OK, I honestly don't know if this is the 'upload a pic of your choice to punch' type of thing either, but I do think that exists, which means this isn't worse than that, if it's not that.
I do agree, she's not rich, and so not as protected. I don't agree that, necessarily, those playing the game have any intent to harm.
I also disagree that NO one has malice towards Bieber, I'm certain there are hundreds of people out there that would love to punch him in real life...and have said so online. I agree, she's seen it worse though.
I can't say which game would have more genuine ill intent, but really, I think more people would actually hit Bieber than kill Bin Laden...maybe I'm wrong and there are more people out there willing to kill rather than punch, but I kind of hope not.
I can guarantee if Bieber gets punched, without SERIOUS injury, tens of thousands of people will cheer! Me with them. he's getting better, but for a while there he really needed a good smack to the face.
It's possible there may be MORE people wishing actual harm against Sarkeesian, but not really likely, since as you admit, her celebrity is a black hole compared to Bieber's star, so exponentially more people know Bieber.
Yes, a game that ONLY allows you to punch blacks would be, by definition, racist. One that allows you to punch Cosby likely exists...and he's also received numerous, serious death threats, and doesn't have major security (but maybe more than her, I don't know). I would say it's also OK to pretend to punch Cosby...or anyone you feel like PRETENDING to punch...as long as it stops there.
Part of living in a free society is a bit of risk. Some face more than others, it's not fair, it's just reality. As my parents told me daily...no one ever said life is fair.

EDIT: Also, no one is forcing Sarkeesian to view the game. It only constitutes harassment if they somehow subject her to it, right? If people surrounded her on the street with Ipads and 'punched' her face in front of her, yeah, but it simply existing....well, I think that doesn't rise to the level of action by far. If I find out someone is playing that game with a picture of a newt....fine...just don't go punching any real newts or we'll have problems. Otherwise, go to it and get it out of your system. ;-)

http://videosift.com/video/Catholic-School-Teacher-Fired-For-In-Vetro-Fertilization

The ONLY difference is I'm assuming that most of us on VS do not object to artificial fertilization. You'll notice that I'm making the same argument in that sift as I am now. The school has the legal right, but that it's a shitty thing to do and that it was shitty that someone ratted her out.

The only difference is who is doing the judging.

Is it still fair that the woman lost her job? If it's not fair for her to lose her job, then it's not fair for this guy to lose his job.

Again, we're not arguing legal rights. That's not in dispute.

I AM GAWWD AND I SHALL JUDGE YOU AND PUNISH YOU AS I SEE FIT!!!!

"He was so full of life. I keep expecting him to walk in the door. Why do bad things happen to good people? It's not fair."

Thanks for clarity, I agree with what you said.

Most black people are not treated with respect today. This is changing as blacks enter the mainstream.

I think that this will end in a few more generations. We need to have the Al Sharptons and the whites that were born in a time when which was still being promoted pass away.


Black people still get the short end of the stick with respect to the law. Sure this is not fair.


Society through media demonizes black youth to the point all people are afraid of young black males. When a cop rolls up they have this preconceived bias, fair or not it is there. How can this be changed?


As far as the white kid being captured alive statement. Just lucky I guess. But then again look where he is going. He will be wishing they shot him for years to come. The brothers will kill him, it might take a few years to get him but they will.

We are all blinded by our conceived " reality" based on life experiences. Yours are different than mine. It does not make either of us better than the other, just different.

You can't understand why he feels that way?

You take umbrage to peoples perception of police officers, yes? You think it's grossly unfair that people classify all of you by the actions of the notable few?

Well here's a little news flash. You get to take off your uniform at the end of the shift. You can go to a restaurant or a shopping center and be perfectly fine with no one sitting around thinking you're a fascist police state tool because of what you wear rather than who you are.

The guy in the video? He doesn't get to take off his skin. He doesn't get to stop being viewed with suspicion, doesn't stop getting harassed by idiots who don't care for the truth and are purely in it to pick on people and raise revenue. He lives with people making assumptions about him 24/7 because of who he is, not because of what he does.

Dig deep down and find that empathy that seems to be lurking in there somewhere. Assuming your one of the good guys (and apologies but your posting history doesn't really support that), don't you feel a deep abiding embarrassment when you see these yahoos make every cop look worse because of their actions?

Yes, it's not fair that people will ascribe the actions of a few bad eggs to an entire population. Not fair for anyone that is victimised by it.

lucky is right, there's a lot of context missing in your statement here. Nothing about the situation in the video is even remotely the same as someone just walking past an officer. Come on, you can't seriously think this.

There are plenty of videos out there showing cops doing horrific things to suspects that are disgusting and utterly barbaric and wrong. This just isn't one of those videos.

This video is a record of a very unfortunate event where a drunk guy did something very, very stupid and paid for it with his life but blaming the cop in this situation is just not fair.

We now know the guy was unarmed, but I don't see from the video how the cop was supposed to know that. It's very easy to say he shot an unarmed man, but until the cop can search him he's got to assume for his own safety that the guy is armed. Can you show me where in the video this search takes place?

