Jesus fuck, @bobknight33….you can’t be this gullible. Some internet failure of a traveler blogger did not discover some massive nefarious Chinese plot to develop targeted diseases to release publicly against their genetic enemies….nor did he fact check it any more than you did. If there was a scintilla of truth to this nonsense, he would have been disappeared long before he could post this fantasy through the well monitored Chinese internet or leave the country. Duh. How do you fall for this…every….single….time?

I love how these idiotic conspiracy theories require unbelievable competence, cooperation on a scale never seen, planning and execution on a god level, but idiot internet sleuths think they, on their own, have unraveled the conspiracy because the god level conspirators made some idiotic rookie mistake no professional ever would, exposing the entire scheme….but only to them, the proof is hidden, just trust them.

Jesus fucking Christ, grow up and join reality, buddy. You honestly need mental help if you believe the nonsense you post.

Don't pretend to be so oblivious.
The gallery is one person making decisions on who to allow to hold private rallies in secret at her establishment, and she chooses Nazis and white power personalities. I thought you support taking individual responsibility.
The Nation of Islam, and I'm no fan at all, is a huge, multinational organization of millions I assume lead by some form of committee and encompassing a wide range of views and opposing extremes....They did not all choose to be associated with that one extremists nor did they all agree with him by far, then or now, only some did. That's similar to the same question but changing "nation of Islam" to "America". Obviously that's comparing apples to the president's drag queen makeup.

I won't comment much on Canada blm because I don't know them and don't choose to take the time needed to sleuth out some truths about them, but assuming what you say is correct it sounds like they have some racism in their midst that they should weed out before they become the monster they wish to destroy.

Brett Stevens, did you read any of the links? Or my quotes from them? Did you visit America.com, his website, or his blog amerika? (i won't) Do you have a clue who he is and the racist mass murderer he celebrates?

They have a right to speak, the crowd has a right to protest and take any civil legal action they choose to remove the soapbox from their neighborhood. I never said different. You must have confused me with the protesters.
They don't have a right to shout or hold their signs emblazoned with their stupid wrong things intended to provoke at a protest and attempt to spark violence, even if they cleverly camouflage it so on the surface their message seems agreeable, which is what I think was his intent. If successful, he would gain more fuel for the argument that the racists and Nazis planning a violent race war aren't the problem, it's the fascist liberal grandma shovers and sign thieves we should really be worried about....just like the boogaloos in America that caused many if not most of the riots, shot cops, and planned multiple mass murders and bombings all of which they intended to pin on blm.

They don't actually need any place to speak today, there's a soapbox in every cellphone.

But

This facility was holding their alt-right events in secret, hiding their speech itself. They wanted it hidden. You can't bemoan their voices being silenced while also defending their secret rallies which no one who might confront or correct them was told happened, can you?

And side note
The government isn't stopping them, so it's not censorship before that idea crops up.

Again, your bar for crying violence in this instance is subterranean. No one would ever be prosecuted for the level of violence without injury that he suffered, nor compensated for his miniscule loss of cardboard. Do you see him hit, kicked, punched, shoved hard, anything? Time stamp please. I'll change my tune if he was actually injured, I didn't see it anywhere, just his sign yanked after being slowly shoved away from one specific spot.

Could you honestly say ANY right wing event, especially any alt-right event infiltrated by a fairly quiet blm activist with a sign bemoaning police corruption would be as gentle and non violent? Edit: I doubt it.

The point of this video as presented is to pretend that's the case, that the shove from grandma is societies downfall, a direct attack on freedom not a rejection of a defender and facilitator of racists and Nazis (if he's not one himself). The Nazis and racists resurfacing and arming themselves (happening here in America) are nothing to be upset about or oppose....they're good people, not like disgusting anti free speech granny and those other freedom haters.
I'm astonished I'm apparently the only one willing to object to that long ago debbunked distortion of reality.

Good sleuthing
*ban

Good sleuthing
*debunked

*quality movie sleuthing!

>> ^waynef100:

is it me or does this video appear edited (in reverse) at around 10s mark?


Dude, you're like a super-sleuth.

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

That's a good point about the deputy dad. I have a feeling that his expanded role might be on the edit-room floor. The pacing was very tight, and I bet they chopped a fair bit out to keep the momentum.

