You do see this trend across YouTube and also on TV.

There are plenty of women who are seeking attention, in whatever form it comes, and will post vlog's for the sake of those comments. It's not healthy or positive, but it happens.

I know it's strange to think, but many women have been raised to feel inferior to men and to be more "delicate". Plenty of studies show that older generations systematically trained females to feel helpless. For instance, if a male child falls, they tell him to suck it up, but if it's a female child, they coddle her, or worse, they refuse to let her also play because she might get hurt.

So when you have women who are already fighting these self-esteem issues, they are not going to throw themselves to the wolves to be hounded by comments. Also, this may be a shocker too, but some people actually get caught up on negative comments. Some people will read 10 comments about them, but only remember the one negative one.

So after spending all day be bombarded by sexualized ads, hyper-sexualized and unrealistic portrayals of women, and dealing with men who have also fallen prey to this, many are not willing to hoist themselves up for all to tear down.

Instead, she's encouraging them to do just that. To throw themselves out there and for the rest of us to help support them by telling sexist assholes to shut the fuck up and grow the fuck up or get the fuck out. *ahem* I mean, STFU or GTFO.

Is this a bad time to point out that Rube Goldberg machines are, by nature, examples of terrible engineering?

But I love the motivation here. Princess programming is highly disturbing and the helpless girls (who never become women) it produces are a waste of space.

Long time Silvercord-I must take issue with the loaded prelude, " In the climate of abduction and human trafficking today" ok for these reasons.

No widespread prevalence of the same is evidenced in anything but loaded stats and news orgs continually pumping fear and hatred into the minds of the weak.

Also, using the same loaded words the news-bobbles use well, it simply shows that the programming you've consumed all these years dutifully, is effective and perpetual.

Abduction happens pf course, it's perpetuated by illegals, gang-members, career criminals, CIA(and other such initialed criminals)...It only happens because dumb asses have let the country become an institution of creating slaves and criminals of average humans programmed through dire environments, SPECIFICALLY the environment of fear and helplessness fostered by the people (sub-human garbage) posing as leaders.

Who let the country turn into shit? Everyone who voted because it "felt" right and then spent their civil disobedience tickets on bitching istead of doing something tangible about it outside of the approved means of protest.

Like voting-in wildcards, picketing senator's homes and offices, withdrawing $$ from the worst of offenders...ETC.

HIstorys' a motherfucker.

@bcglorf

i did not posit drones are bad.
i didnt posit anything actually,except to refrain from the conversation entirely.
(our government,not you or i).

you or i can discuss ad nauseum and would have every right to.
we can and many do actually volunteer their time to help those in need,helpless or hurt.
some very brave souls travel to these broken countries to help ease the suffering of ordinary folk.

and you already know my answer to your query.
diplomacy is the only resolution and the reason is twofold:
1.diplomatic talks almost always are started with a cease and desist of all aggression.
2.it allows a multilateral approach therefore diffusing the hypocrisy i spoke about.

many people in this country are reluctant to look at what their own government has perpetrated in their name.
maybe out of fear...or pride.
but in my opinion any real conversation has to begin with absolute truth.

so by my vicious criticism of my governments foreign policy over the past 50 years does not mean that i ignore all the great achievements,great accomplishments and great ideals.

so if i was to posit anything on this thread it would be this:
we have lost our way.
the very things that made us great have become whispers lost in a cacophony of paranoid musings by the powerful and we sold our freedom to be cocooned in the safety of consumerism.
and while the wolves howl at the door we are fed platitudes of american exceptionalism and handed flags to wave in remembrance of good-deeds from days long past.
individualism has been ratcheted up to a fever pitch of self-aggrandizing twitter feeds and selfies.
that a persons self worth is based on their ability to purchase status symbols.
where news has become opinion and everybody has a right to one.
where facebook is a place to post your own,personal cartoon all the while never really communicating with anyone.

we have become afraid little children.

and its time to grow up.

I see your point about the delivery of these lefty messages. Almost without fail, they pull at the heartstrings with moody scores and images of the helplessness of the poor, the beauty of pristine nature and the ugly rot that underlies our way of life. I certainly don't have the ability to produce anything approaching the quality of this video, flawed as it is as a tool to convert non-believers.

I see this as the real challenge moving forward: the creation of a universal message that speaks to people who are unaware or in denial about our impending collapse. Somehow, one of us with the charisma of a Lincoln or a Mandella, has to present that universal message. Present it, and for God's sake find a way to not make it sound like the whining of a "bleeding-heart liberal."

