Tags for this video have been changed from 'BriTANick, victims' to 'BriTANick, victims, adultery, secrets, reveal, scapegoat' - edited by xxovercastxx

Ok, I'll start with a few things that most people would probably agree with, but the police force currently would fight like hell to avoid. How about we decide to actually punish cops who break existing rules and laws. Use testing to weed out unbalanced power hungry or corrupt types from becoming cops. QUIT hiring COMBAT veterans to become PEACE officers. I'm sure there are many things that could be done to fix the problem with the police, its just that it's not being done because the police think the only problem is that we, the lowly people, dont always follow ALL commands,and sometimes we need to be put in our place. >> ^shveddy:
False dichotomy, among other things. There are innumerable intermediate steps between "allowing them to do whatever they want to you" and "shooting the motherfuckers." I'll admit that there is a point where armed resistance is warranted, but if you think that we have arrived anywhere near that point with enough frequency to warrant armed resistance, then you are crazy.
Yes, there are plenty of instances of people's rights being violated - but in 99.99% of those occasions, I think the problem can best be solved through other means.
Do I think that the students who got peppersprayed at UC Davis had their rights violated?
Yes, I do. But this guy seems to suggest that the proper response is for the students to pull guns and start a shoot-out. Let's imagine what that would look like for a second:
One of the students peers through the caustic mist with righteous fury and a wet t-shirt over his mouth. He can feel the comforting weight of his Barretta, held close to his heart in a chest holster, and he knows that this is the moment to act. He stands up tall despite the onslaught of bright orange asphyxiation, reaches for his piece and takes aim. Somewhat startled, the officer is suddenly defenseless with his canister and it is not long before he crumples to the ground in an ever expanding pool of blood. He basks in a brief moment of clarity before chaos reigns. His fellow students are quick to bear arms themselves, but the training, body armor and poise of the officers allows them a significant head start and the students suffer heavy casualties in this initial volley.
Not to be deterred by the deaths of their friends, the occupy movement takes up refuge in the life sciences building which, designed in the late sixties with a brutalist aesthetic, is mostly concrete and as such is a perfect fortress from which to outlast the ensuing siege and inspire innumerable citizens on the outside world to take up arms as well. Guerrilla warfare is the only tactic effective in such asymmetrical circumstances, and after a few weeks of violence the powers that be succumb to international pressure and agree to negotiate with the 99%...
...or we could launch an official investigation, fire the guy as a scapegoat after an admittedly long, expensive and cumbersome process, and let the public outrage that ensued lead to a more cautious approach to future student protests. Bloggers and editorialists collectively write millions of words on the subject, increasing awareness and generally shaming the agency that allowed it to happen.
Not perfect, but a whole hell of a lot more civilized.
Any time you use guns against a government entity in he US, you will eventually be caught and put in jail. Period. The only way to avoid this is to be a small part of a large popular movement that eventually overthrows the US government, and I don't see that ever happening with citizen gun-owners unless it involves guerrilla tactics. Imagine gunfights erupting at your local municipal buildings. Imagine pipe bombs at your local police station. People need to realize that this is what they are advocating when they argue for second amendment rights as a fourth check and balance.
If you disagree with that statement, feel free to fill in a reasonable sequence of events to span the gap between "guy whose fourth amendment rights are violated guns down cop" and "said guy is vindicated, and massive changes are made to our law enforcement policies." I suspect that we are far more likely to see a greater militarization of the police in response.
I humbly propose that we join the civilized world and come up with more creative ways to correct our problems.

False dichotomy, among other things. There are innumerable intermediate steps between "allowing them to do whatever they want to you" and "shooting the motherfuckers." I'll admit that there is a point where armed resistance is warranted, but if you think that we have arrived anywhere near that point with enough frequency to warrant armed resistance, then you are crazy.

Yes, there are plenty of instances of people's rights being violated - but in 99.99% of those occasions, I think the problem can best be solved through other means.

Do I think that the students who got peppersprayed at UC Davis had their rights violated?

Yes, I do. But this guy seems to suggest that the proper response is for the students to pull guns and start a shoot-out. Let's imagine what that would look like for a second:

One of the students peers through the caustic mist with righteous fury and a wet t-shirt over his mouth. He can feel the comforting weight of his Barretta, held close to his heart in a chest holster, and he knows that this is the moment to act. He stands up tall despite the onslaught of bright orange asphyxiation, reaches for his piece and takes aim. Somewhat startled, the officer is suddenly defenseless with his canister and it is not long before he crumples to the ground in an ever expanding pool of blood. He basks in a brief moment of clarity before chaos reigns. His fellow students are quick to bear arms themselves, but the training, body armor and poise of the officers allows them a significant head start and the students suffer heavy casualties in this initial volley.

