@NinjaInHeat maybe you're right, but then again i genuinely do think that people wouldn't want that stuff at the expense of personal privacy and/or the law. People like to see the rich and famous recieve some misfortune and they may be intereted in cheryl cole's intimacies, people like "good" stories, yeah. Maybe i'm being too optimistic, but i feel they wouldn't want it at the expense of just about anything.

I feel that it's flawed to say "well the demand is there, so people obviously want it", yeah sure they want it, but they never said they wanted the tabloids to break the law for it. The tabloids took that step for themselves because they want to sell more than their rival, so it's not really the people that are at fault it's the papers themselves for wanting to beat the competition at any cost surely?

It's a bit like saying "well, you like cheap clothes, so we provided you with cheap clothes. oh sure we have kids working in sweatshops but the demand for clothes is there so blame yourselves!" I don't want my clothes made at the expense of others, but how do i distinguish? And am i then to blame for heinous practices because i like cheap clothes? I think that's a pretty good analogy.

I actually didn't find this funny so much as strange. I know everyone who has a cell phone has the ability to record a video...but come on. Maybe I am too skeptical when it comes to watching vids taken by people who just happen to be there at the right time to click record.

Is laughing at this video different than laughing at this one?

http://videosift.com/video/Worst-Playground-Idea-Ever

In both vids the intent is to present the misfortune of others as humor. I am not passing judgement on either subject matter of either vid....but it is what it is.

hahah she so fat! and the wheelchairs lol! looks like gilbert grapes mom escaped! their misfortune is lol bcz its not me or someone i know! omg lololol roflcopter!


Yeah, not so much. *downvote

>> ^KnivesOut:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Hybrid" title="member since January 29th, 2007" class="profilelink">Hybrid thanks for the clarification. I guess I need to torrent the entire series.


There were only two episodes (2x 1hr), but if you've ever had the misfortune to sit through any kind of TV "talent" contest, you'll know exactly what this show is poking fun at.

Oh yea...and let me add: "what the fuck are we coming to?" We can no longer laugh at other people's self-imposed misfortunes? That's the real crime here...

Got high hopes for this, but i worry. I have to agree with what someone said earlier - no country for old men was the most trite, anticlimactic, self indulgent waste of 3 hours i've ever had the misfortune to sit through. I'm sure opinion on that film is split right down the middle.

Looks like there might be some sort of climax/resolution to this though, the inclusion of which - alone - would have made no country for old men a good film.

Firstly, to deal with issues - any issues - in a christmas-list style prioritized manner is absurd. You point out some valid issues that do necessitate a response, but the idea that we should exclude "lesser" problems from consideration until the big ones are dealt with is, I'm sorry to say, patently ridiculous. You simply cannot defend that approach rationally in any way that holds water.

Secondly, the premise that these people have choice, and that they are destroying their lives and becoming indoctrinated by their own election : yes, they are. There is something vaguely audible in me which says "when people are the architects of their own suffering or misfortune, let them suffer". However, humans are not sublime creatures and are flawed in a great many fatal ways. People's minds are accessible by the forces of manipulation, indoctrination and propaganda. These people are not acting autonomously. If they were, I would agree with your idea that they're making these decisions independently, for themselves, as intelligent and self-determining agents. I think that argument must fall to pieces when confronted with the fact of how completely people's minds, and intelligence, can be compromised, distorted, abused and subjugated by the sorts of techniques that Scientology employs.

^Fusionaut:

wait... can you even get herpes without skin contact? Maybe the common HSV 1, which you can get when your aunty kisses you near your mouth, but I wouldn't be worried about genital herpes. HIV is a worry though. Yikes! But it wouldn't give him blisters... There aren't any test results in yet so there could be nothing to worry about at all. News stations are very good at exploiting the misfortunes of others.




Herpes is transmitted through secretions and HSV-1 can cause both oral and genital herpes.

wait... can you even get herpes without skin contact? Maybe the common HSV 1, which you can get when your aunty kisses you near your mouth, but I wouldn't be worried about genital herpes. HIV is a worry though. Yikes! But it wouldn't give him blisters... There aren't any test results in yet so there could be nothing to worry about at all. News stations are very good at exploiting the misfortunes of others.

Interesting first sift...

And what gives, @westy? You DID spell every word right!

Hope they outsource development of an OS for this hardware! I've had the misfortune of working with outsourced code from Indian IT firms, let's just say that nothing remains of their work once I've finished on a project

"Anyone that has misfortune fall upon them must have NOT been a 'true believer', otherwise God would have protected them. Those people must have been sinners, and I don't sin, so it won't happen to me."

