>> ^messenger:

I empathise with the passenger.
As we all say with every authority-vs-public video, we don't know what happened before. Maybe the passenger was just unjustly harassed by a police officer and was distraught and venting to her friend about it, then this other (in her eyes) megalomaniacal bitch comes along and tells her she's not speaking properly, and to use more "educated" language.
That would neatly explain the passenger's mood, shock and outrage.


But... You just made that up.

"Excuse me, do you know how well educated I am?" is not something you can say. Ever. Ever. Not unless you're a sociopath or a hardcore solipsist, where everyone else is probably a figment of your imagination anyway.

She just seems self-absorbed, narcissistic to the extreme. Doesn't seem like there's much here to defend.

Edited.

Your video, "Educated" loudmouth on the Metro North Railroad, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^Shepppard:

Just watched it again, too. Notdead
Edit: Guess that's why it was functioning again.


I came in ninja-like and fixed it real quick.

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

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

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Educated-loudmouth-on-the-Metro-North-Railroad

>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^ghark:
... Line of thought:
1Republicans and Democrats both have a long history of making great speeches, then doing the complete opposite in terms of legislation (Obama being the most recent example).

I'm down with that. Talk is cheap. When are we actually going to do something about it? For a very long time now, we've known what the problems are, we've even had a pretty good idea of how we can at least try and go about correcting these problems. But actually putting these solutions into action, that's the hard part, that's where we separate the men from the loudmouthed children.
Debate is great, but at some point, talking accomplishes nothing and we need to actually take action. Even if that action ends up being regrettable, at least we learn something and do better next time.
I'm sick of rhetoric


I wonder what the alternative is at this point - I looked at the vote numbers for independents or non GOP/Dem parties in the 2008 election and they seem really low. It's almost setup so that if you don't vote for one of the two main parties you are just shooting yourself in the foot, as your voice/vote will simply get drowned out by the media hype that surrounds the main runners.

It's similar in Australia - we have the Green Party (who do actually get quite a few votes), but the trouble with voting for them is that they tend to form a coalition with either of the two main parties who gets the majority of votes and simply do what they are told, like puppies. So in essence, if you voted Greens at the last election, you may as well have voted Labor, because that's who the Greens are taking their orders from.

>> ^ghark:

... Line of thought:
1Republicans and Democrats both have a long history of making great speeches, then doing the complete opposite in terms of legislation (Obama being the most recent example).


I'm down with that. Talk is cheap. When are we actually going to do something about it? For a very long time now, we've known what the problems are, we've even had a pretty good idea of how we can at least try and go about correcting these problems. But actually putting these solutions into action, that's the hard part, that's where we separate the men from the loudmouthed children.

Debate is great, but at some point, talking accomplishes nothing and we need to actually take action. Even if that action ends up being regrettable, at least we learn something and do better next time.

I'm sick of rhetoric

I always feel like the best way to try to process these sorts of situations is to try to turn it into an opportunity to learn something.

So, when I watched the video, I got why the video was posted. I knew some people would think it was funny, some would think it was crass, and some would think it was creepily misogynist. I felt a mix of all three watching it myself.

What I don't get is the humorlessness of the people who insist on saying it's only funny, and that some grand injustice has been done when people voice the idea that it's crass or misogynistic.

It's not like it's the worst video in the world, but it's not like its comedic qualities are beyond reproach, so what's wrong with people saying they don't like it?

I just found that comment from LarsaruS just fucking weird. I single that one out because it's essentially a pristine example of the behavior I don't understand. Ignore the text for a moment, and just click on link #1. "Stop liking what I don't like." I'm sure that's meant to be words stuffed into the mouths of the "White Knights," but it's actually a perfect description of the comment the link is contained in. It's essentially saying "Stop not liking what I like."

Link #2 reads "Seems like you have a case of being a little bitch. I'm prescribing you a heavy dose of man the fuck up." Again, that's a perfectly valid critique of the comment it's embedded in. People don't like what you like, why does that bother you? Why not do as link #3 suggests and try not giving a fuck?

I get tons of crap thrown at me for, well, pretty much everything I say or post anymore. I expect to though, and while sometimes it frustrates me (and even on occasion actually upsets me), I don't let it get me bent out of shape because that's just one of the things that happens when you put yourself out there. I'm an opinionated loudmouth, I should expect other opinionated loudmouths to respond in kind.

The people who were offended just wanted to express themselves. Why lash out at them? Are you so insecure about your own actions? Do you think the world will end if not everyone shares your taste in humor? More to the point, if you think it's okay browbeat them into shutting up, aren't you guilty of doing the thing you inaccurately think is being done to you?

Should no one be permitted to ever say they're offended by anything, at any time, for any reason...because their doing so offends you?

The difference is that one has actual facts behind it....the other is just a loudmouthed child behind it.

Per this sift, my post was an opinion piece based on observation and what actually happened in the early 90s. Calling a socialist "Cankles" is far less obnoxious than the grandiose plans these utopian knuckleheads have for MY freedom.

One can be demonstrated, the other is just someone looking for attention.

Everyone that posts seeks some attention. Everyone that does anything in the public eye is seeking some kind of attention, positive or negative. I'm merely typing my mind and if you disagree with it, that's all right by me. If a liberal wants to prove something with facts and data, I'm all for it.

When we call someone racist, we're arguing that what the person is doing is wrong: judging people based on their race.

