Congratulations! Your video, It's called a dress code, Kevin!, 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 468 Badge!

Your video, It's called a dress code, Kevin!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

One of the great intellectual catastrophes of the modern world, and probably the harbinger of the ultimate doom of our civilisation, is the collapse in the distinction between 'compare to' and 'equate with'. We can reasonably compare almost anything to almost anything else, and how unfortunate that we can expect immediately to be confronted by some aggrieved outrage-peddler who imagines they have a right to find the comparison insulting.

It is a literal fact that any group of two or more people, or living things, or indeed most objects of any kind, will possess some internal differences. As a matter of certain truth, not subject to doubt, muslims share with rats and serial killers the trait that they evince diversity of behaviour and belief. This demonstrates the total banality of the 'but they're all different' argument. It's not for their differences that these groups are disliked.

That's probably enough of a lesson for one day, and certainly @oritteropo ought to know better. I don't want to take the trouble to argue deranged claims like 'there are muslims who don't believe in god', or tiresome diversions on how christians and other jews can be just as bad, or to debate the relative merits of various religiously mandated dress codes; but you are right about one thing @SDGundamX: I would much prefer that islamic violence and oppression were a harmless and overblown bogey, but ethics is not a children's game - these are real people, with real victims, and too many of both.

No, it's just a very poorly implemented idea in today's culture. Cultural appropriation is real, but it's not just a question of copying someone else's style. There's obviously a problem when, for example, enormously talented black musicians develop new music styles and cultural expressions which are dismissed and marginalized until a white person takes after their styles and makes it acceptable to like them. If white people are given all the credit for jazz or soul or rock or blues or rap, it diminishes the rightful cultural accomplishments of some amazing musical pioneers. That's cultural appropriation because the powerful are unfairly appropriating all the benefits of the less powerful, original creators. If some 15-year old white girl wants to call herself a ratched ho and wear dreads, on the other hand, that's not appropriation, it's admiration. The problem arises when well-intentioned people forget to consider the power dynamic, and instead just translate 'cultural appropriation' into a series of racially permitted dress codes. Which is what the bully in the video was doing.

I'd be in favor of religious people having no special rights or restrictions when it comes to dress code. With masks, either individuals have a right to wear masks or they don't depending on local laws. There are obvious reasons for this, it makes people hard to identify if the commit crimes, and getting away with illegal stuff is very often the reason to wear a mask in first place. That's why the klan do it after all, they're just Christians. Determining if adult mask wearing should be legal is a hard question, but not for religious reasons.

Wearing a hat or a scarf is a completely different matter. Absolutely no one that I have ever heard of objects to secular scarf wearing. It's completely appropriate granny wear. It would be bigoted to start objecting only if it's a religious symbol. Such people would have to object to all religious dress and jewelry to be intellectually consistent.

The only good objection I've ever heard is that maybe you shouldn't obscure your peripheral vision while driving. There, public safety might outweigh the right to dress how you want. It all depends on how big the effect is.

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^RFlagg:
Problem is, they say the reason we were doing better was because we had God in schools, then we took him out of the schools and everything else... everything comes to how god was involved back then and less so now therefore we are paying the punishment of not having god in our lives... never mind how well many of the more atheist countries are doing (they think atheist countries are more like the old USSR)...
>> ^Fairbs:
Something most Republicans can't grasp is our country is better off when the rich are taxed more. 40 years ago, taxes on capital gains were 80%, but now Romney feels he's taxed too much at 15.


The argument isn't really about countries that are more atheist versus countries that aren't. It's that the United States has uniquely been a Christian nation since its founding. We are one nation, under God. Most people don't understand what that means; they think it is archaic when it is really the most important founding principle we have. The rapid decline in civil society has to do with the fact that, for the first time generations of Americans are growing up without the judeo-christian ethic being instilled in them from society, especially from their schools. And what we've seen since 1963 is a dramatic increase in the rate of violent crimes, teen pregnancy, STDs, the divorce rate, broken families, drug use, etc..the list goes on. There are the top 7 problems we had in our schools according to government records in 1940 vs 1990:
1940
1. Talking out of turn
2. Chewing Gum
3. Making noise
4. Running in the Halls
5. Cutting in Line
6. Dress-code violations
7. Littering
1990
1. Drug abuse
2. Alcohol abuse
3. Pregnancy
4. Suicide
5. Rape
6. Robbery
7. Assault
So, the argument is really that, we as a society have collectively turned our back on God, and therefore God has also turned His back on us. The principle is, you reap what you sow, and that's exactly what is going on right now. That's why this nation is facing calamity after calamity, because we have lost our way and we refuse to repent and turn back to our Creator.