Take that greedy assholes! I'm the asshole's asshole. I help the helpless assholes.

@bcglorf
there are a few things i dont understand about your position.i hope you can clear them up for me.

1.you state that there is conclusive evidence that it was the assad regime that executed the use of chemical weapons and that only russia and the syrian government are stating otherwise.
could you supply this evidence for us?
because as far as i can tell the only entity providing evidence is isreal and i have to admit being skeptical of their claims.they have been wrong before and often.

2.now lets address the hypothetical that it IS assads regime that is responsible for the chemical attacks.
how does this give the united states the right to unilaterally use military force?
where is the diplomatic option?
why are we not even attempting to bring the players on the ground in syria to the negotiating table?
sanctions?embargoes?
why are we jumping right over steps 3 and 4 and diving into bombings?
how is killing innocent civilians considered "humanitarian"?

3.if the reasoning that we are being given is that a syrian intervention is based on "humanitarian" grounds and that the assad regime has perpetrated "crimes against humanity" (which is possible).where is the united states deriving this moral authority?
when we consider that the united states itself used:phosphorous and depleted uranium in iraq,which IS indeed considered a war crime.
in fact the united states has pretty much broken international law in every conflict since 1950 in regards to war crimes.
so where is our supposed moral authority?

4.if we dismiss the questionable intelligence in regards to chemical weapons in syria AND we ignore the utter hypocrisy in using banned weaponry and we focus on JUST the crimes against humanity defense for intervention.that somehow the united states is doing all this for "humanitarian" reasons.
then we must ask the question:
"if the united states is such a beacon of moral purity and is the defender of the weak and helpless that it will strike at any sovereign nation that dares to kill its own citizens.why is it that the united states turned a blind eye in other countries that perpetrated almost mass genocide against its own people"?

what makes syria more special than the millions of human beings who were allowed to be murdered and slaughtered by its own government while the united states sat back and did nothing,and many times supplied the very weaponry USED to murder those people?

the hypocrisy is staggering.

the implication is that the united states is NOT interested in a stable syria but exactly the opposite.
maybe this thought is troubling for americans but i submit that if that is the case then they have not been paying attention.

*edit-as for your "iraq is the way it is due to saddam hussein" assertion.
really?reeeaaaally?
you do realize the united states armed saddam.we didnt pull the trigger when he went after the iranians and the kurds but we supplied the gun.
you do realize that we never left iraq after the first gulf war.
are you aware that even as reprehensible and venal saddam was,iraq had running water,hospitals,schools.even with the continued bombings and sanctions iraq had a functioning government?

are we to believe ,by your assertion,that iraq is in the state it is right now due to saddam hussein and america bears ZERO responsibility?
we have occupied iraq for TEN YEARS.saddam was executed 7 yrs ago.
the united states has failed on an epic scale in regards to iraq.

remember that whole "we will be greeted as liberators"
"the oil we confiscate will pay for the war"
maybe i am reading your commentary wrong but i cant wrap my head around your assertion.
it just does not hold up under the simplest of scrutiny.

Hey @enoch,

> dude,
> i totally appreciate the time you took to respond.

Sure, not a problem. It's a complex issue, and requires the time to consider and understand the details.

> "for a free market to exist there also has to be absolute liberty.-
> adam smith we have neither.
> IF we did,i would not be against a free market system.
> at least not in totality."

Uh-oh, I hope this isn't a "lesser of two evils" argument.. That is, "since we cannot have a free market lets go for full-blown socialism because it is supposedly better than fascism." It's a false choice and not one I think any true humanitarian would be willing to entertain.

> "should EVERYTHING be subject to a free market? police?
> firefighters? roads?"

In short, yes. Aversion to socialism is based on reality, in contrast to what you're saying. Socialism is failure. Central planning inevitably fails. Central planners do not have the required knowledge to plan an economy. You need economic calculation and economic calculation is impossible to achieve in a socialist "economy."

> "to me health should be a basic part of civilized society,by your
> arguments you disagree. ok..we both have that right."

Are you trying to conflate "socialized healthcare" with health? Let's not confuse the facts with personal attacks. You seem to be saying, "if you are against socialism you are against health." That makes no sense. None.
I might as well say, "If you are against free markets you are against health."

> "my argument is that some things should be a basic for civilized
> society. in my opinion health care is one of them."

In no way did I ever say that I am against healthcare. So what are you talking about?

> "for a free market to exist there also has to be absolute liberty.-
> adam smith we have neither."

