Yeah, they're pretty patronising and I find it hard to swallow.

>> ^blankfist:

There's a power vacuum now. I worry who'll fill it. Another puppet? Another extremist? Or can they truly have a representational government?


The vacuum is being filled by the army with high acceptance by the people. The behaviour of the Egyptian army over the past few weeks has been truly amazing. They read the people and the tide extremely well and should be commended for how they handled themselves.

It's a shame that the same could not be said of the police; who wasted 300 people's lives.

The internet played a massive role in this revolution; kinda ties in nicely with the recent Steven Pinker sift which covers mutual knowledge; which facebook and twitter provided in this instance.

Hopefully it also serves as a warning to other regimes, that if they're not serving their people; there is still a breaking point.

Mubarek's address yesterday was a total facepalm. The first half he almost sounded half convincing that he had the people's interests at heart (apart from the patronising "from a father to his sons" opening). Then any small chance he had he blew out of the water when he started talking about himself, and how great he was.

Nobody knows who will lead Egypt yet, and there's going to be lots of difficulties because of the region they are in; but I really hope it works out for them. I think the people will have very little tolerance for being hoodwinked.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

Mm, no, in fact its designer Vincent Connare says it was originally intended for Microsoft Bob, the patronising interactive Windows interface for the, er, technologically challenged. Mind you, Even if it had been chosen for use in MS Bob it still would have been shit.


I stand corrected. I do remember reading about Comic Sans being more legible for dislexics, and it seems there are actually a few dislexic-friendly fonts based on it -
http://www.dyslexic.com/articlecontent.asp?CAT=Dyslexia%20Information&slug=67

but yes, the original designer did intend it for Bob
http://www.connare.com/whycomic.htm
(it's weird though, the story says he was too late for Bob, which was released in '95, even though he made the font in '94. I couldn't find a release date for MS 3D Movie Maker, which was first app to include it)

>> ^spawnflagger:

actually Comic Sans was developed to be more legible for people with dislexia.
LOLOLO !!!!!11


Mm, no, in fact its designer Vincent Connare says it was originally intended for Microsoft Bob, the patronising interactive Windows interface for the, er, technologically challenged. Mind you, Even if it had been chosen for use in MS Bob it still would have been shit.

Heh, fair enough. I didn't mean to be patronizing.. it just came so naturally.

Well, I think I almost completely agree in that definition. There's plenty of other content that intends to arouse the viewer without actually being porn though, a reading of an erotic novel, commercials (usually beer commercials) and such all intends to arouse the view, but should not be considered porn either.

To be pornography, it should contain two things: 1) the intention to arouse the viewer 2) actual sexual content.

A woman suggestively eating a banana isn't porn. Elderly (or younger) women sitting in a circle masturbating is certainly skating the borders of it, even it it's framed as if not to arouse - but instead be hilarious. It's all a big gray area. I'm not certain dag and lucky actually meant pornography when they wrote it in the faq though, it's basically just to keep sexually explicit content to a minimum (I think). And this is certainly pretty explicit.

In reply to this comment by berticus:
Hey, you played the patronising card first. Golden rule.

It cannot be just "explicit genitalia" that dag is concerned with (isn't there a testicular self-exam guide video here? and I know I've seen other clips with genitalia) - it seems to be the fact that since it's in the context of sex it's scaring advertisers. Such a ruling I have no grudge with, if it's because it's scaring off advertisers that are (depressingly) necessary to keep the site afloat.

But that is entirely separate from what I actually care about. The video is NOT pornography. It was not made to sexually arouse the viewer.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
I do get what you're saying about 'porn' as in commercials and other videos that sell themselves with sex (or arousal) as the main selling point. I think there's a difference between those and the video in question though. Innuendo and hints are different than explicit genitalia on screen. I have nothing against it as such and for all I care it should stay, but there is a difference I think. None-the-less, as you said yourself, dag's trump card trumps the rest.

I was pissed back when my squirting orgasm video was discarded, but I understand why it was discarded and in the end I'm OK with that. Bills gotta be payed and since we'd never use the site if it was pay-per-view, ads will have to do and then the site owners have to appease them at least a bit. I'm all for taking a moral standpoint against censorship or womens' rights or what have you, but I just don't care enough about this video to grab my pitchfork just yet. If it had been guys sitting around jacking it, I'm pretty sure the discussion would not be so loud and roaring and it would just have been discarded as porn. (That's a separate issue though.)

