Dude, did you watch the video?

"*He's not wrong to be angry*, but the problem is he began to lose the moral high ground."

He even explained why you can't just smuggle your pets in.

He was pretty clear Depp shouldn't have done what he did. He was just making fun of someone handling the other side in what can only be described as a politically piss poor way.

If you want to get harsh public opposition for doing the right thing, the list for ways to do that would have to include killing defenseless puppies who did nothing wrong (in this case their owner did), saying publicly the puppies in what would be our equivalent in the US should "fuck off", personally attack an interviewer who was confronting him about how much of a douche he was being, and thin glibly celebrating his win on twitter like a complete prick.

If he was trying to piss off as many people as possible for doing the right thing, he should have just asked, "WWHD - What would Hitler do?"

With all that said, this wasn't Oliver's "serious" part of the show. This was for entertainment purposes mainly, you glassy eyed muppet donkey!

GeorgeHammock,
is this http://videosift.com/video/Where-to-buy-FFXIV-Gil-safely-and-fast
your video on youtube, or are you somehow affiliated with the company? Linking to your own video/company is not allowed on Videosift, as per the rules listed at http://videosift.com/faq#terms

Please do not self link.

While you may see this site as a great way to promote a project you are working on or promoting, it would be bad for our content if everyone just put up videos of them and their friends doing random things. If you are associated with a project you think is truly amazing and must be shared, please contact us. We'll take a look at it and if we also think it's great too, we'll post it for you. If you attempt to post it yourself, your video and account will be deleted. Hey, it's harsh, but it's harsh love.

What exactly consitutes a self link?

If your post is not a Sponsored Video (the only allowed way to promote your own content) and any of the following is true about a particular video you are considering submitting, it is a self link, with NO exceptions for any member:


◾The video is associated with your account on the video host (i.e., you uploaded it to YouTube, Vimeo, etc.).
◾You played any role, no matter how large or small, in any aspect of the production of the video.
◾You are in any way responsible for or involved in marketing, promoting, or any other manner of proliferating the video.
◾You could receive any form of compensation (monetary or otherwise) as a result of the submission or subsequent views.
◾You are somehow represented in the content of the video (whether photographically, artistically, audibly, or metaphorically) without the approval of a site administrator.

If you self link, regardless of your logic or explanation, you are violating the posting guidelines. There are no exceptions for any reason, whatsoever.

Howdy,
Welcome to the sift.
I have a question for you....are you affiliated with the company or video you posted?
http://videosift.com/video/Back-packs-for-travel-video-shoots
It seems an odd video to post if you aren't marketing this item, and that is expressly forbidden on Videosift....as explained in the terms and conditions (link at bottom of any page).... if this is not a self link, you might actually post that in a comment on the video so others don't just assume it is and ban you...that does happen here.

Rule below-
Please do not self link.
While you may see this site as a great way to promote a project you are working on or promoting, it would be bad for our content if everyone just put up videos of them and their friends doing random things. If you are associated with a project you think is truly amazing and must be shared, please contact us. We'll take a look at it and if we also think it's great too, we'll post it for you. If you attempt to post it yourself, your video and account will be deleted. Hey, it's harsh, but it's harsh love.

What exactly consitutes a self link?

If your post is not a Sponsored Video (the only allowed way to promote your own content) and any of the following is true about a particular video you are considering submitting, it is a self link, with NO exceptions for any member:


◾The video is associated with your account on the video host (i.e., you uploaded it to YouTube, Vimeo, etc.).
◾You played any role, no matter how large or small, in any aspect of the production of the video.
◾You are in any way responsible for or involved in marketing, promoting, or any other manner of proliferating the video.
◾You could receive any form of compensation (monetary or otherwise) as a result of the submission or subsequent views.
◾You are somehow represented in the content of the video (whether photographically, artistically, audibly, or metaphorically) without the approval of a site administrator.


If you self link, regardless of your logic or explanation, you are violating the posting guidelines. There are no exceptions for any reason, whatsoever.