It's called Victim blaming, and it works pretty well, manifesting a false sense of security and control.

Fucking AWESOME!

Humor is one of best ways to deal with anything tragic. If you aren't laughing at your misfortune, you need to... The sight of this little old man trying to dance with his grand-kids is just pure fucking awesome!!

*promote
*quality

A short excerpt from Galton's work on the efficacy of prayer.

"In one statistical study, Galton examined data from a previous study by Guy on longevity. Galton first focused on clergy. He reasoned that clergy should be the longest lived of all since they were the most “prayerful class” of all and among the most prayed for. When Galton compared the longevity of eminent clergy with eminent doctors and lawyers, the clergy were the shortest lived of the three groups. Galton next focused on royalty, who were much prayed for, when compared to other members of the aristocracy. In analyzing the data on royalty, Galton concluded: “Sovereigns are literally the shortest lived of all who have the advantage of affluence.”

I am sure there are genuine feelings in there, but really this is just a publicity stunt, using a dieing man's misfortune for the benefit of a church - made possible by the fact he knows peoples heartstrings will be moved by this breaking news, and that they will be more open to 'suggestion'. The suggestion in this case being that when he says "pray for Christopher" - people will instantly make the assumption that this will help because they are judgmentally impaired.

Why do I say this?
If he were truly speaking as a friend, he wouldn't be standing in front of a sign with the name of his organisation
He wouldn't spend half the video talking about his own beliefs/agenda
He wouldn't need to talk about specific speaking dates his organisation is committed to
The video wouldn't begin with a splash screen and intro music for the foundation (an advert in effect) and also end with a splash screen
He would give his name (that would be reasonable) but he would not introduce himself as the "Executive Director"
The video wouldn't pan out at the start to show all of the Latimer House signage
He wouldn't repeat the name of his foundation and the house multiple times
He wouldn't talk about a debate that he is "scheduled to moderate" (more shameless self promotion)
His facial expressions when he says "wouldn't that be nice" (referring to Christopher debating on the pro-Christian side) are very typical of the salesman "puppy-dog" tactics to try and win empathy from the person you are trying to convince to buy your product (I have the empathy face, you can't help but love me!). He thinks the video's audience is too stupid to realize what he is doing.
He says "we... wish him the very best" - if he was speaking as a friend he would say "I". He cleverly uses "we" so that everyone in his organisation feels as if they are being spoken for and they don't feel like they need to think or speak for themselves.
He wouldn't try to sneak in the "to what extent does Christopher really believe some of the things he says" - this one speaks for itself it is just a really low blow.
His body language and demeanor is shifty as hell, he rarely looks at the camera for more than a few seconds, when he is trying to say something personal he often looks away from the camera.
At the end, it sounds like he says "we hope you'll bury him in mind" - LOL - Freudian slip mayhaps?

Christopher, you never took the blue pill, I think you define a lot of what is right about humanity, you left your mark on a lot of people, you made a difference. I hope your cancer is operational, if not, maybe we will see you as a zombie clown one day.

Date: April 27th, 2010

The Forgotten Man

By Robert Ringer

Why have the combined mudslinging voices of the media (so called), Congressional Democrats, and the thin-skinned boy wonder who occupies the Oval Office not been able to turn the tide against the tea partiers? If you look at the poll numbers, the answer is obvious: Most Americans are tea partiers.

However, most of them are not yet in enough pain to skip a day at the ball park and stand in a crowd of thousands (sometimes tens of thousands) and listen to tea-party speakers. That’s a shame, but it doesn’t change the fact that they identify with the tea-party movement.

So, what is the common bond with which they identify? Taxes? Healthcare? Financial regulation? I thought about this question as I was rereading Amity Shlaes’ landmark book, The Forgotten Man. In it, she quotes Yale philosopher William Graham Sumner, who, clear back in 1883, explained the crux of the moral problem with progressivism as follows:

”As soon as A observes something which seems to him to be wrong, from which X is suffering, A talks it over with B, and A and B then propose to get a law passed to remedy the evil and help X. Their law always proposes to determine … what A, B, and C shall do for X.”

Shlaes goes on to add: ”But what about C? There was nothing wrong with A and B helping X. What was wrong was the law, and the indenturing of C to the cause. C was the forgotten man, the man who paid, ‘the man who never is thought of.”’

In other words, C is the guy who isn’t bothering anyone, but is forced to supply the funds to help the X’s of the world, those whom power holders unilaterally decide have been treated unfairly and must be compensated.

