>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^NetRunner:
Wait, he did a rant where he literally lays blame for the entire national debt on Obama, and Obama alone, and now he's annoyed that it got labeled as an epic anti-Obama rant?
What a fucking tool.

I haven't seen that one. Got a link?

Uhh, that's the one you linked to in your description, and the one they're talking about in the interview.
Or is "B" supposed to be someone else?


Yeah, I knew what video you were talking about. I was just being a smartass.

"Stop it B!" is the name of the series. It doesn't stand for Barack. However, given that misunderstanding, I could see how you'd think he's pinning it all on Obama. I wonder if Glenn Beck made the same error.

If you watch it again now, I think you'll see it's a rant against irresponsible government in general, with only a quick joke about black people not paying their bills directed at Obama toward the end.

Not to be a smartass at all, but why are we *discussing this? If there's a valid DMCA takedown request, shouldn't it just be killed? Or is this the standard procedure and I just haven't seen it before?

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
I think this post shows that people resist being categorized.
Lumping together "others" is condescending and can easily be taken as an insult. Also, the term "believers" is an extremely loaded term which some people--I for one--see as excluding. I believe in science and reason. Many monotheists BELIEVE so intently that they have dismissed all evidence--including independently verified scientific evidence--and even admit that they will dismiss all evidence which contradicts their prejudices (definition of dogma).
Please don't see this as an attack xxovercastxx. I see what information you wanted to get out of this--and I'm interested in what results might come out of this--but a poll (IMOHO) will only be seen as pigeonholing. Maybe if you simply asked what beliefs people hold you would get more information (as alway mixed with smartassed remarks--this is Videosift after all).

You might not understand what loaded means if you think "believer" is a loaded term. "Stupid believer" or "righteous believer" would be loaded terms.
As for your belief in science and reason, that's ignoring the context. I asked how people would classify themselves religiously. Unless you think science and reason are religions, your belief in them is irrelevant. Though, if you do think they are religions, feel free to call yourself a believer. This poll is all about self-identifying.


Ignoring context.

The context in which I use the word believe was a juxtaposition between the belief in science, and reason and the Belief of Believers.

Do you see the difference?

Both use the same word in much different ways. One means a belief in a system which self-corrects and is always adjusting to make a model of the universe which is always getting closer to the underlying truth. And one is a faith based rejection of any change or adjustment in the rock-hard adherence to previously set down TRUTH.

Do I have to explain how I just used the juxtaposition of differing uses of the word truth now? Or, do understand the context?

Because of the condescending tone of your reply; go ahead and see this as an attack.

[Edit of the first statement:
I said people resist being categorized. I should have said that some people resist being categorized. Many people relish the chance to say, "I'm with this group."]

>> ^Boise_Lib:

I think this post shows that people resist being categorized.
Lumping together "others" is condescending and can easily be taken as an insult. Also, the term "believers" is an extremely loaded term which some people--I for one--see as excluding. I believe in science and reason. Many monotheists BELIEVE so intently that they have dismissed all evidence--including independently verified scientific evidence--and even admit that they will dismiss all evidence which contradicts their prejudices (definition of dogma).
Please don't see this as an attack xxovercastxx. I see what information you wanted to get out of this--and I'm interested in what results might come out of this--but a poll (IMOHO) will only be seen as pigeonholing. Maybe if you simply asked what beliefs people hold you would get more information (as alway mixed with smartassed remarks--this is Videosift after all).


You might not understand what loaded means if you think "believer" is a loaded term. "Stupid believer" or "righteous believer" would be loaded terms.

As for your belief in science and reason, that's ignoring the context. I asked how people would classify themselves religiously. Unless you think science and reason are religions, your belief in them is irrelevant. Though, if you do think they are religions, feel free to call yourself a believer. This poll is all about self-identifying.

I think this post shows that people resist being categorized.

Lumping together "others" is condescending and can easily be taken as an insult. Also, the term "believers" is an extremely loaded term which some people--I for one--see as excluding. I believe in science and reason. Many monotheists BELIEVE so intently that they have dismissed all evidence--including independently verified scientific evidence--and even admit that they will dismiss all evidence which contradicts their prejudices (definition of dogma).

Please don't see this as an attack xxovercastxx. I see what information you wanted to get out of this--and I'm interested in what results might come out of this--but a poll (IMOHO) will only be seen as pigeonholing. Maybe if you simply asked what beliefs people hold you would get more information (as alway mixed with smartassed remarks--this is Videosift after all).

>> ^Jinx:

Different? Its a video of the other sifted video. Can I video this, upload it and then say its different to both the previous ones because its a video of a video of a video? (inb4 smartass says something about uploadin your own vids)
So, might I make a suggestion? Grab the duped videos embed, paste it in here and transfer the votes?