"Just forget it"? There's no need to patronize me. I don't care for it and it still doesn't suit you.

In reply to this comment by berticus:
'porn', gwiz, not porn. just forget it.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:

But @berticus, if there's so much porn already, please present it. You can't just claim that there is and expect us to just accept that as fact. And self-righteousness does not become you (or anyone), please tone it down lest you become the ghost of MINK past.

Hey, you played the patronising card first. Golden rule.

It cannot be just "explicit genitalia" that dag is concerned with (isn't there a testicular self-exam guide video here? and I know I've seen other clips with genitalia) - it seems to be the fact that since it's in the context of sex it's scaring advertisers. Such a ruling I have no grudge with, if it's because it's scaring off advertisers that are (depressingly) necessary to keep the site afloat.

But that is entirely separate from what I actually care about. The video is NOT pornography. It was not made to sexually arouse the viewer.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
I do get what you're saying about 'porn' as in commercials and other videos that sell themselves with sex (or arousal) as the main selling point. I think there's a difference between those and the video in question though. Innuendo and hints are different than explicit genitalia on screen. I have nothing against it as such and for all I care it should stay, but there is a difference I think. None-the-less, as you said yourself, dag's trump card trumps the rest.

I was pissed back when my squirting orgasm video was discarded, but I understand why it was discarded and in the end I'm OK with that. Bills gotta be payed and since we'd never use the site if it was pay-per-view, ads will have to do and then the site owners have to appease them at least a bit. I'm all for taking a moral standpoint against censorship or womens' rights or what have you, but I just don't care enough about this video to grab my pitchfork just yet. If it had been guys sitting around jacking it, I'm pretty sure the discussion would not be so loud and roaring and it would just have been discarded as porn. (That's a separate issue though.)

"Just forget it"? There's no need to patronize me. I don't care for it and it still doesn't suit you.

In reply to this comment by berticus:
'porn', gwiz, not porn. just forget it.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:

But @berticus, if there's so much porn already, please present it. You can't just claim that there is and expect us to just accept that as fact. And self-righteousness does not become you (or anyone), please tone it down lest you become the ghost of MINK past.

so much patronising bollocks in this but hey good lookin', I'll be back to promote you later

Thanks for the encouragement. Sorry I was so late in getting back to you.

In reply to this comment by lampishthing:
Just wanted to say that I read the original post on the Attenborough video and upvoted it. I don't actually agree with some of your points but mostly that comes down to my own personal beliefs and disputable logic (as all "logic" is in these discussions!). Mainly, I just want to commend you for speaking your mind. You're right, videosift has a very strong antitheistic base and unfortunately most of the people who do voice religious views (mainly Christian) do not voice them well and get crude before too long under the pressure of patronising, conceited atheists.

Thank you for posting a theistic view worth reading and I hope you continue to do so.

Just wanted to say that I read the original post on the Attenborough video and upvoted it. I don't actually agree with some of your points but mostly that comes down to my own personal beliefs and disputable logic (as all "logic" is in these discussions!). Mainly, I just want to commend you for speaking your mind. You're right, videosift has a very strong antitheistic base and unfortunately most of the people who do voice religious views (mainly Christian) do not voice them well and get crude before too long under the pressure of patronising, conceited atheists.

Thank you for posting a theistic view worth reading and I hope you continue to do so.

adversarial? yeah.. and you're not patronising in the slightest huh?

i think i understood full well your point. but then i also think you've misunderstood why i originally quoted rougy's comment, and why i subsequently mentioned the ridiculous ideas of FSM, IPU, teacup etc. they are all untestable, outside the realm of science. hence for someone to say 'science will never explain the soul' is absurd. of course it won't. it can't. just as it can't explain an infinite number of other hypothetical things -- which IS a useful point. they are all equally ridiculous. the soul is as likely as god is as likely as FSM etc. this boils down in the end to an argument on ontology, which if you are a rational person, brings you to science as the best method we have for testing reality. that method relies on evidence. evidence for all those things == 0. therefore, likelihood of those things being real approximates 0. which means you should apply the same reasoning to the existence of a soul as you do to unicorns, fairies, and a magical cupcake with feet that created the universe.

does that explain how i responded to "prove that the soul does not exist" the way i did?

i really do apologise if my views on freud or jung are upsetting, but i feel strongly about it because i have learned of the damage freud's ideas have inflicted.

now let's have a hug and talk about how we want to fuck our mothers and kill our fathers.

