No, there is a world of difference between having a responsibility for your plight and choosing how you respond.

The correct response to being assaulted, robbed, or otherwise offended against, is never to bow down to what your attackers want. You can apply this logic to all kinds of situations.

Don't want cat calls? Don't wear a sexy outfit.
Don't want to be gay bashed? Don't go into the rural south.
Didn't want to be shot? Shouldn't have published those cartoons.

FUCK

THAT

SHIT

But funnily enough, no-one ever tells a white guy that if he didn't want to be car-jacked, he shouldn't be driving that corvette.

It's pretty fucking awful that the assholes who stole the photos manage to be both puritan and lecherous at the same time. Telling the woman she's a slut for posing naked whilst masturbating to the images. It's the height of hypocrisy.

And meanwhile, you have a bunch of guys telling her what she should or shouldn't do in the privacy of her own home.

I hear you.

My dad was a rural Oklahoma farm boy depression era baby. Ten cents an hour he was paid.

He would leave a dollar tip. ONE DOLLAR.

I would do the same thing -- go back and leave more.

He finally got it, and started tipping better. But it took a long time.

For the benefit of those without a rural background, what's going on here is that a hungry calf will suck on anything that looks even slightly like a cow's teat... dog ear, human fingers, artificial teat, they all look good to a hungry calf.

That's crappy, but still better than over $300 for going 7 mph over the limit on a quite rural highway (299 in N Cal), the last speeding ticket I got (and the only one in over 5 years). I also have no one to blame but myself, though. It's not like I didn't know the law, or understand there are consequences. I was just surprised how much those consequences cost these days.
That said, they have not gone up in price even the same amount (%) my water bills have, or gas, or insurance, etc. in the same time period, so I can't call it gouging or outrageous...at least not more outrageous than the rest of inflation.
It's confusing when laws that have either been ignored or barely enforced in the past are suddenly being enforced more harshly, but those laws are on the books for a reason, they should not have been ignored in the first place (or should have been removed if that was acceptable). These laws (traffic laws) are designed to make driving safer and traffic flow better. They are more important today than ever, with our ever more crowded, ever more in need of repair roads, to make an unsafe practice (driving) much safer for us all, and to help make outrageous traffic flow better.

ha ha..thanks man.
i lived closer to the coast.
off oakland and andrews.worked at yesterdays on the intracoastal and marks in los olas,i also dj'd (and bounced) at the crazy horse off A1A.met motley crue there a couple of times.

the concentrated wealth was a tad further north from where i lived, boca and west palm.

you may have been a bit west in places like davie...fairly rural and yes..conservative..but money talks and davie does not have that kind of clout.
i saw the same practices when i lived on miami beach.though the criminalizing is a new thing,before they just shuttled the homeless and undesirables away.

icky homeless people are bad for tourism

i think we pretty much agree across the board.when a hard line conservative talks about "pulling yourself up by your boot straps" we know that is bullshit speak for 'fuck you poor person,i got mine" but i have a problem with a supposed "liberal" who talks the language of compassion and humanity but dont actually practice it in a hands on way.

the hardliner shows disdain for the poor,and while repugnant,at least it is honest.
but when a liberal,who wrings their hands over the plight of the homeless,yet pushes through ordinances that criminalize the very thing they are saying that is heart-wrenching for them..i find hypocritical.

i remember i was an event co-ordinator for the hilton fountain blue and did a bee-gees (yes..you read that right) birthday party on their west palm home.i dorve a beat up toyota tercel( i have always lived simply,like a hippy) and i was asked to park it 4 blocks away at a u-store it facility.

no valet for me!

do you know what its like to walk 4 blocks in august?in florida? in 300% humidity?
i was a wet rag by the time i got to their mansion.
i literally had to sneak a shower while my clothes were drying!

but..i did get 10% of everything,and that party cost a cool 250.000.

soooooooooo

WORTH IT!

i live just north of tampa now.new port richey.the number ONE place for painkiller/xanax deaths in the country!

we are so proud.

You're right. It is about context. But this video distorts the context.

