>> ^Confucius:

So what you're saying is, that the Asian channel is racially defined? Read up on Russian history and look at its geography. It belongs in Asia as much as it belongs in Europe
BTW this is a pretty bad way to describe Asia (i know you didnt write this)....i.e. how is it possible that someone can say that these "ancient cultures continue today only slightly affected by the modern world?"
Pretty ethno-centric too.....by modern world im assuming what is meant is the Western World...?

>> ^Shepppard:
Asian channel description:
"This channel is dedicated to the ancient cultures and traditions of Eastern Asia, particularly China and Japan, that began thousands of years ago and continue to this very day only slightly if at all affected by the modern world. It covers everything from period Shaolin martial arts videos in China to wacky reality Japanese shows of today"
so, I'm going to say this one doesn't belong.
Nochannel
wtf
drugs
dance



I dunno, I mean they got beaten up pretty badly over the centuries by raiding armies from areas such as Mongolia, but they kept their own unique culture through all that, rather than being assimilated as happened in other countries that experienced similar defeats. Russia was just too big, vast and harsh to conquer permanently, so I think that it deserves to be considered as an entity outside what might be defined culturally as Asia, regardless of geographic location. To further confuse things, it was apparently pretty popular historically amongst Russians to consider Europe as extending to the Urals, and also part of Siberia is on the North American plate.

So what you're saying is, that the Asian channel is racially defined? Read up on Russian history and look at its geography. It belongs in Asia as much as it belongs in Europe

BTW this is a pretty bad way to describe Asia (i know you didnt write this)....i.e. how is it possible that someone can say that these "ancient cultures continue today only slightly affected by the modern world?"

Pretty ethno-centric too.....by modern world im assuming what is meant is the Western World...?



>> ^Shepppard:

Asian channel description:
"This channel is dedicated to the ancient cultures and traditions of Eastern Asia, particularly China and Japan, that began thousands of years ago and continue to this very day only slightly if at all affected by the modern world. It covers everything from period Shaolin martial arts videos in China to wacky reality Japanese shows of today"
so, I'm going to say this one doesn't belong.
Nochannel
wtf
drugs
dance

Now that's a great way to point out an arguement, and I agree mostly with the points

In reply to this comment by StimulusMax:
After reading your more recent post, I do have to agree with you to some extent. I do believe that if you are going to belong to or support a group, you have a responsibility to address and/or distance yourself from the extremists who identify with that group. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think it's fair to tell people that they have to find a new label to distinguish themselves from the more extreme elements of their group. Feminists should not have to find a new name themselves because misandrists sometimes call themselves feminists.

Another analogy. Let's say I'm born a Jew. My entire family is Jewish, and the only ethno-cultural traditions I practice are Jewish. I agree that's it's my responsibility to decry the oppressive actions of the Jewish state, but do I have to give up my Judaism because I think Israel is extreme? That seems counter-intuitive to me, as part of the strength of my position would be to say, as a Jew, this state does not represent me.

Let's flip this on it's head. There are militant atheists. Should we not call ourselves atheists to distance ourselves from their extremism?

Or should we surrender our citizenship because we don't agree with the actions of our country? Talk about a slippery slope. My point with the Republican comment is that it is illogical to ask moderates to surrender their identity because of the existence of a few associated extremists. Not only is it unfair, but it robs the moderates of the position of power from which they are best equipped to deal with the extremists.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/StimulusMax" title="member since May 29th, 2010" class="profilelink">StimulusMax
You note that to win you have to associate with undesirables; a slippery slope if ever I heard of one. Isn’t the Tea Party part of those “undesirable” elements the Republican Party must associate with or lose? We actually see this happening in elections around America. Without their support, both the GOP and it's candidates are bombing...Either the GOP is the friend of the Tea Party right now, or their party becomes a fractured base 3rd party; or as you say, they will belong to a Party that has no chance of succeeding...
So, why? For the same reason Christians need to hold back their rouge elements.


And how do you propose to create that equality if we're not allowed to recognize groups as oppressed and treat them as such?