You cannot have a free market without liberty any more than you can have liberty without liberty. This is obvious, so?

> "IF we did,i would not be against a free market system.
> at least not in totality."

So, if we had a free market, you wouldn't be "against" a free market? Hmm.

> "the reason why i dont feel a free market is the way to go is
> mainly due to the fact that politics and corporations have merged
> into one giant behemoth (plutocracy)."

That's fine, but this is not a matter of "feeling" but a matter of economic reality and empirical evidence and deductive truth.

> "i never really understood americans aversion to "socialism""

Perhaps some economic education will clarify things. Understanding economic calculation, for example, might be a good place to start.

> "i deal with the very people that could NEVER afford you."

You're wrong. For one thing, while I do work at a significant fee for my primary clients, I do a significant amount of pro bono work, as a choice, and because I, like you, believe that health care is a human right. And that's a key point you need to understand. You seem to believe that, if the state doesn't take care of people, then no one will, and so we need to steal money from people in the form of taxes, under the auspices of "helping the poor," when in fact, the bureaucrats ensure that only a portion (if any) of those taxes actually arrive with their intended recipients while those who would willingly help those people themselves are deprived of the resources to do so, by depleting their income with said taxes. It's an unnecessary middleman, and faulty logic. The fact that people have, do, and will continue to care about people is the fundamental fact the needs to be understood. As a "man of faith," I would hope that you have enough faith in other people that they would care about and for others (even without being coerced by the government to do so, by force).

Furthermore, we have to apply the free market in toto, not half-assed. You can't have a Keynesian corporatists and an over-regulated system and expect that people will be be able to afford healthcare. The fact is that in a free market, the number of people who cannot afford my services would actually decrease considerably, because many more options would arise for those who still couldn't afford me would but need my services.

> "in a free market there will be losers.the one who always lose.
> the poor,the homeless,the mentally ill."

The free market has ways of dealing with all of these. And yes some win, some lose. But in a socialist system, everyone loses (except for maybe the rulers and their lackeys). This seems, again, to be coming from a place of fear, a sense of helplessness without the government. But alas, nothing contributes to poverty, homelessness, and mental illness more than government does. Fact.

> "the free market is still profit driven and the poor will have it no
> better,possibly worse in such a system."

So, what is your proof that the poor will have it worse? How do you know? Or is this what you "feel" would be the case?

> "the reason why i suggested medicare is because it is already in
> place."

So was slavery when the South decided they wanted to keep it.

> "two things would happen if this country went the medicare route:
> 1.health insurance industry would obsolete.
> 2.the pharmaceutical industry would find itself having to negotiate
> drug prices"

1. Yes, the government would have a monopoly on health coverage, and by extension all of healthcare. Economic calculation at this point becomes utterly impossible. Chaos follows. And healthcare quality and service plummets. I have research studies to support this if you're interested.

2. Why not nationalize pharmaceuticals while you are at it?

> "i may be a man of faith but i am a humanist at heart.for-profit
> health care will still have similar results as our current because
> the poor and working poor population is growing."

Without appealing to moral superiority, allow me to assure you that there is nothing -- not one thing -- that is moral or ethical about allowing the government coerce, aggress, commit violence, and violate individual's inalienable rights to self-ownership and property rights, as you proposing with such socialist "solutions." In my humble opinion, a true man of faith would not stand for such things, but would stand against them.

> "the poor and working poor population is growing."

Indeed we do, and we all have inflation, cronyism, Lord Keynes' bogus economic "system" and government's meddling to thank for this.

> "i am all for an actual free market but some things should be done
> collectively."

By "collectively," I assume you mean "by central authorities," yes? Because the free market is, in fact, collective. But there is nothing "collective" about central planning. Except for the fact that the "collective" is mandated to obey the dictates of the central planners.

> "its not only the right thing to so but the human thing to do."

1. Whatever your "feelings" are about it, there is an economic reality to deal with. Such a sentiment misses the point, and will result in hurting more people than it helps.

2. There is nothing "human" (or humane) in aggression, coercion, and violations of sovereignty, all of which underpins an implementation of a socialized system.

"The right thing to do" is to respect self-ownership and property rights. Doing anything else will eventually backfire. "People are not chessmen you move on a board at your whim."

Any one who is serious about contributing to solving and/or ameliorating the issues of poverty, homelessness, and/or mental illness and many of the other symptoms of our social detritus, needs to develop real, sustainable free market solutions to these. Otherwise, their efforts will be in vain (even if -- or perhaps especially if -- they are adopted by government for implementation). Anything else will not improve any of these but will only serve to make matters worse.