Finally, submitting a video that is considered spam falls within our definition of a self-link. If you create an account solely to post a video for whatever reason, but do not actually participate in VideoSift in any other way before or after, you may be considered a spammer/self-promoter and your account is subject to banning.

Exempt from our self-link definition is an embed that is supplied to another member's post when fixing a Dead Pool video or adding a *backup embed (see star powers). Bear in mind that this exemption does not apply to your own posts.

lol I hear you guys crying every fucking day about something

here you are crying about a broken cell phone

I'm not apologizing for this guy, I think he should be put on parking duty or whatever

My point is that cops ARE treated differently, and quite often more harshly than citizens, i.e. they lose their job and pension over things that regular people do who don't lose everything.

Do a google search for 'cop fired' and you'll find over 97,000,000 links, so it's not like cops don't get fired. Cops also get suspended, demoted in rank, prosecuted, etc.

My problem with you people is not that you post these videos, but that you paint ALL police officers as corrupt, racist, bullying, etc.

If I did the same with a minority, post a video of bad behavior, then painted all those people as having the same poor behavior, I would be a racist.

So...hypocrisy much?

I'm nowhere near the point of saying scrap the entire system. It needs to be fixed, with real investigation and harsh punishments to weed out these people, but you don't do away with the entire concept.

You refine it, you look for characteristics that indicate a person is going to make an exemplary officer and you start selecting off that guide. You reverse the militarization trend and remove government subsidies that are turning the police into private militias. Last but not least, you make it clear that police are held to a higher standard. You hold THEM to a zero tolerance policy.

Believe me, if we took some simple steps, a significant amount of the bad police would be gone in weeks. Then we could replace them with qualified people.

Obviously not, I would prefer people didn't kill each other. Failing that, I wish things were more balanced overall. You seem to believe it's either 10 to 1 or 1 to 10. How about 1 to 1 like the rest of us?
Crime is down across the board, but that disgusting ratio continues to climb...meaning the less crime there is, the more violently police are reacting to it. You can argue about why, I'm just saying those statistics are telling and terrible, on all levels.

Police work daily with the DA, and are rarely prosecuted even when there is video that's clear and complete, while private citizens don't get the same treatment by far. You know this well.

Nothing I said would give suspected criminals (innocent until proven guilty, remember) the upper hand in any way. Reasonably TRYING less lethal methods is not walking into a hail of gunfire to try a billy club.
I would prefer that police put safety first, and not just their own safety, and certainly not police control over a citizens safety. I would prefer that police would go back to trying to de-escalate situations instead of trying to gain full control at all cost. I would really prefer that police caught acting badly were not supported and defended by other cops (sound familiar?), and were prosecuted by special prosecutors more often and more harshly than normal citizens. Since it's their job to uphold the law and the peace it's up to them to be better than 'normal' citizens, breaking the law as a lawman is doubly bad and should be punished as such.

But I'm sure you'll misread this, ridiculously misstate some of it, and make up a new straw man to argue about, and I'm already sorry I fell off the wagon and engaged again. Bad newt.

My water wings were in the shop. I only had a pool noodle with me. That was the day I learned a harsh lesson about why it's called a *pool* noodle; those things don't work in deep water, McFly... unless you've got POWER.

stupid is as stupid does. it may be harsh and cold, but if the genes of stupidity are present in the parents, it might be better if their kids didn't make it to procreation age.

There is no such thing as news. No network reports news. Hunter Thompson damned television news for copying his Gonzo journalism. In documentary he rants angrily news existed once but they copied his magazine Gonzo style he invented which was for magazine pseudo-fact for enjoyment.

I believe its a small reason he blew himself away. That last documentary was harsh

You almost never hear of an NHL player being upset (in a litigation sort of way) about injuries they got that resulted from fighting (drop the gloves and throw punches).