Not to be deterred by the deaths of their friends, the occupy movement takes up refuge in the life sciences building which, designed in the late sixties with a brutalist aesthetic, is mostly concrete and as such is a perfect fortress from which to outlast the ensuing siege and inspire innumerable citizens on the outside world to take up arms as well. Guerrilla warfare is the only tactic effective in such asymmetrical circumstances, and after a few weeks of violence the powers that be succumb to international pressure and agree to negotiate with the 99%...

...or we could launch an official investigation, fire the guy as a scapegoat after an admittedly long, expensive and cumbersome process, and let the public outrage that ensued lead to a more cautious approach to future student protests. Bloggers and editorialists collectively write millions of words on the subject, increasing awareness and generally shaming the agency that allowed it to happen.

Not perfect, but a whole hell of a lot more civilized.

Any time you use guns against a government entity in he US, you will eventually be caught and put in jail. Period. The only way to avoid this is to be a small part of a large popular movement that eventually overthrows the US government, and I don't see that ever happening with citizen gun-owners unless it involves guerrilla tactics. Imagine gunfights erupting at your local municipal buildings. Imagine pipe bombs at your local police station. People need to realize that this is what they are advocating when they argue for second amendment rights as a fourth check and balance.

If you disagree with that statement, feel free to fill in a reasonable sequence of events to span the gap between "guy whose fourth amendment rights are violated guns down cop" and "said guy is vindicated, and massive changes are made to our law enforcement policies." I suspect that we are far more likely to see a greater militarization of the police in response.

I humbly propose that we join the civilized world and come up with more creative ways to correct our problems.

So to be on the safe side they should cry wolf every time they get any sort of blip?
Does this mean if someone gets hit by lightning when it was only supposed to be a light rain, the Meteorologists better get a lawyer?

The only question I have would be, "Were they incompetent?" Because, if not, then you can't blame them - they can only read the data and make educated guesses based on the data. I don't think anyone has ever successfully predicted the size of an earthquake before it has happened.

This sounds more like a witch-hunt and scapegoat scenario.

As much as I would like to agree with you that the government doesn't feel sorry for spending tax money; we have been led to believe that tax breaks and loopholes for the rich specifically, did not and will create more jobs. After 11 years of practice, this proved to be a fruitless that only benefited the upper echelon. You want an example? Take Romney's money in Switzerland and The Cayman Island for example. I am sure he has the right to do with his money whatever he wants, but a show of good faith would be to invest that money back into the economy (tickle-down) instead of parking it overseas. That, I have a HUGE problem with.

I would be taxed more under a re-elected Obama, and I don't mind that because of the greater good. Today, he is the lesser of two evils. I would vote for Romney if he actually believed what he said, but his actions and his words don't go together - see previous paragraph.

It would be dishonest for anyone to think that lowering taxes alone, or cutting the deficit alone would stop the hemorrhaging.

>> ^quantumushroom:

When tax rates are lowered, government revenue increases.
When tax rates are raised, the wealthy scapegoats remove monies from the system, either by parking them in things like tax-exempt bonds or investing in countries with lower tax rates.
However Obama tries to explain away what we on the right have known and have empirical evidence to back it up, his results have been negative. Such failure should not be rewarded by punishing the rest of us with 4 more years of this rubbish!

When tax rates are lowered, government revenue increases.

When tax rates are raised, the wealthy scapegoats remove monies from the system, either by parking them in things like tax-exempt bonds or investing in countries with lower tax rates.

However Obama tries to explain away what we on the right have known and have empirical evidence to back it up, his results have been negative. Such failure should not be rewarded by punishing the rest of us with 4 more years of this rubbish!

Serious. That's fucked up. I know individuals are more important than team. Maybe that's the mentality I don't possess which makes it easy to cheer unwaveringly for a particular team rather than people or personal convictions. Maybe that's what I have that the average sports fanatic doesn't.>> ^bmacs27:

Matt Cassel has been a bit of a scapegoat for KC fans. Also, they have an arguably more competent backup in Brady Quinn. That's in some ways the most despicable part. People weren't cheering the hit so much as the personnel ramifications of the hit. That they could let their animosity for their own player get to that point is a bit disturbing. It shows utter detachment from the humanity of the players. I think that's the point Winston is making. >> ^messenger:
Why did KC fans cheer when their own QB went down?