The video is bad, but not the cop's fault. Alcohol makes people do stupid things, and if this guy had swerved into oncoming traffic and killed himself that way instead we'd be saying how people shouldn't drink and drive, but none of us would be saying it wasn't his fault.

The "integration" of foreign cultures into Danish society should not be blamed for the current political or economic state of the country. Particularly when it is the very xenophobia (to put it generously) expressed in that sentiment which is more likely at the root of those difficulties. The historical success of the economic model in Denmark was not dependant upon the monoethnic values that existed in the country before the current influx of immigrants. Although it's fair to say that the collectivism inherent in the tribal attitude of Nordic countries was key in smoothly implementing and maintaining successful socialism in the region, it is not fair to blame new immigrants if it falters. Perhaps true integration would have been beneficial to the system, rather than segregation and blame.

Puting all that aside, the US would never, could never, implement Nordic socialism. It is true that we are a different culture with a very different set of goals and challeneges. If socialistic policies were implemented it would be a distinctly American Socialism. In speaking of political or economic systems we often err by contextualizing them in absolute terms. As if "socialism" means only one thing. But the fact is that the democracy we practice in the US shares little with the democracy practiced by the ancient Romans. When speaking of socialism, we need to put it in context. Is it post WW2 Swedish socialism? Modern Sri Lankan socialism? These are necessarily different things. Similarly, it is possible to implement modern US Socialism as a system that is uniquely reflective of our culture. In theory anyway. In reality, the challenge of employing socialism in, arguably, the most individualistic culture in the world, may be insurmountable.

Life is not fair. That is the takeaway.

A troll is someone who just says something to inflame.

If you can give a reason why you do not agree with someone, then you can't be labeled a troll.

I'd had to agree with Bob, however, that the DOJ is there to push the radical agenda of Obama.

Of course, a lot of the employees of the DOJ, such as FBI agents, are law enforcement types who didn't have the advantage of communist mentors like Obama had (Frank Marshall Davis)..they didn't grow up in Indonesia, worshipping monkey gods and such, so there is a disconnect.
They probably didn't have commie parents like Obama, but now Obama is the boss so they have to give him their due.
So in the case of Ferguson, Obama and holder send FBI agents to investigate, and since they have personal integrity, they do a good job and holder gets nothing.
But my point is this...Obama must have a serious case of cognitive dissonance. here he is raised to know all the faults, all the shortcomings, all the missteps that the US has taken over the years. He has had none of the patriotic, love for the US traditions, etc.
He gets elected, now he's the boss, so he's going to straighten out all the bad things the US has done in the past, he's going to strengthen her historical enemies, and weaken her historical friends, because...the past is just not fair.
Which is why Obama is closer to the muslim brotherhood than to the Lions Club. Also, I don't think he feels much closeness to his black brothers because he's only half-black, he was raised in a privileged white neighborhood, went to Yale, etc. His black criticizers are right...he's not down for the struggle. It never was a struggle for him.

Not fair that I have to choose between liking marijuana and liking turtles.

In the current situation, "structural reforms" is used to subsume two entirely different sets of measures.

The first is meant to remove what you previously mentioned: corruption in all the shapes and forms it takes in Greece, from a (intentionally) broken tax system formed over decades of nepotism to a bankrupt national media in the hands of oligarchs. The institutions of the Greek state are precisely what you expect when a country has been run by four families (Papandreou, Samaras, Mitsotakis, Karamanlis) for basically five decades.

This kind of structural reform is part of Syriza's program. Like you said, it'll be hard work and they might very well fail. They'll have only weeks, maybe a few months to undo significant parts of what has grown over half a century. It's not fair, but that's what it is.

The second kind of "structural reform" is meant to increase competitiveness, generally speaking, and a reduction of the public sector. In case of Greece, this included the slashing of wages, pensions, benefits, public employment. The economic and social results are part of just about every article these days, so I won't mention them again. A Great Depression, as predicted.

That's the sort of "structural reforms" Syriza wants to undo. And it's the sort that is expected of Spain, Italy and France as well, which, if done, would probably throw the entire continent into a Great Depression.

I'd go so far as to call any demand to increase competitiveness to German levels madness. Germany gained its competitiveness by 15 years of beggar-thy-neighbour economics, undercutting the agreed upon target of ~2% inflation (read: 2% growth of unit labour costs) the entire time. France played by the rules, was on target the entire time, and is now expected to suffer for it. Only Greece was significantly above target, and are now slightly below target. That's only halfway, yet already more than any democratic country can take.

They could have spread the adjustment out over 20 years, with Germany running above average ULC growth, but decided to throw Greece (and to a lesser degree Spain) off a cliff instead.


So where are we now? Debt rose, GDP crashed, debt as percentage of GDP skyrocketed. That's a fail. Social situation is miserable, health care system basically collapsed, reducing Greece to North African standards. That's a fail.

