Seriously? Who hijacks a bunch of little kids for an abortion rally? How messed up is that?

I can't understand how these things that do that justify it to themselves. I can't understand how you could be that far removed from reality.

The tea party started out with good intentions, but it quickly got hijacked by the koch brothers. It's the party of making rich people richer using the anger of right wing people.

@gorillaman, I admit I'm veering close to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, but equally, I never claimed that all feminists were sane and moral people.

The difference is, I think most people these days are reasonably feminist and I think the vast majority of them are not man-hating nutjobs. There's undoubtedly a lunatic fringe, but that's the case for every group/ideology.

I also agree that meanings change over time. "national socialism", shorn of its historic baggage, doesn't sound that terrible. But we know that what it actually signifies is actually national fascism, racism and other abhorrent concepts.

The question is at what point the lunatic fringe comes to represent the whole. For example, at one point the Republicans were once the party of small government and fiscal conservatism, but it's becoming increasingly more difficult to describe them as anything other than the party of religious nutjobs and idiots.

I don't feel feminism has been hijacked to the same extent. I believe there are still a lot of normal rational people who describe themselves as feminists (I'd like to think I'm one, for a start).

Finally, I'm with Joss Whedon.... "feminism" is a terrible word, but ultimately, "You either believe women are people or you don't. It's that simple."

Seems to me the word 'feminist' has been so trashed, hijacked and hard to know what it means by any particular person who uses it(unless you personally know that person). It's just sooo loaded with meaning beyond definition these days. The word often poisons meaningful dialogue of issues due to how it's perceived by different people. Seems to me anytime you create a word to define a group it gets misused and or hijacked and has its meaning twisted (pc/ sjw/ socialist/ truther/ environmentalist/ etc.).

More about particular issues. Less about particular groups (which this video is part of).

Oh yeah. A chance to hijack AND be lazy! Count me in...Happy Xmas and Merry New Year to all, especially @ant who's thoroughly lost control of his own post!

Happy Christmas @dag, and all Sifters. Hijacking @ant's post is an excellent idea

I'm german. If you ask me, I think I want people who know exactly what it's like to be on the receiving end of islamic extremist terrorism in my country's mosques. It's the best chance to stop recruiters of such organisations in my country's muslim community. People who understand and are hopefully brave enough to stand up to them.
Four of the 9/11 hijackers came from Germany.

But what about theses conspiracy theories (as an example)
http://theantimedia.org/10-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true/

Seems to me it was not long ago people were called 'conspiracy theorist', when they talked of government spying on its own people. Funny thing is it is actually WAY worse then 'conspiracy theorist' ever imagined. just sayin

painting someone as a 'conspiracy theorist' is just like how they are painting 'feminist' these days. Lumping everyone together is lame and is used to intimidate and shout people down. Many shut up for fear of being labeled by a hijacked name.

This has NOTHING to do with Israel and the issues in the middle east. PLEASE do not hijack this thread with such issues.

Thank you for your cooperation

replying here to avoid hijacking another thread...but leaving it public in case others might be interested in my reasoning, or yours.

Perhaps at times he has advocated responsible use, but often (like this instance) it's nothing more than 'DMT is what you all need, take some'.

I also agree, some people may benefit from psychedelics...but some may have disastrous experiences that end in death or permanent brain damage, especially when not done with pharmaceutical grade substances (which is never mentioned here). You never know what you have on the black market, video's I've seen of testing being done on drugs bought at 'raves' and concerts showed that well over 50% were not what they were supposed to be, or had dangerous adulterants. Unless you pay for testing, you don't know what you've got (sometimes true even with pharmaceuticals, sadly).

I also see it that way, as proselytizing for a drug that can have life altering effects, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. That always leaves out the dangers and usually any warning on how to be 'safe' at all, which leaves some readers thinking there are no dangers. That's my main issue, if there was a clear warning with each advocating instance, I wouldn't complain (but might still disagree that it's good for all).

My point exactly, people are made differently and what works for one may destroy another. That's why blanketly advocating strong drugs is a problem for me.

I have a healthy respect for psychedelics and their effects, especially one's as strong as DMT, which is why I'm disturbed at the off hand, blanket promotion of taking them without clear warnings included.

Ken Kesey beat you to the cult of acid by what, 47 years or so, at least according to Tom Wolfe. (Electric koolaid acid test)

What @eric3579 said.
Not the first time you have hijacked a thread to espouse the wonders of DMT. Are you a chemist that makes the stuff or what? It is not a 'safe' drug in any way.
If it's not about being a 'religious experience', your interjection of it here is out of place and odd.

Assume a great deal? Imagine you know about how governments are supposed to operate on paper in contrast to how they are manipulated by men with power? Insult people much here on this site with obsessive tomes? Been reading some of your comments here-Damn son, how's it feel to hijack a website?

I'm not much of a sportsman (I do everything, but poorly).

At one point in my life I had the amazing opportunity to work at a company whose office was literally on the beach in Southern California. Every day at lunch, if the waves were good, everyone would surf.

One time out, one of the rare times I caught a wave and rode it into shore, as I was riding I looked down through the clear water and below my board was a school of at least a dozen fish surfing/following under me, whipping back and forth right under the tip of my board, just enjoying the tide in the same way I was.

That was one of the most beautiful memories I'll have for the rest of my life. Your comment just brought that up, didn't mean to hijack the thread, but wanted to say: Experience everything, everyone. We all deserve at least one magical moment in our lives. That was one of mine. I'm thrilled when I get to see or hear of others.

@enoch,

I'm afraid you are the one misunderstanding. Hijacking and redefining anarchy to mean support for essentially a different flavour of grassroots democracy isn't clever or insightful. It's an abuse of the language. That is merely a semantic complaint though. The deeper problem is that it's an effort to build an argument atop a contradiction. Namely, anarchy with some form of overall governing structure. Starting from such a contradiction allows you defend or tie anything and everything back to your core statement. That's why I declared it intellectually dishonest.

You advocate your position as 'anarchy' but then proceed to describe a government of the people, by the people and for the people. You've described democracy, not anarchy. You advocate absolute freedom of the people from the tyranny of rulers. You declare no more wars of aggression, but who's rule is that except your own? I'm afraid that history shows that a large portion of your free people will most assuredly gather together and agree on waging a war of aggression, and the only stricture holding that back is the rule made by the ruler against it, in this case the ruler being yourself.

In short anarchy only fares as well as human nature can be trusted, which is not far at all. Redefining it as democracy light isn't honest, it's just rejecting the burden of defending the specific changes and improvements one would propose. It's an ancient trick used endlessly throughout history and one I refuse to accept.