You are picking and choosing your details man. I think you are also getting your 'facts' about the 40's and 50's from tv shows and movies and using them to spin your idea of 'how golden and free of crime America was before we turned out back on God.' And what about the decades before the 50's, certainly we hadn't 'turned away from god', so how do you explain the debauchery of the 20's, the turn of the century 'robber barons' that lived in luxury while their sweat-shops were worked by the masses of poor and children. The herione gangs and the waves of violence around 1910, 15.

It is really funny how some people (mostly white, older and male) see the 40's and 50's as this shining era of godly love, no crime and family harmony. It was all like 'leave it to beaver'. Dad made the big bucks, mom stayed at home and the most the kids ever got into trouble was when they broke a neighbors window. Yes, generally crime rates were low in the 40's and 50's but you cant attribute that to people 'having the fear of god' back then but skip over times that had just as much, if not even more religious fervor but also plenty of social upheaval and crime. Point of fact crime rates right now in most states are at historical lows, nearly to the levels of the 50's, but you still see murders every day. The information age has changed these things. In the 50's the only news you had was local. You might never have heard about some crime rave in another state.

Other things can attribute to the lower crime rates of those years. How many young men were serving in WWII during the 40's, that certainly would account for a drop in crime rates. And as to the 50's, the threat of nuclear war was constant. 'In God We Trust' wasn't added to money in the mid 50's because it was a particularly religious era, but rather because if the threat of communism. The term used to denote a healthy and proper family in the 50's wasn't coined the 'nuclear' family for nothing.

Last I'd like to point out that the US was 'never' designed as a Christian Nation and has only receive that monicker in the last number of years. I know bible-thumpers and hard-right politicians would have you think, hell have even changed school books, to wipe out ideas like the simple fact that many of the founding fathers wanted nothing to do with religion, though certainly not all. You can twist the words of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson all you want, but they above all abhorred the idea of religion influencing politics. This is not to say that they were all anti-religion, many advocated religion as a personal foundation of morality, but to hear modern republicans suggest they wanted Christianity to be the basis of the constitution and this country, they would be rolling over in their graves.

In the past era, we hit a communications Boom. The onset of media has both enslaved and set the people free in different aspects.

TV and the internet has allowed people to communicate all over the world in the snap of a finger and compare ideals. This has educated the people on their subjugation and people have started to stand up and gain a voice for themselves. This IS NOT that the people have turned their back from any divine entity so much as they see the truth of Control and Enslavement both to religious ideologies and to political dominance. People are just now starting to free themselves from the chains and shackles of being force fed how they should see, hear, talk and think.

This is just the beginning, and I expect it to get worse, as people stand up all over the world and demand their own personal rights and opinions be observed, instead of dictated like Kings, Queens and Religion have been doing for centuries. Those that seek to dominate and rule over others will start to feel the backlash of the free spirit.

The key export for religion has always been control. The goal of the church has always been to enslave the weak minded and control them; tell them how to think, tell them how to act and direct them on every aspect of their lives.

So if you want to sell us that as a society, we have turned our backs from religion, then you better look at why. It hasn't been on a whim. It's because people are opening their eyes and standing up against the lies and the bull that they have been fed for countless years. Now that people can successfully communicate en mass, they are learning, and knowledge is power. People are standing up against authority because they are realizing that their authority was forced and not earned. Forced through, lies, deceit, cheating and all the other things that come with power.

As the people revolt, the power tries to hold on tighter by trying to limit what we have, whether it's free speech, freedom of movement, gathering in large numbers or communicating and sharing ideas (see the pattern here?)

The decention of society is due to the power struggle of the population finally looking up and identifying his prison guard.

Good or bad for society is yet to be seen but that's what's going on. People can accept some rules when the rules are equal but those rules no longer serve the people but are used to keep the people down then they are no longer rules but edicts!

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^RFlagg:
Problem is, they say the reason we were doing better was because we had God in schools, then we took him out of the schools and everything else... everything comes to how god was involved back then and less so now therefore we are paying the punishment of not having god in our lives... never mind how well many of the more atheist countries are doing (they think atheist countries are more like the old USSR)...
>> ^Fairbs:
Something most Republicans can't grasp is our country is better off when the rich are taxed more. 40 years ago, taxes on capital gains were 80%, but now Romney feels he's taxed too much at 15.


