Jesus just what we don't need, another mindless zombie movie. THIS is wasted money.

See, I agreed with everything you said up until that last statement (that I quoted below).

All organized religions brutally and mindlessly suppress individual freedom. But lately the target de jour seems to be Islam. People like Sam Harris got off track when they forgot that the real target is the dismantling of all organized religion and focused almost exclusively on denouncing Islam--usually with obnoxious overgeneralizations and a complete lack of understanding how diverse Islam actually is.

And that's the major problem with the whole argument Dawkins and Maher are proposing (i.e. that you can't criticize Islam anymore). You can't criticise Christianity or Judaism or any other major religion without hugely overgeneralizing, either. Instead you need to target specific denominations within specific communities and how they practice the religion.

For example, are you upset about how "Christianity" has helped spread AIDS or protected pedophiles? Well then really you're really looking to criticize the Catholic church and it's stance on contraception and handling illegal activities within the church, not Christianity as a whole.

Upset with how gay people are viewed? Again, you're probably not looking to criticize the Lutherans, Presbyterians, and many other Christian denominations who have reformed in recent times to be accepting of LGBT members and clergy. It's not a Christianity problem so much as it is a problem of how specific people in specific places for specific cultural reasons interpret the texts of their religion.

Basically, I don't think it is a problem if people want to criticize how Islam is practiced in a specific context (say, for example, the use of female genital mutilation in some subsets of Islam in Africa). But I do think it is a problem when the speaker is simply set on demonizing the religion as whole rather than making a rational argument, for example overgeneralizing female gential mutilation (which actually pre-dates Islam and was incorporated into it later after Islam's rise of influence in the region) as an example of why Islam is evil.

Certainly people have the legal right to make such an argument (in the U.S. at least). However, I'm guessing most universities don't want to come across as looking in support of such ill-structured arguments that are more akin to tabloid magazine hit pieces than an actual intellectual argument which is grounded in facts and reason.

All that said, I have no inside information about the real administrative reasons why certain speakers have been declined/uninvited at specific college campuses.

Liberals oppose totalitarian ideologies automatically.

Read that sentence again. As far as I'm concerned, it's axiomatic. Consequent to that principle, no liberal will ever support or apologise for islam.

What we're seeing with our 'regressive leftists' is people who've been raised in an environment, the educated middle class say, in which liberalism is associated with goodness. Since they define themselves as good, they naturally also define themselves as liberal. They know that among the intellectual set to which they aspire, any admission of social conservatism will quite properly be met with contempt.

So, even while calling for censorship, even while defending the brutal and mindless suppression of individual freedom that is inherent in islam, these reactionaries delude themselves into believing that they're liberal.

"I am a nice shark, not a mindless eating machine.
If I am to change this image, I must first change myself.
Fish are friends, not food."

YES, PLEASE.

Also, why do the authorities always wait until the city is over-run by mindless zombies? The first time someone turns into the undead, you drop a nuke on the city, update the maps, and pretend the whole thing never happened. You don't wait around until a multi-ethnic foursome show up with shotguns, witty banter and a love of stock cars and carnival rides. No, you go Fat Man on the fuckers ASAP and score an easy 57 hits on YouTube with the video.

HEY! Don't roll your eyes at me -- this at least twice as sane as anything Donald Trump's shit out in the last 48 hours!

Japan tries to hide their breast mutilating, savage raping, mindless torturing of Chinese. In all honesty, if the Chinese government invaded, then murdered every politician and news venue that opposed teaching the true savagery of Japan's recent past, that would be 110% justified. In fact, it would be moral--since Japan is trying to sweep it under the rug in some morbid attempt to feel better.

It's not their country. Human beings own the world and mindless rock-worshipping savages own nothing.

Smart people are superior to stupid people, and there isn't enough room on this planet for the sort of subhuman trash who believe in magic fucking mountains.

Respect, now, that is not a value I hold especially close to my heart.

Oh man I hope this is great, but it looks like a bunch of mindless action. Seems to be missing the gritty survival tone of the 80's movies. Almost wish they made him do it on 20 million instead of whatever hundreds of millions it cost.

You rely on the government for national defense, you idiot. You know why? Because in the real world you can't defend yourself from foreign armies and terrorists. You depend upon the police for protection no matter how many guns you might have.

Where the disconnect here is the idiotic notion that we don't need government for things like health care regulation. The reality is ACA didn't just come out of the blue. It came from an obvious systemic problem within the overwhelmingly market controlled system.

