Gonna have to completely disagree. The stupid argument is that victims are just useless turds that have no ability for self empowerment. Also, if we applied "the victim role" to every situation, which it most definitely should be if you favor it, we kind of seem stupid ourselves. Down here in Florida you don't cross the street just because the little man is white and says its okay. You get run the fuck over if you try that shit. No, see, stupid people drive so I teach my children to look both ways; even as adults, despite the fact that this falls in to your idea of blaming the victim. Also, I will teach them not to drink around frat parties or to do it alone. Not because I blame them if they get raped at college. Precisely the opposite. Empower them with facts.

A newspaper op did just that. Hey, they warned, be safe please. And they were blasted...so parents are blaming when they teach the same? We should teach that it's okay for people to be stupid just to spite assholes? That it is on teenage boys not to send naked pics of their girlfriends rather than saying, "Hey kid, don't send naked pics to your boyfriends..."

Please don't say any of that was apples to oranges...because it all applies. Please think rationally. Nobody is saying the victim is to blame--we are simply saying don't walk in a minefield to protest the war.

Well, my response was not meant to be taken entirely seriously.

That said, most of the people @blankfist is talking about (his "democratic friends") probably have reasons not a million miles away from that.

As to whether secession is an inherent right, I don't know; it's a complicated question.

Legally, not really. Obviously, anything in international law is kinda murky with different jurisdictions etc, but there doesn't seem to be much support for the concept as a blanket rule. In individual cases, where there is a significant cultural difference, it can happen and with the backing of the parent country and the international community.

What is certain is that there is no legal framework that would allow secession in any form from the USA.

Morally and ethically? Jesus, that's a minefield. In theory, I could get behind the idea that if you have a well defined geographical region with a majority population that wants independence, you should be allowed to do that.

In practice, it's kind of a nightmare and often leads to all kinds of suffering and misery (I don't really need to list examples, do I?).

So yeah, as in so many things in life, the answer is "it depends".

This chatter misses the main point.

Civil rights. The right to go about your own /consensual/ business with any number of other /consenting/ persons.

Rights to live your own life in peace, without bothering anyone else, and without being bothered.

Owning a gun harms no one. It's a personal matter. It has zero affect on anyone else.

Suicide is personal and consensual. It's nobody else's domain to judge. It's a simple property issue, about the most personal property that exists. Other people don't own your body. The clean-up crew was already paid for by the dead person's taxes (they aren't paid to sit around). Your family/friends, if they respected your wishes, they wouldn't criticize. God does not own you, and you don't have to worry about what he thinks.

Shooting NON CONSENTING individuals is a trespass onto those people, and it is wrong. These people should be punished accordingly, individually, for /their/ individual trespasses.

People at large should not be punished or have their rights taken away because of what someone else did. It's not their business.
That goes for guns, drugs, whatever else is strictly personal/consensual.



On a more specific note :
Having a gun does not necessitate killing.
Killing does not necessitate having a gun.
There is not a deterministic connection between killing and having guns.
For every example where 'gun control' and 'lower gun deaths' statistically aligned, there is another to show them not statistically aligned - precisely because one does not necessitate the other - and correlation is not causation.

I'm all for extremely hard punishment for killers - if it can be proven undeniably that they did it (high rez video / multiple close witnesses personally familiar with the killer / the like).
But I'm not interested in punishing anyone else for what they did.
(Just like I don't want to send drug users to jail because /someone else/ had a drug problem)

As far as I'm concerned, we have far too many laws that do not require any harm to be done to get your into trouble.

~5000 federal laws, thousands more per state, hundreds per county, hundreds per city, many with implementation guidelines defined by bureaucrats that outline multiple ways to violate each one.

It's a minefield. Everyone commits on average (according to some lawyer that wrote a book about it) around 3 felonies a day - when you do a complete review of their activities.
With 1 in 18 men in jail/on parole/in the system - do you really think we need to be sending more people to jail for having something and doing no harm with it?

How about focusing on the people doing harm - punishing in proportion to the harm done - but ignorant of what they used to do the harm.
What matters most is the suffering of the victims, not society's grimaces/preferances.