I am not for one instant arguing that we should take away anybody's rights. What I'm suggesting is that there needs to be ways to balance inequality of privileges. To reiterate, I in no way endorse the sort of "revenge" that the women on this show were laughing about, but do take issue with comments, like Blankfist's above, that suggest that oppression isn't our responsibility. We benefit from it, we should own it. We should be willing to make the necessary concessions to offset the inequality resulting from that oppression.

There's an idea for you: maybe we wouldn't have to discuss Nietzschean ideas of revenge if those in positions of privilege were more proactive.

Here's an analogy: Five people are doing the same job. Four of them make barely enough to scrape by, and the fifth arbitrarily makes three times as much. Is it "revenge" for the four to want the fifth to divy up the extra so they all make the same amount? What if all they're asking is that the fifth reinvest a bit so that they can all make more?

I'm sure some people will just say "too bad, life's unfair, it's not my fault I am where I am". And I agree, it's not your fault. But it might mean you have a bit of extra responsibility.

What, you don't like that you have a bit of extra responsibility? Well too bad, life's unfair.

>> ^draak13:

While I do strongly agree that there are many schools of though on feminism, and that we shouldn't let the more ridiculous people paint the entire concept as invalid as the commentator was advertising, it is alarming how this relatively small school of feminist radicals is not so small. As was pointed out, it is not just just 3 or 4 women, it was the entire audience on set. Furthermore, it was a significant portion of the home viewers, as evidenced by how much outrage this clip has not caused. Female genital mutilation does happen in third world countries as a form of oppression. The concept angers most people in a developed society. The opposite should be just as true.
You, and several others, have commented that it is the way of things that the group with higher rights will experience diminished rights as the lower groups crawl up to equality. This is an incredibly false notion, which borderlines the notion of 'revenge.' An injustice cannot be solved by creating another injustice; the problem is merely being moved around, rather than solved. The solution is to create proper equality.
>> ^StimulusMax:
You don't buy into that line of reasoning because it's inaccurate. The oppression is ongoing, though it has in many ways become less blatant and more systematic. The reason that you might "pay" for it, is because by virtue of being born into the world a white male (I assume), you benefit from a substantial amount of privilege compared to minority groups. The privilege you (and I, and all of us on the sift in different ways) enjoy is not due to any particular virtue or hard-work of our own, but because we were luck enough to be born into a certain group. When looked at that way, one sees that the whole point of minority rights groups IS equality, which is why they fight to bring their societal status UP to where you already benefit from being. And, yes, sometimes it means disadvantaging those who are at the top, in the name of an equal playing field.
To be clear, I think the women on the show are being cruel and insulting, but the idea that the actions of a few women, whether they call themselves feminists or not, are enough to damn all of feminism is RIDICULOUS. Do you think none of the civil rights movement have any validity because you disagree with the methods of Malcolm X?

After reading your more recent post, I do have to agree with you to some extent. I do believe that if you are going to belong to or support a group, you have a responsibility to address and/or distance yourself from the extremists who identify with that group. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think it's fair to tell people that they have to find a new label to distinguish themselves from the more extreme elements of their group. Feminists should not have to find a new name themselves because misandrists sometimes call themselves feminists.

Another analogy. Let's say I'm born a Jew. My entire family is Jewish, and the only ethno-cultural traditions I practice are Jewish. I agree that's it's my responsibility to decry the oppressive actions of the Jewish state, but do I have to give up my Judaism because I think Israel is extreme? That seems counter-intuitive to me, as part of the strength of my position would be to say, as a Jew, this state does not represent me.

Let's flip this on it's head. There are militant atheists. Should we not call ourselves atheists to distance ourselves from their extremism?

Or should we surrender our citizenship because we don't agree with the actions of our country? Talk about a slippery slope. My point with the Republican comment is that it is illogical to ask moderates to surrender their identity because of the existence of a few associated extremists. Not only is it unfair, but it robs the moderates of the position of power from which they are best equipped to deal with the extremists.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

@StimulusMax
You note that to win you have to associate with undesirables; a slippery slope if ever I heard of one. Isn’t the Tea Party part of those “undesirable” elements the Republican Party must associate with or lose? We actually see this happening in elections around America. Without their support, both the GOP and it's candidates are bombing...Either the GOP is the friend of the Tea Party right now, or their party becomes a fractured base 3rd party; or as you say, they will belong to a Party that has no chance of succeeding...
So, why? For the same reason Christians need to hold back their rouge elements.


