever improving their skills, because they don't need to. They just need to rapidly produce song after song, while waiting for the one that is the most catchy to stick in people's minds. Then the conglomerate of industry leaches will pick it it up in hopes they all generate a few bucks from it. Meaning, they get radio play for producing crap song, after crap song.

Sorry to rant here, but pick up an instrument, learn to play. Learn how to sing, learn to hit a note. Entrance us with your skills and abilities. Seduce us with abilities that impress us. Gain our respect with your talents.

The guy in this video is just as fake as a Bieber look-alike, and while he starts to point out that they are3 cheating, he ends by enabling them showing us how great Lois's recorded voice sounds like once Frankensteined. This is not okay.

Note: I'm posting this comment to the YouTube video as well

tldr: The decisions made in creating and rearing offspring are subject to a different set of moral criteria than all others because those decisions affect everyone.

Here's the problem with that thought. You didn't just make a decision that affected your life. Or even one that affected the lives of yourself and others you know. You intentionally created another sentient being. Because of human nature, that sentient being is now not just your responsibility, but everyone else's as well. Your decision quite literally affected the entire species. Or should I say infected.

There is no other decision anyone can make that has such an extent of repercussions (with the possible exception of murder). Whether you further choose to be responsible for your offspring is, from a decision making point of view, completely separate from the decision to create that offspring. And likewise, the decisions you make regarding the care of that offspring are entirely separate from the decision to create it. Those decisions are, whether you like it or not, subject to critique. You may not like it, and you may in fact see the entire process (conception, birth, weaning, rearing, etc...) as a single act. Either way, the entirety of the species is now constrained by your initial act of creation. The question is not whether you are a “good parent”. The question is how much of a burden upon or boon to the species will you be.

Just to make this contrast clear…. if I, as thinking adult, decide to consume alcohol in such excess that it causes my liver to fail, I can ask the species to help me to the point of giving me a new liver - which may or may not be granted based on my own words and actions. If you ask a similar favor on behalf your offspring, however, it’s an entirely different moral calculus.

This Christmas, after all the economic's critique of the failure of the utility of gift giving---I finally figured one (there are other) purposes of gift giving for me---it's to give permission...Permission for extravagance, for excess, for activities, for pursuits, for...whatever it may be---within the context of the relationship you have with the recipient.

Nice.

*Promote