It's not a dupe, period. Doesn't matter if it's a video of the other one, UP posted it first. So if anything the other one should be duped and the votes transferred here. In fact, I'll start the process now.

Different? Its a video of the other sifted video. Can I video this, upload it and then say its different to both the previous ones because its a video of a video of a video? (inb4 smartass says something about uploadin your own vids)

So, might I make a suggestion? Grab the duped videos embed, paste it in here and transfer the votes?

Apparently so. I still love you, Issy.

In reply to this comment by Issykitty:
Well, just as you said bareboards was "indirectly" involved in people getting banned, such as joe "u r a cunt" dirt, you did kind of set off choggie by submitting a cat fart vi that used his name in the title. That sounds pretty similar. Not saying I didn't think choggie did not overreact. Yeah, this is a tiresome argument and I am getting bored with it. The point is, I do think you overreacted in your response as I am sure I am probably overreacting right fucking now to a fucking reversed ban about a what's-his-name user I don't give a fucking shit about. I mean, who fucking cares? He got banned wrongly, and now he is unbanned. Great success. Yay tolerance for intolerance. Yeaaaaaaaaah... did I tell you that I am in a foul mood right now?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
No, it's not accurate. I doubt MrFisk was referring to my college term of endearment when he said I wanted to be the biggest asshole so I had to remove my competition by banning choggie. And what I dislike about his comment the most is that it's revisionist history. You were there when choggie was banned, you know it wasn't my doing. He self-destructed and begged for his head to be chopped off in the town square.

This isn't the first time someone has tried to place choggie's ban on me. I was glad to see him go, but I wasn't the cause. I guess some cannot separate the two.

In reply to this comment by Issykitty:
You proudly referred to yourself as the Harrasshole. He said you wanted to be the biggest asshole. Is that really not accurate? Sounds like you overreacted to something that has a bit of truth to it.

"Sorry my blog doesn't suit your sensibilities. Why don't you go write your own blog and show us how it's done. I'll then buy you a pack of gum so you can show us all how to chew it."

You set up this blog with a smart-ass opening comment, framing anyone that disagreed with you as "smartass apologists." Pardon me if I ignore everything else you have to say now, especially since your response to Netrunner was "You're an idiot." Yeah, we're all idiots in thinking we could have "dialogue" with you. Sorry about that. Yeah, I can be a sarcastic bitch ALSO.

Well, just as you said bareboards was "indirectly" involved in people getting banned, such as joe "u r a cunt" dirt, you did kind of set off choggie by submitting a cat fart vi that used his name in the title. That sounds pretty similar. Not saying I didn't think choggie did not overreact. Yeah, this is a tiresome argument and I am getting bored with it. The point is, I do think you overreacted in your response as I am sure I am probably overreacting right fucking now to a fucking reversed ban about a what's-his-name user I don't give a fucking shit about. I mean, who fucking cares? He got banned wrongly, and now he is unbanned. Great success. Yay tolerance for intolerance. Yeaaaaaaaaah... did I tell you that I am in a foul mood right now?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
No, it's not accurate. I doubt MrFisk was referring to my college term of endearment when he said I wanted to be the biggest asshole so I had to remove my competition by banning choggie. And what I dislike about his comment the most is that it's revisionist history. You were there when choggie was banned, you know it wasn't my doing. He self-destructed and begged for his head to be chopped off in the town square.

This isn't the first time someone has tried to place choggie's ban on me. I was glad to see him go, but I wasn't the cause. I guess some cannot separate the two.

In reply to this comment by Issykitty:
You proudly referred to yourself as the Harrasshole. He said you wanted to be the biggest asshole. Is that really not accurate? Sounds like you overreacted to something that has a bit of truth to it.

"Sorry my blog doesn't suit your sensibilities. Why don't you go write your own blog and show us how it's done. I'll then buy you a pack of gum so you can show us all how to chew it."

You set up this blog with a smart-ass opening comment, framing anyone that disagreed with you as "smartass apologists." Pardon me if I ignore everything else you have to say now, especially since your response to Netrunner was "You're an idiot." Yeah, we're all idiots in thinking we could have "dialogue" with you. Sorry about that. Yeah, I can be a sarcastic bitch ALSO.

No, it's not accurate. I doubt MrFisk was referring to my college term of endearment when he said I wanted to be the biggest asshole so I had to remove my competition by banning choggie. And what I dislike about his comment the most is that it's revisionist history. You were there when choggie was banned, you know it wasn't my doing. He self-destructed and begged for his head to be chopped off in the town square.

This isn't the first time someone has tried to place choggie's ban on me. I was glad to see him go, but I wasn't the cause. I guess some cannot separate the two.

In reply to this comment by Issykitty:
You proudly referred to yourself as the Harrasshole. He said you wanted to be the biggest asshole. Is that really not accurate? Sounds like you overreacted to something that has a bit of truth to it.