Those are not reforms to allow Greece to function independently. Those are reforms to throw the Greek population into misery, with ever increasing likeliness of radical solutions (eg Golden Dawn, who are eagerly hoping for a failure of Syriza).

So yes, almost every nation in Europe needs reforms of one sort or another. But using austerity as a rod to beat discipline into supposedly sovereign nations is just about the shortest way imaginable to blow up the Eurozone. Inflicting this amount of pain on people against their will does not work in democratic countries, and the rise of Syriza, Podemos, Sinn Féin, the SNP and the Greens as well as the surge of popularity for Front National and Golden Dawn are clear indicators that the current form of politics cannot be sustained.

Force austerity on France and Le Pen wins the election.

Meaningful reforms that are to increase Europe's "prosperity" would have the support of the people. And reforms are definatly needed, given that the Eurozone is in its fifth year of stagnation, with many countries suffering from both a recession and deflation. A European Union without increasing prosperity for the masses will not last long, I'm sure of it. And a European Union that intentionally causes Great Depressions wouldn't be worth having anyway.

Yet after everything is said and done, I believe you are still absolutely correct in saying that the pro-austerity states won't blink.

Which is what makes it interesting, really. Greece might be able to take a default. They run a primary surplus and most (90%+) of the funds went to foreign banks, the ECB and the IMF anyway, or were used to stabilize the banking system. The people got bugger all. But the Greek banking system would collapse without access to the European system.

Which raises the question: would the pro-austerity states risk a collapse of the Greek banking system and everything it entails? Spanish banks would follow in a heartbeat.

As for the morality of it (they elected those governments, they deserved it): I don't believe in collective punishment, especially not the kind that cripples an entire generation, which is what years of 50+% youth unemployment and a failing educational system does.

My own country, Germany, in particular gets no sympathy from me in this case. Parts of our system were intentionally reformed to channel funds into the market, knowing full well that there was nowhere near enough demand for credit to soak up the surplus savings, nowhere near enough reliable debtors to generate a reasonable return of investment without generating bubbles, be it real estate or financial. They were looking for debtors, and if all it took was turning a blind eye to the painfully obvious longterm problems it would create in Southern Europe, they were more than eager to play along.

I'll submit my assumption that, had the state simply accepted his word that it's not his child, so long after the fact and so long after being legally designated the parent, you would be up in arms about the state allowing him to be a deadbeat dad.
There's simply no winning with you people. If the state follows the law, which is clear and simple, the state's wrong. If they don't follow the law, the state's wrong. This story is about the fair and just society we live in, but you see it as an example of how society is not fair and just (by completely ignoring the fact that the first debt has been erased, and the second debt WILL be erased).

Perhaps this did 'hang over his head' for 24 years, but it didn't effect him in any way for that time, he had no idea it existed.

I'll put it to you and @Trancecoach, exactly what SHOULD have happened in your eyes in this case?
As I see it, once the fraud was discovered and revealed in court, the case and debt were dismissed, as it should be. The second case, about his 'debt' to the state will also be dismissed when it goes to trial. That simple, problem solved, but the two of you don't see it that way somehow and still need to rant about the state being evil.
The judge DID stand up, apologized, and corrected the part of the mistake he had a right to correct. Another judge will undoubtedly do the same thing when the second portion of the 'debt' is litigated.
I just don't get what youall are going on about with your ranting, the state followed the law, did the right thing in the first place (with the evidence they had, and with no one disputing the claims), and when they realized they had been lied to, immediately reversed their position and dropped the case.
And no, this is NOT typical in America. It's only the second case I've ever heard of, and it's the second case that's been properly adjudicated in the end.
Yes, he should get to 'go after' the woman that started the fraud, and the process server that continued it, but statutes of limitations probably make that impossible.
What exactly are you two angry about in this case? Do you even know? I certainly don't get it.

You make a fair point. I don't like the concept of celebrity at all, and despite him being an artist that has given me much inspiration, and was an entertainment fixture in my family's home since Mork and Mindy, it doesn't seem fair.
Likewise it's not fair to celebrate the deaths of thousands of 'combat vets' while ignoring the hundreds of thousands of civilians that have been murdered by their hands or the hands of those they profess to 'protect'.
It's all a matter of perspective.

The guy in a suit (1:07) was staring AT HER FACE. Why'd he get the slo-mo treatment and tagged as a creep?

His internal monologue could have been, "Ok so, power lunch with the boss at 1230, head over to the squash court for a couple rounds, swim a couple laps... HOLY SHIT! Is that Megan from Legal? Her hair looks amaz... oh wait, that's not Megan. Shit. Totally stared. Glad some undercover videographer didn't catch that and make me look like a total perv."

What I don't feel is fair is if the guy is hot, staring is sexy, if he isn't, it's harassment. It's only bad if it's not wanted. How the fuck is a guy supposed to know?

Most of the video's examples are SOLIDLY in the harassment borders. I just don't like how looking is bad unless the woman is attracted to the guy. That's just not fair.