-scheherazade

Your video, Marine M1 Minefield breaching vehicle at work, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Sure, there is no need to speak in terms of civil war. Unless you're one of these guntoting, armed to the teeth nutjobs who think it would be a good idea. You know, the kind of people who buy an *assault rifle* for self defense.
However, no matter how well trained your riot police is, their less than lethal tactics are only useful up to a certain amount of people, they can become rather useless if the crowds get too big to contain or simply too violent themselves. That's when it gets interesting, that is when protest can turn into riots.
When the cops face huge, somewhat peacful crowds, they might enter Tiananmen Square. At what point would american cops or military personnel start thinking that it's unwise or inhuman to start firing into the crowd? Before the first shot? After the second magazine? On day three?
It's not the 1960s anymore but the sixties are not forgotten. Not by those who faced police officers willing to fire into the crowd. You know, black people. The kind of people whose parents and grandparents are still alive to tell them about their fight against oppression. This is still alive in the american concious, it shaped your country and it won't go away soon. Just ask Barak about his birth certificate.
Civil unrest is part of your recent history, the seed is there. Even under a President Stalin all you'd need go from isolated, contained riots to complete and irreversible shitstorm is a Martyr, a Neda Agha Soltan or a Treyvon Martin. No matter what ethnicity (although african american would be nice), that would present a tipping point.
Your police can bring out the tanks on Times Square if they want but if half of NY shows up, these guys inside the tanks might want to get out ASAP.
The Erich Honecker regime of the German Democratic Republic was basically brought down by somewhat peaceful demonstrations of people shouting "I'm mad as hell and I won't take it anymore" in east german accents.
The StaSi, the Ministry of State Security, who was efficient enough to make *every* citizen a potential informant in the eyes of their opposition, ran from the protesters like little girls. They used to imprison and torture people who spoke up.
The east german border used to be the most secure in the entire world. It was protected by minefields and guards who shot and killed anyone who tried to cross it. Before David Hasselhoff even had a chance to put on his illuminated leather jacket the government caved and just fucking opened it. People just strolled through Checkpoint Charlie and bought Bananas as if it was Christmas.
This was the beginning of the end for the Soviet Union. You know, the guys who lost over 20 Million people in WW2 and still kicked the Nazis in the nuts.
Nobody brought a gun. All the east germans had was shitty cars and lots of anger. They tore down not just a dictatorship, they tore down the iron curtain.
And they didn't even have a Nelson Mandela. Or Lech Walesa.
I still stand by my point: strength in numbers, not caliber.

Ah. Here is the best comment I have seen, taken from Stranger Blog:

Jim Norton destroys his own side when he mentions that comedy is about speaking truth to power. Rape victims have no power. Making jokes at their expense is not only offensive it is bad comedy. If you want to make good comedy about rape it should start with being at the expense of the rapist(s) and their enablers.

So, yes a joke involving a rape situation could potentially be 'okay' but it certainly is more of a minefield than say... how many Starbucks' are in Seattle.

I've been a visitor from near the beginning (and registered for nearly 4 years). I probably got here from a link sent to Bluesnews by Ant. Anyway I've been meaning to make this rant for a long time; I probably should have done it before 5.0, but c'est la vie. I mean it in the best possible way...

I have 8 power points and a rating of 6 stars.

I'm not confident in describing what either of those things are, or are for.

The faq is a tiny link hidden in the footer, when it would be better as a help link on the main menu.

The answers in the faq itself contain assumed knowledge and lack context.

The member privileges page is given much more prominence than the faq, in a Useful pages list. It tells you abilities that require a star level, but doesn't tell you what a star level is, how to get stars, or link to the faq.

The rest of the page reads like it was written by a programmer (probably because it was).

The faq needs to be given to someone who has never used Videosift, and ask them if they understand Videosift after reading it. They won't.

Obviously some people have persisted with it, that's why about 500 people have a Bronze star or more; but I don't think it does much to encourage new users.

I'll never be a user that submits a lot of videos; that's just not my behaviour here. I actually watch almost all my online videos here, so of course... they are already posted

I get that Videosift should be designed to encourage people to submit videos and help out but a system that is hidden away and takes more than a few minutes to understand isn't going to encourage many people no matter how well it's designed.

My suggestion would be to make everything discoverable in the UI itself. "Possible *Invocations" under this box shouldn't give me a list of random words, none of which that I can use anyway (and no indication that that is even the case).

Nor should I be given Power Points if there is no way to use them; it only serves to add to my confusion, and will frustrate other users who think they just got something interesting. In reality they've been given the opportunity to either frustrate or embarrass themselves with a few "User could not X because X is not privileged" messages from Siftbot. Again, this only discourages people from taking part.

I can't flag a post as spam, so why show me the link to do so? Same with downvotes on videos and comments. Inviting a user to read an error message isn't very encouraging at all; it makes Videosift feel like a minefield of punishment. I follow the Sift Lounge link out of curiosity, and again computer says no.