>> ^blankfist:

I'm adding some spoilers to the mix. You've been forewarned.
I agree, excellent homage to the kid ensemble films of the 80s. Each scene with the five or so boys never felt as if they were waiting for their line reading. Each of them were given things to dwell on that differed from the overarching through line of each scene. During important scenes the kids took time to be kids, called each other names, have their own conversation objectives, etc. Those scenes were rich. And I really wish nearly every blockbuster movie was made like that.
The story itself didn't live up to what the film delivered in tone and pacing. If you disagree, then let me ask you a question. What exactly did the deputy father do the latter half of the movie? During the first half, he sets himself up as a major player when he starts sleuthing around the train wreckage, goes against the sheriff's wishes to investigate further and ultimately gets arrested by the Air Force.
And then what did he do to advance the story forward? Virtually nothing. He contributes nearly zilch outside of freeing the little girl's father, and at that point they have a little "them" time to heal their rift. He was set up as a major role that advanced the plot in the beginning, then he was given busywork to finish out the movie while the children picked up where he left off.
I'm not sure yet if I like or dislike the scene where the alien picks up the protagonist kid, does some psychic exchange, then when the boy tells him "bad things happen, but you can live," the alien thinks, "yeah, that's sound advice," then gets the hell out of dodge. I don't know, am I just too cynical now? Maybe I am, because...
The movie was rated PG-13 even though it had cigarette smoking, pot smoking and hard liquor drinking in it. I don't think those things are deserving of an R rating, but the MPAA sure as shit does, but only when it's an industry darling's movie. If you're an indie filmmaker and put a cigarette in your movie you're pretty much guaranteed to get an R. Spielberg and Abrams do it, add some hard drinking, a couple shits, a fuck, guts splattering and a hell of a lot of focus on getting high, and the MPAA bends at the knees.
Also did you notice when the stoned guy passes out cold and the kids leave him, it appeared that they had to ADR in a new line for one of the kids: "Drugs are bad!"
But other than that, the film was great.

I'm adding some spoilers to the mix. You've been forewarned.

I agree, excellent homage to the kid ensemble films of the 80s. Each scene with the five or so boys never felt as if they were waiting for their line reading. Each of them were given things to dwell on that differed from the overarching through line of each scene. During important scenes the kids took time to be kids, called each other names, have their own conversation objectives, etc. Those scenes were rich. And I really wish nearly every blockbuster movie was made like that.

The story itself didn't live up to what the film delivered in tone and pacing. If you disagree, then let me ask you a question. What exactly did the deputy father do the latter half of the movie? During the first half, he sets himself up as a major player when he starts sleuthing around the train wreckage, goes against the sheriff's wishes to investigate further and ultimately gets arrested by the Air Force.

And then what did he do to advance the story forward? Virtually nothing. He contributes nearly zilch outside of freeing the little girl's father, and at that point they have a little "them" time to heal their rift. He was set up as a major role that advanced the plot in the beginning, then he was given busywork to finish out the movie while the children picked up where he left off.

I'm not sure yet if I like or dislike the scene where the alien picks up the protagonist kid, does some psychic exchange, then when the boy tells him "bad things happen, but you can live," the alien thinks, "yeah, that's sound advice," then gets the hell out of dodge. I don't know, am I just too cynical now? Maybe I am, because...

The movie was rated PG-13 even though it had cigarette smoking, pot smoking and hard liquor drinking in it. I don't think those things are deserving of an R rating, but the MPAA sure as shit does, but only when it's [edit] NOT an industry darling's movie. If you're an indie filmmaker and put a cigarette in your movie you're pretty much guaranteed to get an R. Spielberg and Abrams do it, add some hard drinking, a couple shits, a fuck, guts splattering and a hell of a lot of focus on getting high, and the MPAA bends at the knees.

Also did you notice when the stoned guy passes out cold and the kids leave him, it appeared that they had to ADR in a new line for one of the kids: "Drugs are bad!"

But other than that, the film was great.

>> ^blankfist:

Two things would give away a video posted by @ant. 1. Ants. Obvious. 2. A cat video with "cat/kitten/kitteh" written in the title. My master sleuthing work here is done.


Sorry, you're wrong because it is a dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Ants-mimic-liquids ...

Two things would give away a video posted by @ant. 1. Ants. Obvious. 2. A cat video with "cat/kitten/kitteh" written in the title. My master sleuthing work here is done.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, see, for me it's not about dag's competence as a king or leader. He's the site owner, so I think by default he needs to take an avid and responsible role in the way punishment is doled out.