Manhattan has a population of almost 1.8 million people. If you don't live in a major metropolitan area, please try to wrap your head around that number first. That's not all of NYC, that's just Manhattan.

When the director of this video said "The biggest ingredients for this to happen is tons of people, passing by and mixing with tons of other people. Its a numbers game. Eventually you run into an asshole..." he wasn't joking.

Higher density population increases the chance of seeing or experiencing things that are unpleasant. If you sat on your porch in bumfuck whogivesashitville long enough, you will eventually see some unpleasant things. It just happens faster where there are more people. And the culture IS different in cities then it is in rural areas. People are more used to being constantly near each other and interacting.

I'm not excusing the behavior of some of the assholes in this video. What I am really saying is that, at worst this video is a bullshit grab for money. At best it's a failed attempt to help women or educate/change the culture to be less misogynistic.

"Did you actually watch the video?" Yes. Did you notice this was two minutes out of 10 hours?

Misogyny exists. Harassment exists. Abuse exists. Domestic violence exists. Rape exists. We should all work to end it. This video just muddies the water on all those issues in what I think is a clear money grab.

/cynical

It's a standard car handling test, simulating avoiding a Moose (a common problem in rural Sweden, or so I'm led to believe)

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Jeep-Grand-Cherokee-Moose-Test-The-Full-Story

I first heard of it from the Mercedes Benz A class Moose test failure referenced at the end of the vid above... in that case, many of the journalists rang in their stories (Lada beats Mercedes Benz) first before checking whether the driver was OK!

Actually, before 1997 it was known as “Undanmanöverprov”, Avoidance Maneuver Test, the name "Moose Test" was coined in the aftermath of the Mercedes Benz failure.

Let's be brutally honest here. The reason most people in the US are ok with drone strikes is because they're mostly killing brown people in faraway lands that dress funny and speak some weird language. I mean, even if they're not actually terrorists, they probably know some terrorists, right?

I've said this before, but imagine the UK government had drones 30 years ago during the height of the Northern Ireland "troubles"*. Let's look at the facts: you have a genuine terrorist organisation who are successfully carrying out bombings, shootings, etc. on your home land. They have a reasonably sympathetic populous in a nearby sovereign country, and can easily hide there.

Seriously, picture Al Queada, but living in Canada and way more competent. Say what you want about the IRA, but at least they were smart enough to plant a bomb and then fucking leave it there.

Now ask yourself:
- if you would be ok with the UK government drone striking rural Ireland
- what you think the political fallout from that would be (esp from the US)

The answer is that there's no way in hell they could do it. Bombing the Republic of Ireland? The US would go mental.

But that's exactly what's happening here.

It's really easy to make excuses for drone strikes, but they are one of those things that are ultimately just flat out wrong.


* only in Ireland could we describe a 30 year campaign of civil oppression, bloodshed and terrorism by both sides as "troubles"

I disagree, a better comparison would be a remote rural town in the US compared to the remote rural town in China, since what we are comparing is the ability to withstand the same shaking. Comparing earthquake damage to tornado damage is useless and teaches nothing.
In small rural American towns you have the same issues with corruption of inspectors, and also many unscrupulous contractors that will cut any corner they can to make more money (that's the same everywhere, but with less oversight there's more opportunity to do so in smaller communities).
Comparing the damage of a 6.1 in China to the near complete lack of damage and complete lack of injury from the 6.1 in Fortuna/Ferndale, Ca, for instance, would be a much better comparison of apples to apples.

It's unfair to compare this remote rural town with a big urban city with well established infrastructure. A better comparison would be the tornadoes that hit rural towns in the US, annually destroying many homes and taking several lives. Yes, those houses could be built to be tornado-proof, but they aren't because it would cost 3x as much and the average residents are too poor to afford it (and storm shelters and advanced warning make it less deadly)

(Of course, China should still be more strict about building codes. Although they'd have to tackle corruption first- too easy to bribe inspectors, and too many contractors cut corners to save money. They are rightly focused on improving food safety now - what other country would you find counterfeit eggs?? )

I also found it interesting they highlighted the Ryugyong Hotel (the huge pyramid building). It's been under construction for 25 years, largely halted since the Soviet Union collapsed and the slush fund train ended. While the exterior is done according to wikipedia, the interior is not and it's always be unoccupied.