The bookmark and playlist buttons under a video should be words rather than obscure icons.

Showing me things I can actually do will make me feel more useful and encourage me to contribute more. Making those into buttons would be even better. Making those into buttons that tell me what they do and how it helps would be perfect.

This isn't coming from a point of stupidity. I'm a software architect that spent many years developing one of the world's largest community platforms - so I get this stuff.

Mostly I come here for the videos and the comments - I read a lot more than I post. Sifters are not unfriendly to new users, and unlike the train wreck of youtube, they provide their reasoning; so no matter how much you may disagree with someone you can still learn something.

However it feels like a local pub; a small community where everyone knows everyone (except you); and everyone is doing something (except you), and that's because the barrier to getting that community feel is just way too high.

Anyway, I'm done with my rant. To be more on topic; I don't think there is much danger to the Sift if I could declare a video *dead. It seems the sort of thing someone should be able to do as soon as they're out of probation.

For now, I'll just stick to my usual behaviour of watching the videos and reading the comments.

@notarobot "If it costs 1200 Euros (on average) to clear one mine, releasing 24 of these things to detonate ONE mine is still cheaper than other option."

Your math is based on some flawed assumptions. These things might detonate some landmines, that's it, and that's all. Mine clearance is about making safe zones where people can walk again with relative assurance that it's clear of mines.

Apples and oranges, but your apples are rotten, because they simply don't provide much practical use. Maybe it's possible one of these things might save a limb or a life, but as I pointed out earlier, it's equally possible they could cost a limb or a life. Without a dedicated research project nobody will ever know for sure whether these things effectively reduce the number of landmine related injuries.

Also, regarding the cost of mine clearance (well below your 1,200 euro spitball) http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/banmines/units/unit1c.asp I'll give the full quote because there are other sobering statistics there.

"A landmine that brings a vendor $3 in revenue, costs the international community between $300 and $1,000 to clear. At a minimum, the 110 million landmines currently buried worldwide will cost approximately $33 billion for clearance alone. In 1994, roughly 100,000 landmines were cleared. However, in that same period 2 million more landmines were laid, leaving the international community with an annual “de-mining deficit” of some 1.9 million mines, adding another $1.4 billion to the cost of clearing the world's landmines."

By the way, one of the big reasons for the wide range in clearance costs is density of the minefield, it takes almost as much work to clear one square metre of space without mines at all as it does to clear one square metre of space with a mine in it, so these doohickys will do little to bring down the cost of clearance in that regard.

Ineffective != Terrible

If it costs 1200 Euros (on average) to clear one mine, releasing 24 of these things to detonate ONE mine is still cheaper than other option. If one of these things detonates one landmine, perhaps one seven-year-old gets to keep her leg. Money well spent. Until the local population can afford Million-dollar landmine-clearing tanks these can make a small difference for relatively modest costs.

You are correct that the whirlygigs are more expensive than many landmines. Mines are cheap. Getting to the root of the problem and banning use and production of landmines is a greater issue.

This video may help to *promote attention to an ongoing global problem. Presently, Russia, the United States, Israel, India and Pakistan have still not signed up to the the Ottawa Treaty. A further issue is that many manufacturers of munitions, including mines, are heavily invested in by stock-brokers and pension funds. The BC Investment Management Corporation, for example, which manages investments for teachers' and public servants' pensions plans has in the past had as much as "$4.6 billion worth of stock in 251 corporations producing war materiel." There is money in war. People get paid to build landmines.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

Terrible idea. It's not systematic enough to clear any given area with certainty, and people may think of zones where these have been operating as 'clear' instead of as potential landmine areas. I think this invention has a great potential to increase the number of accidental landmine detonations, lost limbs and deaths.
Maybe it will explode a few, but when some of it's 'legs' get blown off it stops moving. Does someone go out there, risking his life and limbs in what is now a known minefield to fix it, or do you just leave it there? Because they may seem cheap, but 1 whirlydoohickey blown up per 1 landmine disarmed is hardly 'cheap', when some landmines cost under a dollar, and they may be spread out in the thousands in a given area.

In WW II they had Sherman tanks with a motorized cylinder sticking over the front on two booms, on the cylinder were welded dozens of chains so it would thump the ground as the tank rolled forward, hopefully detonating any mines before the vehicle got there.

Now they do this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eeaou2L2sI

None of it is considered 'cleared' it's just as good as you can get it if you have to travel through that zone. The only way to actually clear a minefield is the very slow and tedious approach.