Matt Cassel has been a bit of a scapegoat for KC fans. Also, they have an arguably more competent backup in Brady Quinn. That's in some ways the most despicable part. People weren't cheering the hit so much as the personnel ramifications of the hit. That they could let their animosity for their own player get to that point is a bit disturbing. It shows utter detachment from the humanity of the players. I think that's the point Winston is making. >> ^messenger:

Why did KC fans cheer when their own QB went down?

Clean environment isn't just a national responsibility, it's global..

Destroy the world, kill the future, i want it all now, screw the poor, screw the enviroment, Armageddon is coming so we don't need to care about anything or anyone. God will fix things for us... The god i believed in would've clean those bastards out first.

Corporations need regulations and governing, humanbeings need more freedom not the otherway around, They want to make corporation as people? Fine, the next time a corporation has a work related death, they go to jail. The whole company ceases to exist for the same amount of time a citizen would get. What they are actually saying is that corporations will get the rights of humans but responsibility is in the hands of individuals inside the company and you can bet that the scapegoats are not the CEOs but ordinary workers...

>> ^braschlosan:

A message like this sounds good on "paper" but I see it as a threat to those who would challenge the establishment. From my experience on this site the comments considered to be "awful" are fairly tame.
What you have done is put us passionate people under a constant state of fear that some random admin will take the "my poop doesn't smell" route and damage our account status.
Try dialing it back a notch. Allow users to express the natural anger and disagreement that exists in all humans. Apply the warning/suspension/ban when its actually needed. I feel that any user on the receiving end of this punishment should be allowed to explain himself to an UNBIASED moderator.
Don't let the whiny attention grabbers bait others into anger and then punish those who couldn't hold back! Too many times the real troll went unpunished (the sign of a master trololo)
I capitalized unbiased because I feel those in power do not fairly represent the community as a whole. The best governing party should have those who share a common goal but disagree on the method to obtain it.
If what we say really does "matter" then as a sociopath shouldn't I be able to express what is in my mind (within reason)? Or should I bottle it up and release these feelings on a scapegoat instead? By denying the outlet we end up more hurt.


Sorry, that's bollocks. I'm prone to passionate comments around here, i make a few of them, sometimes regret a few of them.

As a passionate person, i endorse the sentiments shown by dag in the original post. By and large you'll find this place polices itself. Genuinely rude people are chastised by long standing members long before any authority gets involved. The populace votes (in comments), and dag rarely goes against what the popular opinion is - usually because the popular opinion is the "right", or "best" one (as in the morally right choice to make). Everyone gets to vote, so what the community wants (on average), it basically gets. How is that bad?

Besides that - the community voted for a dictator, and dag reluctantly agreed (i assume that hasn't changed and i'm not late to the party). I doubt he'd fight an attempt by this mass of passionate people (that are now frightened) trying to drum up support for a new vote on "how to run things". I don't think these people exist. If you're outright nasty to someone else, you get a series of temp bans until eventually you have to go.

If you're edgy and borderline, then you generally get away with it. Until you go too far. But that's WHY it's edgy and borderline. Like choggie. If the boundaries were extended, they would need to be pushed further by anyone wanting to be edgy and borderline. What's edgy and borderline about being within the rules? Before you know it, it's a free for all (youtube comments?). It's not like anyone gets banned without the siftpolice thoroughly investigating it.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Thanks for the counter-point, but we're definitely not going to dial it back a bit. We recognise that you have a choice where you spend your time - and there is a plethora of websites that don't have a dial at all.

Why does VideoSift have to (also) be a place where anything goes - and everyone gets to be as nasty as they want to be? Isn't that the status quo for most platforms on the Internet? I give you any Youtube video comment stream as exhibit A.



We have chosen to differentiate ourselves as a community by not being like that. For people that don't care for this - I give you the dial-less sites.