China's metropolises feed a similar misconception. They are similarly impressive that it's easy to forget that the country as a whole is still very poor. China's GDP per capita is half of Brazil, a quarter of South Korea and a tenth that of the US.

While China is obviously not as repressive as NK, the hukou dual citizenship system has a similar effect of segregation rural and urban dwellers. While rural workers may be able to move to work in the cities, they will enjoy none of the social benefits and protections that local citizens do. This has a lot to do with China's disparity of income and accretion of wealth to the large cities.

Cross posted from my other video: "If the majority of Americans were anti-gun ownership, then the 2nd amendment would have already been disposed of (as has happened with most of the other amendments on the Bill of Rights).

So folks here can complain all they want, but there's never going to be any progress on the (out-of-touch) anti-gun effort in the United States. That's where most Americans seem to draw the line: "The state can do whatever (e.g., surveil its people, drone foreigners indiscriminately, devastate the dollar, etc.), but don't touch the guns." In this, it's the anti-gun contingency that remains in the minority in the U.S. Even Joe Biden campaigned on his gun ownership.

Alas, most of the (conservative, rural state and Southern state liberals, inner city minorities, or NRA-supporting, and anti-NRA) gun-owners are not among the "progressive" (pseudo-)intellectuals on Videosift."

If the majority of Americans were anti-gun ownership, then the 2nd amendment would have already been disposed of (as has happened with most of the other amendments on the Bill of Rights).

So folks here can complain all they want, but there's never going to be any progress on the (out-of-touch) anti-gun effort in the United States. That's where most Americans seem to draw the line: "The state can do whatever (e.g., surveil its people, drone foreigners indiscriminately, devastate the dollar, etc.), but don't touch the guns." In this, it's the anti-gun contingency that remains in the minority in the U.S. Even Joe Biden campaigned on his gun ownership.

Alas, most of the (conservative, rural state and Southern state liberals, inner city minorities, or NRA-supporting, and anti-NRA) gun-owners are not among the "progressive" (pseudo-)intellectuals on Videosift.

You seem to think that eliminating guns will somehow eliminate mass shootings. However, there is zero correlation to the number of legal gun ownerships with the number of homicides. In fact, here are some statistics for you:

At present, a little more than half of all Americans own the sum total of about 320 million guns, 36% of which are handguns, but fewer than 100,000 of these guns are used in violent crimes. And, as it happens, where gun ownership per capita increases, violent crime is known to decrease. In other words, Caucasians tend to own more guns than African Americans, middle aged folks own more guns than young people, wealthy people own more guns than poor people, rural families own more guns than urbanites --> But the exact opposite is true for violent behavior (i.e., African Americans tend to be more violent than Caucasians, young people more violent than middle aged people, poor people more violent than wealthy people, and urbanites more violent than rural people). So gun ownership tends increase where violence is the least. This is, in large part, due to the cultural divide in the U.S. around gun ownership whereby most gun owners own guns for recreational sports (including the Southern Caucasian rural hunting culture, the likes of which aren't found in Australia or the UK or Europe, etc.); and about half of gun owners own guns for self-defense (usually as the result of living in a dangerous environment). Most of the widespread gun ownership in the U.S. predates any gun control legislation and gun ownership tends to generally rise as a response to an increase in violent crime (not the other way around).

There were about 350,000 crimes in 2009 in which a gun was present (but may not have been used), 24% of robberies, 5% of assaults, and about 66% of homicides. By contrast, guns are used as self-defense as many as 2 and a half million times every year (according to criminologist Gary Kleck at Florida State University), thereby decreasing the potential loss of life or property (i.e., those with guns are less likely to be injured in a violent crime than those who use another defensive strategy or simply comply).