FDR, however, did a switcheroo on Sumner’s point by removing the moniker of ”the forgotten man” from C and giving it to X – ”the poor man, the old man, labor, or any other recipient of government help.” Very clever … very Obamanistic. As I recall, FDR originally used the phrase the forgotten man to refer to the victims of the dust bowl in the 1930s. Zap! Just like that, Sumner’s forgotten man was transformed into the opposite of what he was meant to be.

Today, I believe it is the tea-party people who represent Sumner’s Forgotten Man. They are taxed and told what they must do and what they must give up in the way of freedom and personal wealth every time a new law is passed. I believe it is this reality that bonds the tea-party people together.

Put another way, it is not healthcare or any other single issue the tea-party people are most angry about. It is all of the issues combined that have to do with impinging on their individual liberty. Above all, they are outraged by the fact that immoral politicians and bureaucrats not only violate their God-given right to live their lives as they please, they dismiss them as ”extremists.” Collectively, the tea-party people are today’s Forgotten Man.

In his essay (http://mises.org/books/forgottenman.pdf), Sumner went on to say:

”All history is only one long story to this effect: men have struggled for power over their fellow-men in order that they might win the joys of earth at the expense of others and might shift the burdens of life from their own shoulders upon those of others. It is true that, until this time, the proletariat, the mass of mankind, have rarely had the power and they have not made such a record as kings and nobles and priests have made of the abuses they would perpetrate against their fellow-men when they could and dared.

”But what folly it is to think that vice and passion are limited by classes, that liberty consists only in taking power away from nobles and priests and giving it to artisans and peasants and that these latter will never abuse it! They will abuse it just as all others have done unless they are put under checks and guarantees, and there can be no civil liberty anywhere unless rights are guaranteed against all abuses, as well from proletarians as from generals, aristocrats, and ecclesiastics.”

Sumner was a man of great insight. He saw the absurdity of assuming that the poor man is morally superior to the rich man. This is where I believe that sincere revolutionaries go wrong. While their initial intentions (to help ”the poor”) may, at least in their own minds, be well-meant, they begin with a false premise (that the misfortunes of those at the bottom of the economic ladder are a result of the evil actions of those who are more successful) and, from there, leap from one false conclusion to another.

Which is why politicians who pose as conservatives to get elected so often take the Mush McCain-Lindsey Graham-Charlie Crist route and continually rush to the aid of their progressive Democratic pals. I believe that these philosophically lost souls do the bidding of the intimidating left because they have never given any serious thought to the possibility that the very premise of progressivism is morally wrong.

As a result, they have no feeling for the (perceived) rich man. In plotting their do-gooder schemes, he is easy to forget. They see nothing whatsoever wrong with society’s sacrificing his liberty for the ”public good.” Bring out the guillotine! As Montaigne said, ”Men are most apt to believe what they least understand.”

What gave birth to the tea parties is that the Forgotten Man syndrome is like a metastasizing disease. As politicians long ago realized, there aren’t enough rich people to support all of the X’s. As the number of X’s (i.e., those who live off the surpluses of others) increases, a lot of A’s and B’s must, by necessity, be reclassified as C’s. And that is when they become candidates for joining the tea-party movement.

Put simply: When A’s and B’s are transformed into C’s, they mysteriously lose their enthusiasm for new laws to help out X. Put even more simply, they suddenly realize that they are now the Forgotten Man. And that realization is what automatically qualifies them as tea-party people. No recruitment necessary, thank you.

I live in semi-detached housing, and my next-door neighbour is really into home improvements. This morning I woke to the joyous sounds of a pneumatic drill being used to dig up concrete in his back garden. I responded in kind by playing Queen's Platinum Collection with the volume turned to about half-way. If my house is going to shake due to a disturbance then I'd rather it was my subwoofer doing the work and not some builders!

Know what you're saying about people causing mayhem just because they won't talk to us directly. Asking other people to confront things on our behalf should be a last resort, why should someone else do something for me if I've not even bothered to try sort it out myself first? Like you say, a quick discussion could have led to an easy compromise to keep everyone happy.

I could easily start on a rant about the state of modern society and how the community element has been eroded with people becoming more content to hide in their own little family bubble, and sometimes not even family beyond partner and children. People adopting the opinion that events are nothing to do with them, walking right on by other people's misfortunes without a second thought given to offering some assistance. Some things never change and maybe what I observe today is what has been happening all along, maybe so but I really wish people would be more inclusive, not reclusive.