>> ^braschlosan:

A message like this sounds good on "paper" but I see it as a threat to those who would challenge the establishment. From my experience on this site the comments considered to be "awful" are fairly tame.
What you have done is put us passionate people under a constant state of fear that some random admin will take the "my poop doesn't smell" route and damage your account status.
Try dialing it back a notch. Allow users to express the natural anger and disagreement that exists in all humans. Apply the warning/suspension/ban when its actually warranted. I feel that any user on the receiving end of this punishment should be allowed to explain himself to an UNBIASED moderator.
I capitalized unbiased because I feel those in power do not fairly represent the community as a whole. The best governing party should have those who share a common goal but disagree on the method to obtain it.
If what we say really does "matter" then as a sociopath shouldn't I be able to express what is in my mind (within reason)? Or should I bottle it up and release these feelings on a scapegoat instead? By denying the outlet we end up more hurt.

A message like this sounds good on "paper" but I see it as a threat to those who would challenge the establishment. From my experience on this site the comments considered to be "awful" are fairly tame.

What you have done is put us passionate people under a constant state of fear that some random admin will take the "my poop doesn't smell" route and damage our account status.

Try dialing it back a notch. Allow users to express the natural anger and disagreement that exists in all humans. Apply the warning/suspension/ban when its actually needed. I feel that any user on the receiving end of this punishment should be allowed to explain himself to an UNBIASED moderator.

Don't let the whiny attention grabbers bait others into anger and then punish those who couldn't hold back! Too many times the real troll went unpunished (the sign of a master trololo)

I capitalized unbiased because I feel those in power do not fairly represent the community as a whole. The best governing party should have those who share a common goal but disagree on the method to obtain it.

If what we say really does "matter" then as a sociopath shouldn't I be able to express what is in my mind (within reason)? Or should I bottle it up and release these feelings on a scapegoat instead? By denying the outlet we end up more hurt.

I'm Israeli, so feel free to consider me biased on the matter.

Egyptians have been treated like shit for decades because they lived under the rule of a corrupt regime. Granted, the US had given aid to that regime, and its stability was in the interest of Israel - any other policy would've meant war.

The Egyptian regime had encouraged a media and literature ban on normalization with Israel, in order to turn Israel into a scapegoat for the people's frustrations and in order to stop people from being able to compare their situation to that of Israeli citizens. And as the regime controlled parts of the media, "encouraged" is perhaps too soft a term.

So this is not an instance where years of being "treated like shit" by Israel caused an understandable outburst of hatred. This is a consistent example of hatred being indoctrinated for years (some past examples: here, here and here).

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Jinx:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bobknight33:
Raciest in the extreme.

There are legitimate reasons to hate Israel, and illegitimate reasons. Me? I hate people who can spell.

can or can't? ;3
I aint no fan of Israel, but throwing punches because you think they lied about being Jews? Aint no rhyme nor reason. The fact they can prank people like this because they reaction is so expected is worrying tbh. Where else in the world could this happen. No wonder the Jews were anxious when Mubarak went...
ps. That woman is beautiful.

They should be anxious because if the Egyptian military who get TONS of US funding are pushed out of power too much then it's a serious issue. The only reason Israel get to be dicks to everyone is because of the US. The US loses Egypt, their control looks more tenuous and then next they might have to actually start listening to other people rather than doing whatever the hell they want.
These people are racist fucks...but it doesn't come from nothing. They hate the fact they were tricked, less understandable. They've been being treated like shit for decades cause of the US and Israel...more understandable. You piss people off you set a bad example...like even good World War 2 soldiers who will hate Japanese people forever because of what they saw. We're humans, we're Fucked Up.

I agree with everything he says, but blaming (a non-existant) economic freedom for abuses in the banking sector is like blaming freedom of religion for islamic fundamentalists.

The "unregulated free market" is the usual scapegoat, when it's neither unregulated nor a free market. The banking industry is poorly but still highly regulated, which is why banking crooks so easily abuse their monopolies because regulation is what keeps competition out, and they use their political connections with said regulators to get away with their fraud. The excessive regulation is what denies us any alternative to crooked bankers and manipulated currencies.

The government shouldn't be involved in banking at all, let people regulate banks.

>> ^shinyblurry:


Jesus was not a scapegoat. He laid down His life, willingly, to take the punishment that you and I deserve. He paid the price for our sins, paid it in His blood; He was bruised for our inequities, and pierced for our transgressions. He died so that you and I could be forgiven for our sins and to give to us eternal life. He did what He did out love, love for us, that even while we drove in the nails, He loved us.


So let me get this straight: God sent himself to earth so that he could sacrifice himself to himself so as to appease himself into changing a rule that he had made himself?