Interestingly, violent crimes tend to decrease in those areas where there have been highly publicized instances of victims arming themselves or defending themselves against violent criminals. (In the UK, where guns are virtually banned, 43% of home burglaries occur when people are in the home, whereas only 9% of home burglaries in the U.S. occur when people are in the home, presumably as a result of criminals' fear of being shot by the homeowner.) In short, gun ownership reduces the likelihood of harm.

So, for example, Boston has the strictest gun control and the most school shootings. The federal ban on assault weapons from '94-'04 did not impact amount and severity of school shootings. The worst mass homicide in a school in the U.S. took place in Michigan in 1927, killing 38 children. The perpetrator used (illegal) bombs, not guns in this case.

1/3 of legal gun owners obtain their guns (a total of about 200,000 guns) privately, outside the reach of government regulation. So, it's likely that gun-related crimes will increase if the general population is unarmed.

Out of a sample of 943 felon handgun owners, 44% had obtained the gun privately, 32% stole it, 9% rented/borrowed it, and 16% bought it from a retailer. (Note retail gun sales is the only area that gun control legislation can affect, since existing laws have failed to control for illegal activity. Stricter legislation would likely therefore change the statistics of how felon handgun owners obtain the gun towards less legal, more violent ways.) Less than 3% obtain guns on the 'black market' (probably due, in part, to how many legal guns are already easily obtained).

600,000 guns are stolen every year and millions of guns circulate among criminals (outside the reach of the regulators), so the elimination of all new handgun purchases/sales, the guns would still be in the hands of the criminals (and few others).

The common gun controls have been shown to have no effect on the reduction of violent crime, however, according to the Dept. of Justice, states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate and a 46% lower robbery rate. A 2003 CDC report found no conclusive evidence that gun control laws reduced gun violence. This conclusion was echoed in an exhaustive National Academy of Sciences study a year later.

General gun ownership has no net positive effect on total violence rates.

Of almost 200,000 CCP holders in Florida, only 8 were revoked as a result of a crime.

The high-water mark of mass killings in the U.S. was back in 1929, and has not increased since then. In fact, it's declined from 42 incidents in 1990 to 26 from 2000-2012. Until recently, the worst school shootings took place in the UK or Germany. The murder rate and violent crime in the U.S. is less than half of what it was in the late 1980s (the reason for which is most certainly multimodal and multifaceted).

Regarding Gun-Free Zones, many mass shooters select their venues because there are signs there explicitly banning concealed handguns (i.e., where the likelihood is higher that interference will be minimal). "With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tuscon in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns," says John Lott.

In any case, do we have any evidence to believe that the regulators (presumably the police in this instance) will be competent, honest, righteous, just, and moral enough to take away the guns from private citizens, when a study has shown that private owners are convicted of firearms violations at the same rate as police officers? How will you enforce the regulation and/or remove the guns from those who resist turning over their guns? Do the police not need guns to get those with the guns to turn over their guns? Does this then not presume that "gun control" is essentially an aim for only the government (i.e., the centralized political elite and their minions) to have guns at the exclusion of everyone else? Is the government so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward thinking as to ensure that the intentions of gun control legislation go exactly as planned?

From a sociological perspective, it's interesting to note that those in favor of gun control tend to live in relatively safe and wealthy neighborhoods where the danger posed by violent crime is far less than in those neighborhoods where gun ownership is believed to be more acceptable if not necessary. Do they really want to deprive those who are culturally acclimatized to gun-ownership, who may be less fortunate than they are, to have the means to protect themselves (e.g., women who carry guns to protect themselves from assault or rape)? Sounds more like a lack of empathy and understanding of those realities to me.

There are many generational issues worth mentioning here. For example, the rise in gun ownership coincided with the war on drugs and the war on poverty. There are also nearly 24 million combat veterans living in the U.S. and they constitute a significant proportion of the U.S.' prison population as a result of sex offenses or violent crime. Male combat veterans are four times as likely to engage violent crime as non-veteran men; and are 4.4 times more likely to have abused a spouse/partner, and 6.4 times more likely to suffer from PTSD, and 2-3 times more likely to suffer from depression, substance abuse, unemployment, divorce/separation. Vietnam veterans with PTSD tend to have higher rates of childhood abuse (26%) than Vietnam veterans without PTSD (7%). Iraq/Afghanistan vets are 75% more likely to die in car crashes. Sex crimes by active duty soldiers have tripled since 2003. In 2007, 700,000 U.S. children had at least one parent in a warzone. In a July 2010 report, child abuse in Army families was 3 times higher if a parent was deployed in combat. From 2001 - 2011, alcohol use associated with domestic violence in Army families increased by 54%, and child abuse increased by 40%. What effect do you think that's going to have, regardless of "gun controls?"
("The War Comes Home" or as William Golding, the author of Lord of the Flies said, "A spear is a stick sharpened at both ends.")