The argument isn't really about countries that are more atheist versus countries that aren't. It's that the United States has uniquely been a Christian nation since its founding. We are one nation, under God. Most people don't understand what that means; they think it is archaic when it is really the most important founding principle we have. The rapid decline in civil society has to do with the fact that, for the first time generations of Americans are growing up without the judeo-christian ethic being instilled in them from society, especially from their schools. And what we've seen since 1963 is a dramatic increase in the rate of violent crimes, teen pregnancy, STDs, the divorce rate, broken families, drug use, etc..the list goes on. There are the top 7 problems we had in our schools according to government records in 1940 vs 1990:
1940
1. Talking out of turn
2. Chewing Gum
3. Making noise
4. Running in the Halls
5. Cutting in Line
6. Dress-code violations
7. Littering
1990
1. Drug abuse
2. Alcohol abuse
3. Pregnancy
4. Suicide
5. Rape
6. Robbery
7. Assault
So, the argument is really that, we as a society have collectively turned our back on God, and therefore God has also turned His back on us. The principle is, you reap what you sow, and that's exactly what is going on right now. That's why this nation is facing calamity after calamity, because we have lost our way and we refuse to repent and turn back to our Creator.

>> ^RFlagg:

Problem is, they say the reason we were doing better was because we had God in schools, then we took him out of the schools and everything else... everything comes to how god was involved back then and less so now therefore we are paying the punishment of not having god in our lives... never mind how well many of the more atheist countries are doing (they think atheist countries are more like the old USSR)...
>> ^Fairbs:
Something most Republicans can't grasp is our country is better off when the rich are taxed more. 40 years ago, taxes on capital gains were 80%, but now Romney feels he's taxed too much at 15.



The argument isn't really about countries that are more atheist versus countries that aren't. It's that the United States has uniquely been a Christian nation since its founding. We are one nation, under God. Most people don't understand what that means; they think it is archaic when it is really the most important founding principle we have. The rapid decline in civil society has to do with the fact that, for the first time generations of Americans are growing up without the judeo-christian ethic being instilled in them from society, especially from their schools. And what we've seen since 1963 is a dramatic increase in the rate of violent crimes, teen pregnancy, STDs, the divorce rate, broken families, drug use, etc..the list goes on. There are the top 7 problems we had in our schools according to government records in 1940 vs 1990:

1940

1. Talking out of turn
2. Chewing Gum
3. Making noise
4. Running in the Halls
5. Cutting in Line
6. Dress-code violations
7. Littering

1990

1. Drug abuse
2. Alcohol abuse
3. Pregnancy
4. Suicide
5. Rape
6. Robbery
7. Assault

So, the argument is really that, we as a society have collectively turned our back on God, and therefore God has also turned His back on us. The principle is, you reap what you sow, and that's exactly what is going on right now. That's why this nation is facing calamity after calamity, because we have lost our way and we refuse to repent and turn back to our Creator.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by Boise_Lib.

Ya,
I'm sorry... Here it is.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Cop-Slams-Special-Needs-Student-To-The-Ground-For-Dress-Code

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Sagemind. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

>> ^Porksandwich:

Does Finland schooling system provide anything but education and the facilities and meals related to keeping a large group of people for hours on end?
Do they do tutoring?
How do they handle discipline?
Do they offer sports teams and fields, etc as part of the school budget?
Uniforms?
Field trips?
Music/band?
Im hoping to hear from @CreamK on this.
Like I've always felt in the US that the sports programs and all the cost associated with them plus the competition they spawn within the student body and against other schools is not beneficial. Basically you end up with a small group of players who get the school to bend over backwards to make things possible for them and everyone else loses out on it, in fact they often have to pay for tickets to even see the events their parents tax dollars make possible.


There's tutoring for students that are falling behind, it's personal one-on-one and there's a multiple programs to help students who have problems, like specail ed or for troubled teens. I actually went on one these troubled youth programs. I never had any learning problems in school, in fact i was always so much ahead in classes that i got bored and started to get in to problems and skipping A LOT.. But when they finally managed to get me in to this special class, i've never enjoyed school that much.. I did two years of math in half a year and got free choice of what to do instead of math.. I either got a free hour or i picked up another subject like literacy and the best part of it was that i choosed what to do..

Discipline is there, you got many levels of it. Mostly it's handled in conjunction with parents. Detention, personal tutoring or changing to a smaller group, workshops where you can fix bikes and learn sciences with more hands on approaches etc. Mostly it's not a punishment as such but personalized programs to tailored to fit for the needs. Expulsions are very rare, in my school years i heard of two incidences and both were changed to smaller group where they both stopped skipping school in two weeks time. Those smaller groups consists of one teacher per 5 students or even less..

No sport teams are provided by schools, they are handled by sport teams junior programs. There is of course 1-2 hour classes per week for sports but it's more to do with learning to enjoy excercise than competing.

No uniforms or mandatory dressing codes. There is the basic decency expected when it comes to dressing and one peculiar code is that you are not allowed to wear a hat in class... Those baseball caps can hide your eyes... I know, it's a bit strange..