Going back to the basics, free market competition will always provide better goods/services at lower prices than the monopolies (fostered and engendered by the lack of economic calculations due to governmental intervention and regulations). Healthcare is no exception to this. Why would it be? Furthermore, why believe that the central planners/kleptocrats aren't profit-driven? Why believe that a "government" monopoly doesn't suffer from a lack of economic calculation? And what's wrong with being profit-driven, however you may individually define "profit?" Do you/I/we not act for what you/I/we consider the best? (Having faith is not a part-time job.)

Do you not act to achieve desired goals?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you haven't fully thought things through. But as I'm sure you know, "It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost."

> "thats my 2 cents anyways.i could probably ramble on for a few
> hours but i dont want to bore you. always a pleasure my friend.
> namaste"

It's not boring, but does take a bit of time to consider and understand all of the details. It's complex, and certainly a challenge to navigate your way through the morass of rhetoric, conditioning, and cultural misdirection that is pervasive in our society, especially when considering what passes for "news" and "facts." This is particularly true with regards to the economy, which is heavily politicized, despite being a rational science that can be understood if one takes the time to learn about its mechanism.

Since you signed off with "namaste," perhaps it would be worth reminding you that the first principle of yoga is "ahimsa para dharma" : non-violence is the highest duty.

Perhaps videosift isn't the best medium in which to educate people on non-violence and economics, but alas, it can be entertaining and, possibly have have some positive effect at some point.

Hope this helps.

Hmm... I can see a few ways in which this can fail.

Either it turns into a very long sequence of death defying 3D camera work like we see in the trailer, ending with a hard Soyud landing.

Or what we see here is actually padded out with dramatic all-American family values and a sappy sacrifice for the greater good (= the guy dies to save the girl).

The best way in which this plays out already seems out. Realistically, they are both dead as soon as they are 'off structure', and they would know that. Their last moments would be best spent talking, and shutting of the oxygen supply.

And another little thing in this trailer that really bugs me is Sandra Bullock screaming "What do I do!?". Why is is the female astronaut shouting that? It just seems odd that even in a movie portraying astronauts (who are extraordinarly professional and cool headed), it's still the woman being the helpless screamer. Even, apparently, to such an extent that it ends up in a trailer.

But yeah, it looks very cool.

Interesting sidenote to this.

It's not even failure that can induce learned helplessness. It's how you are treated when you succeed.

If you tell kids that they are clever, strong, whatever for accomplishing a task, when presented with a more difficult task, many will assume that the task is either impossible or that they are simply unable to complete it.

On the other hand, if you praise the work or effort that went into completing a task rather than an intrinsic quality, children are much less likely to give up, even at a task that is beyond their current ability level.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'education' to 'education, learned helplessness, psychology, failure, confidence' - edited by xxovercastxx

Your video, Learned Helplessness, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Not to say the concept is invalid but I'm not sure this experiment proves the point. I probably would have been still trying to solve the 'unsolvable' words before I went on to number three. They just ran out of time... nothing to do with learning 'helplessness'. A better structure would have been to flash the words one at a time to both groups. That way the 'dummies' don't get hung up trying to solve the words above. THEN compare what happens when both groups are simultaneously presented with word three.

Guns over Non-Lethal? You think you're going to win with that? Sorry but shooting someone because they're a danger to themselves, No doesn't fly. Shooting someone because they're a danger to others flies, if they're actually showing an intent to harm other people.

Shooting someone because they're endangering a cops life? Nope Nuh uh that's not how it works. Cops swear an oath to serve and protect, that means they put themselves UNDER everyone elses life in their district. So they risk being shot and stabbed and exhaust every option in order to stop someone without murdering them out of fear that they'll be hurt. They don't like it they don't have to take the job.

You don't just get to shoot people ever, not when they're not an immediate threat and not when you have options to take them down in non-lethal ways.

As far as the sifts opinion, we wouldn't give a fuck if they tazed a guy to the ground who had a knife in his hand. We get pissed when the people who get tazed are helpless, like that old grandma in a wheel chair.

The cop fucked up, and that crowd fucked up by not storming that building and killing all who stood in front of them. Only Murder will fix this situation now!

Why would this be considered a good thing? Do we watch documentaries about how it was sooo hard but our brave soldiers used their scrappy B-52s to bomb the shit out of helpless villagers?

Fuck England, and Fuck their Falklands war.