That's why there have been so many pushes to restrict mine warfare in the past twenty years or so. Once they're out there it's really difficult to get them back safely.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

@aaronfr
I lived in a heavily mined area for six months, so I think I know how aware people are in those situations. However, I don't expect a five year old kid to have that same discipline, and quelle surprise, most of those who are injured or killed by old minefields are children. I don't think your point here is relevant.
When these things are done rolling around the desert, what is the certainty that desert is clear? If they don't clear spaces so they're actually safe, what's the point? Randomly detonate a few mines?
There's a reason it's expensive to clear mines properly, and comparing these things to proper mine clearance, and then comparing the pricetag is laughable.

I agree with you in part, but I think the strong form of your argument is a bit much. Certainly randomly detonating a few mines is helpful. If you can send some arbitrarily large number of these things (30 per mine you would have cleared in a sweep) rolling over the desert until you are ultimately detonating very few mines then it is also substantially less likely that a wayward 5 y.o. is going to stumble on one. It doesn't seem like an all or none proposition. I agree, before an area can be designated clear it should be properly swept. However, properly clearing the field is probably too expensive to be feasible. At least reducing the danger could save lives when those kids that don't know any better happen to wander after a stray ball in the still potentially dangerous mine field. Also, the number of mines that need to be safely disarmed could be reduced.

Seems like it might be a cool way to at least thin out landmines so there was somewhat less risk to people that happen to wander into the minefield. If you want to reclaim the land though I think you have to do a systematic sweep, and I can't really see how you'd reduce the expenditure on that.

@aaronfr

Yeah, I think I have some idea how to clear landmines. I was the only one in my mine warfare class to spot the anti-lift device the instructors had placed next to one of the mines in the test. Yes, there is some danger to it, but the thing about clearing landmines that way, is that when you're done, the area is 99% certain to be clear.

I lived in a heavily mined area for six months, so I think I know how aware people are in those situations. However, I don't expect a five year old kid to have that same discipline, and quelle surprise, most of those who are injured or killed by old minefields are children. I don't think your point here is relevant.

When these things are done rolling around the desert, what is the certainty that desert is clear? If they don't clear spaces so they're actually safe, what's the point? Randomly detonate a few mines?

There's a reason it's expensive to clear mines properly, and comparing these things to proper mine clearance, and then comparing the pricetag is laughable.

I do agree with you on one thing, there are a lot of misconceptions here, and they seem to all be on your side of the conversation.

A lot of misconceptions here:
>> ^Drachen_Jager:

and people may think of zones where these have been operating as 'clear' instead of as potential landmine areas. I think this invention has a great potential to increase the number of accidental landmine detonations, lost limbs and deaths.
Generally, people don't whimsically choose to walk through an area that is covered in land mines. Most Westerners tend to discount the power of local knowledge, and to assume that everyone else in the world is just running around from unknown place to unknown place like we do. Fact is, in places like Afghanistan, the people are hyper-aware of the local situation, particularly when it relates to their personal security and they tend to stay in a small geographical area (no weekend trips to the lake or across country to see Grandma). Landmine deaths occur most often in places that are not marked as dangerous and alongside roads (which tend to be the only path between one location and another.
>> ^Drachen_Jager:

Maybe it will explode a few, but when some of it's 'legs' get blown off it stops moving. Does someone go out there, risking his life and limbs in what is now a known minefield to fix it, or do you just leave it there?

Ummm.... how do you think landmines are removed now? With hi-tech robots and a smartphone? Plenty of lives and limbs at risk in this world cleaning up the messes of violent conflict.
>> ^Drachen_Jager:

Because they may seem cheap, but 1 whirlydoohickey blown up per 1 landmine disarmed is hardly 'cheap', when some landmines cost under a dollar, and they may be spread out in the thousands in a given area.

IF the current cost is §1200 per landmine removal, then, yes, §40 per landmine is cheap.

Terrible idea. It's not systematic enough to clear any given area with certainty, and people may think of zones where these have been operating as 'clear' instead of as potential landmine areas. I think this invention has a great potential to increase the number of accidental landmine detonations, lost limbs and deaths.

Maybe it will explode a few, but when some of it's 'legs' get blown off it stops moving. Does someone go out there, risking his life and limbs in what is now a known minefield to fix it, or do you just leave it there? Because they may seem cheap, but 1 whirlydoohickey blown up per 1 landmine disarmed is hardly 'cheap', when some landmines cost under a dollar, and they may be spread out in the thousands in a given area.