Field trips: yes, there are both provided by the school and then longer ones where the students do bake sales etc to gather money and those are voluntary.

Music is a subject and schools can provide the means to do them more in your own free time. The bands are not a part of schools but usually every city has one or to schools that concentrate more for those programs. It means a few extra hours but provide a good base for secondary musical education institutes where you can enroll at young age. Those institutions are publicly funded too and work in conjuction with all levels schools and they continue seamlessly to provide education for music teachers and professionals up to master degrees. You can go to those schools when you're grown up too and they have a tuitions, in the range of 100-200€ per class. So once again, money is not a hurdle for education.

It's been a years when i was in basic school, i graduated in 1989 and went to secondary school in 1991. That was about the time when the education reform was moving to that state too so i had to mixed field of teachers. Some were not up to job and some were just wonderful personalities. Now adays it's up to standards too and in fact, i'm enrolling in one next fall to finish up my graduation..

The downside of Finnish system is that you can not even get a job as a cleaner without finishing some sort of courses for it.. So even for basic shitty jobs you need a basic education in that field... But since those are basically free of charge (some require a 100-200€ fee, not a problem...) everyone has a chance. Also when you get a better job the companies often provide the follow-up studies that fit to that job description. The cost of those are divided by the goverment and the companies.

Whats appropriate to wear in any given situation is what you feel comfortable in or what you want to wear. Anyone telling you different need to mind their own business and find something better to do with their time. I do understand the requirements of a dress code for work but anything else is my decision. If ya don't like it tough. So called "fashion police" will be beaten and thrown to the sloths.


First off let me say welcome to Videosift probie. We do try to refrain from ad-hominem commentary here, so please keep that in mind. Now, all are certainly entitled to their own opinions. However that does not mean all are entitled to their own facts, so please permit my purely fact-based retort:

http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/photos

Cheers.

>> ^therealblankman:

>> ^direpickle:
>> ^therealblankman:
Vancouver was recently named the third worst-dressed city in the entire world, behind only Maui Hawaii and Orlando Florida (shudder). Why you may ask? One word... lululemon.
http://travel.ca.msn.com/photogallery.aspx?cp-documentid=30567563&
amp;page=8
canada, viral, commercial

That's insane. I am totally digging the yoga pants fad. Just because some people can't wear them doesn't mean no one should!

It's all about what's appropriate to wear in any given situation. Yoga pants are inappropriate anywhere but the gym. Just as it's inappropriate to wear Spandex bicycle shorts unless you are actually riding a bicycle, or to wear Speedo trunks unless you are actually swimming. Imagine running into me at some trendy bullshit over-priced coffee bar in Kitsilano (I'm looking at you, Cafe Artigiano!) and I'm wearing my Speedos!
Yes I own a pair of Speedos, and yes I can pull off that look .


Whats appropriate to wear in any given situation is what you feel comfortable in or what you want to wear. Anyone telling you different need to mind their own business and find something better to do with their time. I do understand the requirements of a dress code for work but anything else is my decision. If ya don't like it tough. So called "fashion police" will be beaten and thrown to the sloths.

>> ^hpqp:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^hpqp:
>> ^Yogi:
I like the idea of governments in the 2000's deciding people can no longer have a culture. Good for them...hey next maybe you should ban any sort of national identity.

Yeah, it's like how in Spain the great latino-macho culture is being suppressed by stricter you-can't-beat-up-your-wife laws...

That kinda proves my point...just because a woman wears a burka doesn't mean it's not their choice or that they're getting beaten every night. Last I checked not too many Spainish women wear burkas.
There's a lot of misinformation and reactionary BS going around these days. I say you let them do what they want unless they're hurting someone...forcing society into a dress code is stupid.

...or how to miss the satirical point entirely.
There are some elements of a people's/religion's "culture" that we should be eagerly trying to be rid of. While I agree that this is above all a populist legislation, especially when it is by far not the worst religion has to "offer" in the west (e.g. why are there no laws banning circumcision on minors?), it does not hamper a muslim woman's capacity of showing her religious affiliation: nothing prevents her from wearing a hijab.
As for all the apologists in the room, can you think of any reason why a woman would want to be covered from head to toe in sacloth? Now can you think of a reason that does not have to do with:
a) hiding a hideous difformity, or
b) submitting to the (patriarchal) rule of bronze-age customs?


See that's the point...we meddle and we don't have a right to says River Tam. I bet you don't go to other countries and tell the natives what they're doing wrong, this is the same it's ethnocentric and just plain wrong. The government shouldn't be telling people how to dress, they should fuck off.