You can keep mindlessly babbling all you want that government intervention is always bad, but that is turning an idiotically blind eye to basic US history, where there are ridiculous number of examples the government getting involved to effectively regulate industries are undeniably good, like the Meat Inspection Act, Food and Drug Administration, making it illegal to put lead in paint, regulations for car safety, regulations on buildings so you can't for example put asbestos in the walls, requiring labels on food so you know what ingredients are in them, so you could avoid nuts if you have a deadly nut allergy.

You know why? Because, despite your delusions, you can't inspect all your food, wear a mask when you walk into every building you go into to protect from asbestos, know that the tires you are buying don't have an excessively high chance of blowing off your car and killing you, ensure the air you breathe doesn't have too much lead in it, etc. etc. etc.

You're dependent on the government for all that, and it has massively improved your quality of life, and it has nothing to do with your self pride or dignity, so cut the utter bullcrap.

It can remain adult, the first 6 comments (including ant's, ending with bareboards') were adult, then it quickly devolved into grade school faulty reasoning, lack of comprehension, blatant racism, and derision by someone well known for that type of post.
Conversations will never remain 'adult' when people start their posts with silly blanket derision like "Ugh, everyone in this thread is acting like an asshat." That's not an adult thing to say, and adds nothing to any discussion. Also, you include ant in that (he had posted in the thread by then) for adding it to the 'talk' channel. WHAT?!

To answer your questions,
@Babymech made a quite valid point with a clear example of why Anita doesn't owe anyone anything, and a second post explaining that even more clearly (the second with some snark, because of the insulting comment(er) it was replying to).
You just started by insulting everyone...posters, speaker, Anita, "everyone in this thread"... and made huge leaps to assume she hates and belittles sex workers (who are prostitutes if they sell sex for money, BTW).
Then you go on to apparently claim rape, or people caring/not caring about rape, or perhaps people caring/not caring about other people caring/not caring about rape is a first world problem?

Trancecoach (I had to "show it anyway", he's on ignore for obvious reasons) had absolutely no valid point to make, only a complete misread of babymech and a racist insulting rant making insanely wrong claims and conflations.

@ChaosEngine (and I) explained why she disabled comments on youtube. It was not to block valid criticism, or they would never have been open in the first place. It was because of daily rape and death threats and good advice from friends, cops, and youtube.

Your points are not valid IMO. Particularly your point about her turning off comments, I find that point completely without merit for reasons already delineated.

I'm not interested enough in her to investigate her, and see no need. I'm not a fan. That said, when people make silly statements about her (like "youtubers - commenters & personalities alike - started calling her on her bullshit. In response, she disabled the comments on all of her videos.") when I know that's not correct, I will correct you.
Gamergate (EDIT: for a vast majority of people) WAS about "an ACTUAL very serious set of issues.
Online Harassment. Slut shaming. The depiction & plight of genders in pop culture. etc. " because of the harassing, slut shaming, threatening comments it generated. That's why people know about it, not because of it's original message. Juxtapose that with the repeated serious threats of brutal home invasion & sexual assault...Then ask yourself if the nitpicky personal opinion you've already expressed maintains the situation & context. Otherwise you end up expressing terrible non-sequitur mindless thoughts like Trancecoach.

in effect - "regardless of her peer's brutal rape.. she has no right to expect someone you have labeled an outspoken proponent of women's rights (in gaming).. to respond to her.. or call attention to what you (not her) are calling the most disparaged & vulnerable/easily victimized members of society, female sex workers"...yes, absolutely. Sarkeesian is not an anti-rape advocate, she's a 'women in gaming' advocate, and has no obligation to take up another cause and drop her cause. It's disturbing you don't se the difference, and I think it's intentional.

@newtboy With contentious topics like this, the conversation is barely "adult".

It's nitpicky and tangential because everyone thinks they alone are adding some great insight to the discussion.

@Babymech hopped on the "Anita doesn't owe anyone anything" cart.

@Trancecoach was closer to base but then got all "you see, it's really the blacks that are the problem"

@ChaosEngine choose the "well youtube comments are generally insulting & abusive.. therefore it's okay to block valid criticism too!"

Great, what does that have to do with the message of the speaker.
Or my point of "hey, why are you completely avoiding the overall message of the speaker"

Furthermore, what's the difference between Baby's condescending tone and my outright insults?

Both are belittling & incongruent with "adult" behavior/conversation.