In general, the one major incident I am aware of that resulted in legal action being taken against a player was when Todd Bertuzzi checked Steve Moore down the the ice from behind and then drove his head/neck into the ice with his stick in some heavy followup hits. This is mentioned in the wikipedia article @eric3579 posted, and hinted at in the article @RedSky posted from the Economist.

In that incident, Steve Moore (a lower-level player on the Colorado Avalanche) had hit Marcus Naslund (a star level player of the Vancouver Canucks) in a previous game. That hit was a fairly normal hockey hit -- Naslund had the puck, Moore intentionally hit him to try to separate him from the puck, but arguably led with his elbow to Naslund's head. It was a dangerous play, that should have be penalized (it wasn't) -- although I don't think Moore intended to cause injury. It is a fast game, sometimes you can't react quick enough to avoid a dangerous collision like that. Still, I think that kind of play should be penalized to make it clear to players that they need to avoid dangerous plays if possible. Steve Moore didn't have a history of dirty or dangerous play, but still.

Anyway, all of that dovetails in pretty nicely with my previous post, specifically about what leads to a "spontaneous fight". Moore, a 3-4th line guy (lower ranks of skill/ability on the team) hit star player Naslund. In almost ANY hockey game where that kind of thing happens, you can expect that somebody from the star's team is going to go over to the offending player and push them around, probably with the intent to fight them. Usually it happens right at the time of the incident, but here it was delayed to a following game between the two teams.

In the next game between Colorado and Vancouver, Moore got challenged by a Vancouver player early in the first period and fought him. But I guess that the lag time and injury to Naslund (he ended up missing 3 games) had brewed up more bad blood than that so many Vancouver players hadn't gotten it fully out of their systems. Later in the game, Todd Bertuzzi skated up behind Moore when he didn't have the puck, grabbed him and tailed him for several seconds trying to get him into a second fight, and when he didn't respond just hauled back and punched him in the back of the head.

Moore fell to the ice, where Bertuzzi piled on him and drove his head into the ice. A big scrum/dogpile ensued, with Moore on the bottom. As a result of that, Moore fractured 3 vertebrae in his neck, stretched or tore some neck ligaments, got his face pretty cut up, etc. Pretty severe injuries.

So, in comparison:
Moore (lesser skill) hit Naslund (high skill) resulting in a minor(ish) injury, that could have ended up being much worse. But, it was a legitimate hockey play that just happened to occur at a time when Naslund was vulnerable -- arguably no intent to harm/injure.
Bertuzzi hit Moore in a following game, after he had already "answered" for his hit on Naslund by fighting a Vancouver player. Bertuzzi punched him from behind and followed up with further violence, driving his head into the ice and piling on him, initiating a dogpile. Not even close to a legitimate hockey play, well away from the puck, and with pretty clear intent to harm (maybe not to injure, but to harm).


Moore sued Bertuzzi, his team (the Canucks), and the NHL. Bertuzzi claimed that his coach had put a "bounty" on Moore, and that he hadn't intended to injure him -- just to get back at him for his hit on Naslund. Bertuzzi was suspended for a fairly long span of time, and his team was fined $250,000. The lawsuit was kind of on pause for a long time to gauge the long-term effects on Moore, but was eventually settled out of court (confidential terms).

All of this stuff is or course related to violence in hockey, but only loosely tied to fighting in hockey. Some would argue (with some merit in my opinion) that if the refs had called a penalty on Moore's hit on Naslund, and allowed a Vancouver player to challenge him to a fight at that time instead of the following game, it probably wouldn't have escalated to the level it did.

So, at least in my opinion, the league (NHL) needs to be careful, consistent, and fairly harsh in handing out penalties/suspensions to players who commit dangerous plays that can or do result in injuries -- especially repeat offenders. BUT, I think that allowing fighting can actually help mitigate that kind of stuff also -- as long as the league keeps it from getting out of hand and the enforcer type players continue to follow their "code".