NobleOne: Please do. I welcome a good rebuttal. Your tone indicates that you see atheism as a bad thing "blackness at the end of the tunnel", I completely disagree. There is no tunnel, there is no blackness. Live while you can, don't hope for an afterlife, because it's probably not there.

Rasch: I think you'll find it's called patronising. And I don't really care.

Psychologic:
"Science can disprove religious claims about the physical world (young earth, etc), but we currently do not have any methods for determining whether or not our existence was created."
And? The fact that we cannot test for it, does not mean that there is a God hiding in there. There could be anything where we can't test. Until we can perform some sort of analysis, there is nothing gained from injecting anything there.

"There's no evidence that supports the idea that our existence was created, and hence no reason to actively believe that it was. However, that does not mean that the evidence points away from that possibility. There are plenty of situations that could both involve a creator and fit into our current scientific understanding."
Ah, that is true. There is no directly evidence against a creator creating the universe, but this is only the latest god in the gaps. The fact that nothing points in the other direction does have some merit, but of course cannot absolutely disprove something. You can never disprove something. You can only look at the evidence and judge from that.

There have been plenty of evidence against the Christian God(s), because he keeps receding every time we look for him. My point is still this, if you define it, we can disprove it. If the definition is "God is the creator of the universe" then I can only respond, there has not been produce any credible evidence to that claim yet. Big Bang is more likely, given the amount of evidence. (I'm not too sure about that, I'm not an astro-physicist.)

>> ^deputydog:
>> ^EDD:
meh.
in terms of jokes, first couple of minutes were ok, but the rest was very mediocre. don't get me wrong, guy's accent is fun and he has great likability, but they're also the only things really working for him.

^same here
and there was too much polite, patronising laughter from the audience.
'oh how wonderful! the little chinese man just told a joke! bwahahaha!!'
he wasn't very funny. or maybe i'm just a cranky twat this afternoon.




Well that's a bit unfair, its just the man's act. That's like saying the only thing Seinfeld has going for him is Dry Sarcasm. Which is 99.9% of the man's jokes.

>> ^EDD:
meh.
in terms of jokes, first couple of minutes were ok, but the rest was very mediocre. don't get me wrong, guy's accent is fun and he has great likability, but they're also the only things really working for him.


^same here

and there was too much polite, patronising laughter from the audience.

'oh how wonderful! the little chinese man just told a joke! bwahahaha!!'

he wasn't very funny. or maybe i'm just a cranky twat this afternoon.

I've always said that people don't pay enough compliments. It's almost as if they're scared to be seen as patronising. Who cares! I make a point of paying a compliment where it's due, and I don't care who it's aimed at. They may feel a little uncomfortable, but I don't and at least they know it's genuine, you can see that shit a mile off. Excellent video, thanks

>> ^MINK:
@notarobot: Blair is Catholic, it was kind of a big deal.
@dannym: "protests outside parliament were probably banned around the time terrorism was stepped up and people started crashing planes into buildings" ...
sorry danny, before saying things like "probably" you could just, you know, google, and find out "actually" that protests were banned outside parliament for only one reason, and that is Brian Haw kept insisting on telling the truth about serious war crimes, every day, in parliament square. They made an orwellian exclusion zone, after several failed attempts to remove him.
Also, it is very easy to block traffic in parliament square, I know, because I did it on the day they "debated" whether or not to go to war in Iraq. Kinda embarassing for them.
You could at least explain to me how banning protest makes London any safer from terrorist attack.
@Kerotan: wow, well done, americans are "way more exciting" than the reserved british, who i have only seen go mental for tony blair, princess diana, and soccer. But regardless of the amount of tickertape thrown around, the situation was very similar, years of supposedly "conservative" bungling, followed by a fresh new face promising "change"... people gave him a landslide.


Wow, well done for sounding like a patronising arsehole, it was difficult, but you managed it, here have a gold star you good boy! I'm well aware of the perceived British reserve, but even so I can't agree that it was that bigger deal (And I think how big the deal is important too), yes Tony Blair was a staunch catholic, but in the same way Obama might be secretly gay in a shame marriage, the point being that Blair took great care not talk about religion and politics in the same sentence, its not like we elected the pope to be PM.

On most of your other points I agree with you, it was a landslide victory and yes the situation was very similar but I don't exactly equatable to Obama's win, even if I was an American living the UK, I don't it would have been possible for me to get any more excited than I was at the time, which to be frank wasn't much.