Ultimately, he too is trying to swat down argument/opinion that doesn't mesh with his.

Regardless of my brash way of speaking, my points are still valid.

I do my research. I don't talk about topics I'm ignorant on.
And as I said, I was once a fan of Anita Sarkeesian and her videos.

Then I ran into her bullshit.

There's tons of evidence on youtube that points out Sarkeesian's hypocrisy.

So if you're uninformed, why not take it upon yourself.. to educate yourself.

You folks are barely any better then lantern or bobknight with your knee-jerky devils' advocate defense of a pseudo-intellectual prestige-hound who is unscrupulous in the way she pursues her agenda.

Next you're gonna tell me that somehow Bill Cosby isn't a date-rapist.

"Well you know, it was only 25-30 women with identical experiences/anecdotes. ..MJ is still definitely a pederast tho."

My point here is:

You all frame this video with your personal opinion BEFORE analyzing the entirety of it's message & context.

I get that, because it's a pot-stirrer.
But seriously, if you just think it out:

A - Gamergate is first world problem bullshit
B - It has garnered unwarranted hype and a counter-cult of white-knight SJW supporters.
C - It's being conflated with an ACTUAL very serious set of issues.
Online Harassment. Slut shaming. The depiction & plight of genders in pop culture. etc.
D - Actual victims & movements, ON BOTH SIDES, are being undermined by this frenzy.

Juxtapose that with the brutal home invasion & sexual assault..

Then ask yourself if the nitpicky personal opinion you're about to express maintains the situation & context.

Otherwise, you end up expressing terrible mindless thoughts like @Babymech.
in effect - "regardless of her peer's brutal rape.. she has no right to expect an outspoken proponent of women's rights.. to respond to her.. or call attention to the most disparaged & vulnerable/easily victimized members of society, female sex workers"

This is why the videosift community can barely be taken seriously.

It's like 4chan flamewars for boring old people.

..now everyone is on my case for [aggressively] pointing this out.



PHO PHO PHO PHO PHO Bun cha gio, mmm.

On the subject of feces, I am reminded of an aspect of the Uygur/Harris debate that I wanted to pick up.

As they were discussing torture, Harris was rather convinced of his understanding that death would be worse than having your holy book mistreated or being sprayed with (fake) menstrual blood.

This fails to appreciate a major drive behind the use of torture: to "reset" a human mind, to have the subject betray whatever is most sacred to him/her. The torture at Gitmo/Baghram was directly aimed at one of the most defining aspects of their victims' personalities, namely their religious beliefs.

All of this was beautifully illustrated in Southern America when the torturers' aim was to completely negate the societies' strong sense of solidarity by forcing selected people to betray one another, by putting them into either-you-or-them situations. As horrible as death is, to have the core of your very being negated by force is, in fact, worse for quite a significant percentage of people, as proven by those who would rather endure torture/death than deny what made them human.

They manage to wipe a human's mind alright, as you can see by the mindless husks in those torture camps that were once human beings. And by setting them up as examples, entire societies are reprogrammed.

The more "civilised" version of it would be the treatment of whistleblowers. It sends ripples through society, just like its uglier cousin, inducing a chilling effect that I would at some point love to see quantified.

you're ONE cop out of hundreds of thousands.

you honestly think you CAN "represent" cops here? You think you SHOULD?

Who elected/appointed you? Why should we consider you credible in any way? Even if I had zero prior contact with you and my opinion of you was neutral or even the slightest bit positive, you're committing an appeal to authority fallacy. You just defended the notion that a cop can/should lie.

Once again, you have this problem with anecdotal evidence. You are ONE datapoint out of hundreds of thousands. You don't have this magic insight you claim to have. you...can only speak for...yourself. The cop in this video has already spoken for himself.

you have NO authority here. You're just like shinyblurry mindlessly quoting the bible as if it should mean something.

You're impotent

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/didnt-eric-holder-go-bankers

These pundits would be screaming for his head on a platter if Holder happened to be appointed by a republican or was white. American political TV shows rivals the Kardashians in the mindless bullshit department.

Why don't they shoot him in the leg, or shoot him once? I mean, why a hail of gunfire? They keep shooting and shooting, the guy's on the floor, surely you try and help him survive once the threat is dealt with? Cuffing a man who has 12 gunshot wounds? What the fuck!? Society doesn't need or want this kind of "protection".. Civilised humans do not deal with our problems with mindless violence like this..