"Sorry my blog doesn't suit your sensibilities. Why don't you go write your own blog and show us how it's done. I'll then buy you a pack of gum so you can show us all how to chew it."

You set up this blog with a smart-ass opening comment, framing anyone that disagreed with you as "smartass apologists." Pardon me if I ignore everything else you have to say now, especially since your response to Netrunner was "You're an idiot." Yeah, we're all idiots in thinking we could have "dialogue" with you. Sorry about that. Yeah, I can be a sarcastic bitch ALSO.

You proudly referred to yourself as the Harrasshole. He said you wanted to be the biggest asshole. Is that really not accurate? Sounds like you overreacted to something that has a bit of truth to it.

"Sorry my blog doesn't suit your sensibilities. Why don't you go write your own blog and show us how it's done. I'll then buy you a pack of gum so you can show us all how to chew it."

You set up this blog with a smart-ass opening comment, framing anyone that disagreed with you as "smartass apologists." Pardon me if I ignore everything else you have to say now, especially since your response to Netrunner was "You're an idiot." Yeah, we're all idiots in thinking we could have "dialogue" with you. Sorry about that. Yeah, I can be a sarcastic bitch ALSO.

I'm sure smartass apologists will be by shortly to start some shit.

Who needs to go for the jugular when you can go for the corpus cavernosum? Just sayin'.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I rarely go for the jugular. When I call you a Koch whore, or say similar things, I'm kidding you - kidding on the square, but still kidding. When I asked you to not put auto play videos on my page, I wasn't angry, I just wanted to let you know that it's hit the more annoying than funny threshold. You can be a bit oversensitive when it comes to politics. Me too, though less so the more cynical I get.
Gird your loins.
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
It's hard to tell, because you can so easily jump from being non-douchie to going for the jugular. So I apologize. My bad. Thought you were trying to make a point.
Not the same. It's not about standing up for yourself. It's about doing better than others, and having others trying to cut you down. @gwiz665 said they had something like that in Denmark, but of a different name. It seems most of these partial socialist countries have this "we should all be the same so anyone trying to do better should be ostracized" mentality.
Anyhow, again, if you weren't trying to be a dick, then I genuinely apologize. This is why I hate the written correspondence. Email and online forums be damned. Interpersonal interactions are the best.
In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
No Mr. paranoid. I was referring to the video - which features an Australian woman getting cut down for taking a stand - not you. Sometimes you seem to think I'm out to get you when I'm just fucking around.
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
You mean you weren't being a smartass?
In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
eh?
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Want me to throw a couple more straws into the mix for you to grasp?
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Tall Poppy Syndrome? @blankfist

I rarely go for the jugular. When I call you a Koch whore, or say similar things, I'm kidding you - kidding on the square, but still kidding. When I asked you to not put auto play videos on my page, I wasn't angry, I just wanted to let you know that it's hit the more annoying than funny threshold. You can be a bit oversensitive when it comes to politics. Me too, though less so the more cynical I get.

Gird your loins.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
It's hard to tell, because you can so easily jump from being non-douchie to going for the jugular. So I apologize. My bad. Thought you were trying to make a point.

Not the same. It's not about standing up for yourself. It's about doing better than others, and having others trying to cut you down. @gwiz665 said they had something like that in Denmark, but of a different name. It seems most of these partial socialist countries have this "we should all be the same so anyone trying to do better should be ostracized" mentality.

Anyhow, again, if you weren't trying to be a dick, then I genuinely apologize. This is why I hate the written correspondence. Email and online forums be damned. Interpersonal interactions are the best.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
No Mr. paranoid. I was referring to the video - which features an Australian woman getting cut down for taking a stand - not you. Sometimes you seem to think I'm out to get you when I'm just fucking around.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
You mean you weren't being a smartass?
In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
eh?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Want me to throw a couple more straws into the mix for you to grasp?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Tall Poppy Syndrome? @blankfist

It's hard to tell, because you can so easily jump from being non-douchie to going for the jugular. So I apologize. My bad. Thought you were trying to make a point.

Not the same. It's not about standing up for yourself. It's about doing better than others, and having others trying to cut you down. @gwiz665 said they had something like that in Denmark, but of a different name. It seems most of these partial socialist countries have this "we should all be the same so anyone trying to do better should be ostracized" mentality.

Anyhow, again, if you weren't trying to be a dick, then I genuinely apologize. This is why I hate the written correspondence. Email and online forums be damned. Interpersonal interactions are the best.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
No Mr. paranoid. I was referring to the video - which features an Australian woman getting cut down for taking a stand - not you. Sometimes you seem to think I'm out to get you when I'm just fucking around.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
You mean you weren't being a smartass?
In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
eh?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Want me to throw a couple more straws into the mix for you to grasp?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Tall Poppy Syndrome? @blankfist