And how do you propose to create that equality if we're not allowed to recognize groups as oppressed and treat them as such?

I am not for one instant arguing that we should take away anybody's rights. What I'm suggesting is that there needs to be ways to balance inequality of privileges. To reiterate, I in no way endorse the sort of "revenge" that the women on this show were laughing about, but do take issue with comments, like Blankfist's above, that suggest that oppression isn't our responsibility. We benefit from it, we should own it. We should be willing to make the necessary concessions to offset the inequality resulting from that oppression.

There's an idea for you: maybe we wouldn't have to discuss Nietzschean ideas of revenge if those in positions of privilege were more proactive.

Here's an analogy: Five people are doing the same job. Four of them make barely enough to scrape by, and the fifth arbitrarily makes three times as much. Is it "revenge" for the four to want the fifth to divy up the extra so they all make the same amount? What if all they're asking is that the fifth reinvest a bit so that they can all make more?

I'm sure some people will just say "too bad, life's unfair, it's not my fault I am where I am". And I agree, it's not your fault. But it might mean you have a bit of extra responsibility.

What, you don't like that you have a bit of extra responsibility? Well too bad, life's unfair.

>> ^draak13:

While I do strongly agree that there are many schools of though on feminism, and that we shouldn't let the more ridiculous people paint the entire concept as invalid as the commentator was advertising, it is alarming how this relatively small school of feminist radicals is not so small. As was pointed out, it is not just just 3 or 4 women, it was the entire audience on set. Furthermore, it was a significant portion of the home viewers, as evidenced by how much outrage this clip has not caused. Female genital mutilation does happen in third world countries as a form of oppression. The concept angers most people in a developed society. The opposite should be just as true.
You, and several others, have commented that it is the way of things that the group with higher rights will experience diminished rights as the lower groups crawl up to equality. This is an incredibly false notion, which borderlines the notion of 'revenge.' An injustice cannot be solved by creating another injustice; the problem is merely being moved around, rather than solved. The solution is to create proper equality.
>> ^StimulusMax:
You don't buy into that line of reasoning because it's inaccurate. The oppression is ongoing, though it has in many ways become less blatant and more systematic. The reason that you might "pay" for it, is because by virtue of being born into the world a white male (I assume), you benefit from a substantial amount of privilege compared to minority groups. The privilege you (and I, and all of us on the sift in different ways) enjoy is not due to any particular virtue or hard-work of our own, but because we were luck enough to be born into a certain group. When looked at that way, one sees that the whole point of minority rights groups IS equality, which is why they fight to bring their societal status UP to where you already benefit from being. And, yes, sometimes it means disadvantaging those who are at the top, in the name of an equal playing field.
To be clear, I think the women on the show are being cruel and insulting, but the idea that the actions of a few women, whether they call themselves feminists or not, are enough to damn all of feminism is RIDICULOUS. Do you think none of the civil rights movement have any validity because you disagree with the methods of Malcolm X?

Reposting my comment from this video, which is relevant here as well (as is the ensuing discussion in the comments).

>> ^hpqp:

@[circumcision]apologists: you have NO ethical nor medical arguments on your side; you irretrievably mutilated a child. Worse: the child's sexual organs. Worser still: for the sake of an ancient, barbaric tradition. It is an ethno-cultural branding that that child will never be able to reverse. It is worse than tattooing your name on the child's buttcheek, because at least those are removable (tattoos, not buttcheeks).
If an adult wants to get circumcised, retighten her vagina or change sexes altogether, may they feel free to do so. BUT KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF OF CHILDREN'S BODIES! It is bad enough that many kids have to endure the poisonous bile of their parents' beliefs (racism, homophobia, etc.), but once again, at least that is not incurable.