You mean like when the left prejudges all minorities as helpless victims who need special government help?

When you call someone a name, you're ignoring the actual issues at hand and just playing a child's game. the same ad homs you always do QM and you instantly lose any high ground you might have gained if you were actually debating instead of slinging mud. Sure, dems do it too, but again, using that as your excuse is what a child does.

I harbor no illusions about "changing" anyone's mind about anything. I doubt anyone logs on thinking, I hope someone challenges my belief system so I can see their side of things!

More peeps enjoy witty sarcasm than long-winded essays. I admit to not always being witty, but so what, I ain't gettin' paid, this is a labor of love and annoyance.

QM FTW.

The difference is that one has actual facts behind it....the other is just a loudmouthed child behind it.

One can be demonstrated, the other is just someone looking for attention.

When we call someone racist, we're arguing that what the person is doing is wrong: judging people based on their race.

When you call someone a name, you're ignoring the actual issues at hand and just playing a child's game. the same ad homs you always do QM and you instantly lose any high ground you might have gained if you were actually debating instead of slinging mud. Sure, dems do it too, but again, using that as your excuse is what a child does.

More QM fail.

@Truckchase, @messenger: Those that have followed my posts on here know that I'm firmly in your camp in general. In this particular case, I think shouldn't be too hard on what is an obvious "rant," and not really an attempt at reasoned debate, or what have you. It's intended purpose seems to be the psychological benefit of atheists, not spreading reason. It's basically an atheist circle-jerk, and that's fine for what it is. I actually felt for his frustration. I've been there.

However, since I'm really interested in how we can change minds, I'm more interested in your discussion than the video itself. I think one of the traps we fall into is assuming that they're attitude is consistently coming from a fear of damnation. I agree it exists, but more often I find this equally "superior" attitude coming from them. They seem to act more saddened that I would choose to miss out on this great joy, than fearful of the punishment their god would doll out. The loudmouths are a completely different story. I'm talking more about the common, quiet, friendly, generous, and quite often otherwise reasonable religious folk I usually encounter. While our study bibles might be heavier than their pamphlets, they don't usually come across as utterly incompetent, fearful individuals. More frequently they've just been sold on the happy angle.

It's easy to turn someone against a tyrant. The perceived benevolent ruler is harder to overthrow. Personally, I find the best way to turn someone on the Christian God, is to make them actually read Leviticus. I find most of them haven't.

I would assume that shiny represents himself truthfully in his comments, and from that we can draw quite a few conclusions.

He may give candy to orphans or be an axewielding mass murderer, but that doesn't change the fact that through his comments we get insight into his mind - and from what he has put forth, and certainly the tone and presentation of it, I am less than impressed.

I would argue that there is more hatred streaming from his comments than from the comments mocking him and his beliefs... after all, we don't tell him that he will burn in hell for ever and ever unless he buys charter or gives to charity, or support the republican party. We just point and laugh.

Opinions that are wrong deserve enlightenment and help, but when they are presented as they have been here, they deserve scorn.

Religion strikes so much to the base of a person, his morals, that you learn a lot from a comment. Some devout christians and spiritual people are genuinely nice and good while others are genuinely bad. So far, I've not seen much evidence presented here that puts shiny in the first category.
>> ^enoch:

>> ^shinyblurry:
God will get the last word on this one. Hitchens, justifying his life of sin to himself, has an ego a mile wide. His will, his way. He thinks he has the right to do whatever he pleases. He is trotting out his illness in national forums to stick it to God one last time. Well, when he is judged he won't have any excuse. God has been trying to save him and Chris has rejected that help, even belittled and made fun of it. Even being a loudmouthed arrogant braggart with delusions of grandeur, who has made a career teaching others to sin, God shows him mercy. The whole thing is just heartbreaking to me. I pray he wakes up and finds the truth before its too late.

so shiny puts forth a comment.
a comment based upon his/her religion concerning sin-repentance-absolution in regards to hitchens possible judgment.
and what does he/she get for his comment?
name-calling and disdain.
way to keep it classy guys.
do you KNOW shiny?
maybe he/she is a great person.spending time with the dying in their time of need or donates to local charities.
or maybe he/she is part of fred phelps "god hates fags" group.
i dont know and neither do you.
and to base a personal judgment on a comment is the height of presumption.
you can disagree with his ideology which is obviously based in dogma but to jump to conclusions based on so little and with such self righteous vigor is shameful.
might i suggest that you check yourselves before you begin to resemble the very thing i see so many of you admonish time and time again concerning religious hypocrisy.

>> ^enoch:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry" title="member since January 21st, 2011" class="profilelink">shinyblurry
you are starting to sound a bit preachy my friend.

His first comment was...

"God will get the last word on this one. Hitchens, justifying his life of sin to himself, has an ego a mile wide. His will, his way. He thinks he has the right to do whatever he pleases. He is trotting out his illness in national forums to stick it to God one last time. Well, when he is judged he won't have any excuse. God has been trying to save him and Chris has rejected that help, even belittled and made fun of it. Even being a loudmouthed arrogant braggart with delusions of grandeur, who has made a career teaching others to sin, God shows him mercy. The whole thing is just heartbreaking to me. I pray he wakes up and finds the truth before its too late."

Have you been paying attention?

Edit : I CAN SEE THE COOOODE