Oh, fistfights are definitely treated differently than stick violence. Mild stick-related stuff (taking a short chop at someone with the stick is called a slash, tripping is self explanatory, leading a check/hit with the stick can be charging or a cross check, etc.) is usually given a 2 minute minor penalty. But if you go nuts and just try to lumberjack somebody with your stick (extremely rare, but happens every once in a while), it is treated very harshly with a likely LONG suspension. All that seems pretty well-handled to me -- if your slash or cross check or whatever is is a risky situation that can or does result in injury, those scale up from minor penalties into majors, game misconducts, or possible suspensions.

Fights are a 5 minute major penalty, assuming both sides/fighters intentionally got into it. However, both involved players get the same 5 minute penalty, so since they are coincidental it doesn't result in any actual penalty to the team (not down to 4 players instead of 5 like in a normal penalty) other than the player who was in the fight being unavailable for 5 minutes. A pretty high majority of players who get into fights are designated goons who might be on the ice for 1-3 minutes total of a 60 minute game, compared to 15-17 for a skilled forward or 20+ for a skilled defenseman. So, "losing" that player for 5 minutes is usually really no penalty at all.

However, the "code" of those enforcers/goons is actually a pretty real thing. Many fights (especially in the regular season) are actually a pre-planned thing between the enforcers on each team. They ask if the other guy is up for a fight, as a means to engage the crowd and/or their teammates. If both are up for it, the next time they line up for a faceoff or whatever they will probably contrive some offense and drop the gloves. Those fights are pretty silly, but both sides know what they are getting into and agree to it beforehand, so it isn't SO crazy.

Spontaneous fights usually happen when an average or lesser-skilled player makes a dangerous hit or dirty play against a skilled player on the opposing team. If that happens, their toughest teammate currently on the ice will likely rush to their defense, and if it appears like the offending player did it intentionally they will drop the gloves to "teach them a lesson". These fights seem much more purposeful to me, and if you ask great skilled players like Wayne Gretzky they almost all universally say that this system made things safer and opened up the ice for skilled players.

So, it is all pretty complicated and strange to the uninitiated, but there is a sort of method to the madness.

@MilkmanDan

Interesting. The Economist had a bit this week arguing that some violence (fistfights) seem to be treated much more lightly than violence with sticks, which usually leads to suspensions even though arguably you could have a no tolerance policy for both (or at least be consistently harsh).

http://www.economist.com/news/international/21639527-courts-are-increasingly-being-asked-rule-injuries-inflicted-during-games-fair-game

I've never had a cat, i don't want to be a jerk and i don't want to encourage people to mistreat pets (obviously). So with that said, why is everyone being so harsh to the guy? They played a bit, the cat goes for him and the guy is gentle with it despite the cat trying to hurt him (as he should be).

Are the noises it makes towards the end indicative of long term exposure to stress? I've seen videos with that same noise and no hatred to the owner. I know a lot of people with a lot of pets and many of them have little behaviours together that an outsider could easily think bad of, perhaps they play fight all the time but the cat for some reason hates the glove he bought it to play with. He doesn't look like a regular cat baiter and he isn't dressed like someone who expects slashing attacks to be coming limb-wards. The label is crisp and white and visible, i'm not sherlock holmes but i'd say they bought a new toy, the cat for some reason didn't like it, and they filmed the reaction which they didn't expect to go so badly. Otherwise they filmed and released one particular day in a string of abuse-filled days - and the cat won?

I don't see anything worse than someone using a little fluffy thing on a stick/string to tease a cat into chasing it and attacking it. That's all he did, but with the glove.. a little play fight, and the cat had an unusual reaction to the glove. People seem to think he's a bad guy and deserves savaging though, so could someone explain why? I'm just a bit shocked at the vitriol for him.

@artician - not just for grooming but for clawing at too which is why it looks a bit velcro-ish, so a cat person tells me. I was under the impression he was using it within the limits of its intended use.

Harsh? Not at all!

Your sentiments are dead on.

haha!
sure can..hugs are free.
hope i didnt come across as too harsh but the whining was grating on me a tad.

i am getting cranky in my old age.