( not "yours" to mutilate)
On circumcision and HIV "study"
Where the tradition of circumcision comes from in the west (excluding Jews/Muslims)

/rant

@apologists: you have NO ethical nor medical arguments on your side; you irretrievably mutilated a* child. Worse: the child's sexual organs. Worser still: for the sake of an ancient, barbaric tradition. It is an ethno-cultural branding that that child will never be able to reverse. It is worse than tattooing your name on the child's buttcheek, because at least those are removable (tattoos, not buttcheeks).

If an adult wants to get circumcised, retighten her vagina or change sexes altogether, may they feel free to do so. BUT KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF OF CHILDREN'S BODIES! It is bad enough that many kids have to endure the poisonous bile of their parents' beliefs (racism, homophobia, etc.), but once again, at least that is not incurable.


(*not "yours" to mutilate)

On circumcision and HIV "study"
Where the tradition of circumcision comes from in the west (excluding Jews/Muslims)


/rant


@chilaxe I upvoted your comment for its cynical irony, but just to be clear about the second point for those who might take its origins seriously: the "study" that claims circumcision reduces possibility of contracting STDs is far from scientific. Moreover, it was conducted in three African countries with a poor record hygiene-wise. I doubt such a study would yield the same results in western countries. (the US has the highest rates of circumcision and HIV for a western country... but correlation is not causation, I know)

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Racism is just the mindset of 95% of the human race's natural tendancy. We divide by religion, race, territory, etc., so that the world's finate resources can be adequately divided by our own "groups" needs. Is nature correct or moral? Who knows, but it does dictate nearly everything we are.... just try not to ever have sex...
Natural tendancies.

Depressing point of view, but I agree that tribalism seems to be an innate tendency in humans.

I still want to strive for a future where it's more like sports rivalries rather than ethno-sectarian war.

We seem to be moving that direction in fits and starts, but right now we're definitely between starts...

Once again.....typing angrily into a keyboard doesn't an argument make. Once again...please tell me what you have done to further your understanding of the situation? Have you done any independent research? Have you actually been there, talked to the people?

So what you did is flip a coin and decided that the democratic party line appeals to you most and swallowed the party line whole. You then boycotted any other possible news source that went contrary to the info you've been fed. And now you throw little uneducated hissy-fits online because they go against all the ideas you've been spoonfed. What you dont realize is that this isn't black and white. Perhaps you might be interested because of your ethno-centric viewpoint that the world isn't divided into our democ/repub party lines. In your readyness to combat anything different (or more correctly....Republican) you've failed to acknowledge the potential for good, such as getting rid of Saddam, because it has been "tainted" with Republican ideology. You think you support the Iraqi people by saying what you do but all it is is patronizing a people that have had the bad-end of a stick for a very long time.

Your so excited to prove your point that you nay say anything against it even if its good. You're like the guest on Glen Beck who said that he wished there would be a terrorist attack on the US so that he would be proven right that Obama was letting National Security slip. The simple undeniable fact is that if this "social experiment" in Iraq works there will be a representative government with many of the same rights we have. This will NATURALLY allow a more competitive access to the country's commercial assets becuase they arent regulated by a mongoloid tyrant. And oh....THIS WILL BE BETTER THAN WHEN SADDAM WAS THERE.

Once again....please let me know where you get your information so that I know you aren't "mouth[ing] the words you heard on the radio, or saw spoken on the television."

On a side note;

Try punctuating your points with facts and not expletives and maybe you might actually begin to sound like more than a redneck.

>> ^Farhad2000:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Farhad2000:
More importantly still why can't a conference about stopping racism be held WITHOUT national leaders needing to single out a single nation that is nearly 80% Jewish?

Jews are not a race. They are a ethnoreligious group.
What you said could mean that anti-Christian rhetoric can be considered racist because its leveled against Christians.


You do realize that an entire working group for the Durban agreement being discussed here was dedicated to preventing discrimination against Islam?

And to point out the obvious, the distinction between ethno-religious group and race does NOT justify discrimination against the Jewish people. To even discuss something like whether the holocaust was committed against the Jewish race or merely the Jewish people is to miss the point entirely!