...and yet if I read your comments correctly, I don't think you were exactly pleased with the process he went through before banning you.

As a libertarian, sure, you are deeply committed to the idea that dag is and must be considered our king because he's got the divine right of property, and the rest of us are merely his subjects who only are allowed here at his consent.

But that's different from whether you like what the king's doing at any given time.
>> ^blankfist:
We don't have a pressing epidemic of "name callers" on here that we must deputize the community to help dag sift through the Sift Raft™. Banning probies and spammers is one thing, but banning actual contributing members shouldn't be a democratic process. It'll just lead to favoritism.

I think it's all about the kind of atmosphere we want in the community. I think there's been a slide towards greater and greater hostility and incivility. That seems to be the gist of dag's original post, all the way at the top of the page, no?

I don't really want to see some reign of terror where we purge the roles of the sift, but I would like to see people getting time outs for lashing out at people.

As for democratic process, I'm just asking for a code of laws. It seems to me that you can't have "due process" until you write down what the laws are. Without that, it's always going to boil down to the king settling disputes directly.
>> ^blankfist:
I propose we use hobbling when someone seems to be on the attack. As soon as an admin gets on they can look into the situation and listen to BOTH sides. I'm sure by that point the community will know all about the offense and already be weighing in and doing amateur sleuthing to get the facts. After that temp bans and perm bans would follow.

Sounds good, but what constitutes an attack?

If I say I've fucking had it with you calling me a Nazi all the time, and hobble you for it, how exactly do we settle whether I've got a legitimate case or not? Make dag threaten to cut the baby in half?

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

For someone who is otherwise such a proponent of democratic principles and liberty I'm surprised that you would rather concentrate disciplinary powers in one person's hands.

And, yes, yes - I am the site owner so I could always come down and blow it all away, so we're just playing. I know. But, there would be a lot more social pressure on me not to interfere, if decisions were meted out fairly without favorotism by the Sift public in some kind of system.

I think I've shown my willingness to let self-rule flourish. And honestly, I'm fascinated by the idea of balancing technology and people to make a more equitable, self-managing community. (even if it's just in our little online niche)

>> ^blankfist:



@NetRunner, see, for me it's not about dag's competence as a king or leader. He's the site owner, so I think by default he needs to take an avid and responsible role in the way punishment is doled out.
We don't have a pressing epidemic of "name callers" on here that we must deputize the community to help dag sift through the Sift Raft™. Banning probies and spammers is one thing, but banning actual contributing members shouldn't be a democratic process. It'll just lead to favoritism.
I propose we use hobbling when someone seems to be on the attack. As soon as an admin gets on they can look into the situation and listen to BOTH sides. I'm sure by that point the community will know all about the offense and already be weighing in and doing amateur sleuthing to get the facts. After that temp bans and perm bans would follow.
We've been on a banning spree in the last two weeks or so, and it's not that some of the offenses weren't valid, it's just a bit reactionary to ban people outright. Especially when we're not asking for testimony before walking people off the plank. Hobble them first. Listen to them. Then decide on punishment.

@NetRunner, see, for me it's not about dag's competence as a king or leader. He's the site owner, so I think by default he needs to take an avid and responsible role in the way punishment is doled out.

We don't have a pressing epidemic of "name callers" on here that we must deputize the community to help dag sift through the Sift Raft™. Banning probies and spammers is one thing, but banning actual contributing members shouldn't be a democratic process. It'll just lead to favoritism.

I propose we use hobbling when someone seems to be on the attack. As soon as an admin gets on they can look into the situation and listen to BOTH sides. I'm sure by that point the community will know all about the offense and already be weighing in and doing amateur sleuthing to get the facts. After that temp bans and perm bans would follow.

We've been on a banning spree in the last two weeks or so, and it's not that some of the offenses weren't valid, it's just a bit reactionary to ban people outright. Especially when we're not asking for testimony before walking people off the plank. Hobble them first. Listen to them. Then decide on punishment.

Great sleuthing powers!
I thought it was really funny.

>> ^bareboards2:

http://videosift.com/video/Live-Interview-with-Iraqi-Insurgents
Yep. There it is. I searched for "iraq subtitles" and there she was! Only got 40 votes -- but that was 4 years ago. I'll bet if it got promoted or qualitied now, it would catch some more.
You have good taste! It really was hysterical.

Clearly *viral - my superior Internet Sleuthing(TM) noticed the constant barrage of popup ads for t-shirts at haybalingfun.viralprints.com.