In addition, families in the U.S. continue to break down. Single parent households have a high correlation to violence among children. In 1965, 93% of all American births were to married women. Today, 41% of all births are to unmarried women (a rate that rises to 53% for women under the age of 30). By age 30, 1/3 of American women have spent time as a single mother (a rate that is halved in European countries like France, Sweden, & Germany). Less than 9% of married couples are in poverty, but more than 40% of single-parent families are in poverty. Much of child poverty would be ameliorated if parents were marrying at 1970s rates. 85% of incarcerated youth grew up without fathers.

Since the implementation of the war on drugs, there's a drug arrest in the U.S. every 19 seconds, 82% of which were for possession alone (destroying homes and families in the process). The Dept. of Justice says that illegal drug market in the U.S. is dominated by 900,000 criminally active gang members affiliated with 20,000 street gangs in more than 2,500 cities, many of which have direct ties to Mexican drug cartels in at least 230 American cities. The drug control spending, however, has grown by 69.7% over the past 9 years. The criminal justice system is so overburdened as a result that nearly four out of every ten murders, and six out of every ten rapes, and nine out of ten burglaries go unsolved (and 90% of the "solved" cases are the result of plea-bargains, resulting in non-definitive guilt). Only 8.5% of federal prisoners have committed violent offenses. 75% of Detroit's state budget can be traced back to the war on drugs.

Point being, a government program is unlikely to solve any issues with regards to guns and the whole notion of gun control legislation is severely misguided in light of all that I've pointed out above. In fact, a lot of the violence is the direct or indirect result of government programs (war on drugs and the war on poverty).

(And, you'll note, I made no mention of the recent spike in the polypharmacy medicating of a significant proportion of American children -- including most of the "school shooters" -- the combinations of which have not been studied, but have -- at least in part -- been correlated to homicidal and/or suicidal behaviors.)

Firstly, I wouldn't presume to know all of the accents in any country I've ever lived in, so I'm shocked you do. And yes, I know the difference between a rural Irish accent and a Dublin accent, although let's face it, if Gillen had put on a true rural Irish accent, most people would have had a hard time understanding it. Also, he is an eccentric doctor who probably puts on airs to seem more mysterious, sounds like a solid character backstory to me.

Secondly, in the trailer and movie, you actually hear a mashup of different actors' voices in the confessional to specifically cloud who might be the culprit. If you re-watch (say, by downloading it) it you might hear one voice at first and then another a few seconds later. While I do agree the identity of culprit may not drive the plot of the entire movie, it isn't irrelevant as every encounter with a new person has you wondering "is this the guy?"

As for watching it in a cinema, let's open up that discussion. Movie theatres are run by cheap dickheads and I am refusing to reward them by not going. Case in point: Popcorn is sold at 12.75x cost, pop at 4-6x cost, other fast food joints within the place are up to 3x more expensive than outside and you couldn't bring your own food if you wanted to because they won't let you. Tickets are more expensive than a cheap motel room. I have to sit in a room with 100 other people (who might have kids with them depending on the movie) who will no doubt find a way to ruin my movie-going experience. The theatre plays up to 30 minutes of commercials and trailers for things I could easily see at home on my own goddamn time. In some countries movies have intermissions like I am watching a five act Shakespearean play and not a dumbass Michael Bay movie, and then they play more commercials before they restart.

Movie theatres are dumb and should be reserved for those movies that deserve them, not just because you save money but also because every penny you don't give to theatre owners is for the betterment of society.