>> ^enoch:

so i had this long and obtuse rant ready to rock-n-roll and then i realized that i didnt care.

HEY CHOGGIE!
/waves


ah..
who am i kidding?
this ball-infested circle-jerk is waaay too much fun to ignore.
now the topic i really dont give two shits about.
why?
because by these comments it appears that some people have taken their crystal ball out and peered into their fellow sifters gooey parts and discerned their intentions.
really?
THATS the ruler you are going to use to understand and comprehend another?
well then call me schizophrenic because that is just the most intellectually lame thing i have ever heard.
how about this different and radical approach when confronted with a comment or post you may not fully understand.
ask the poster what they meant by it.
i KNOW...crazy huh?
because i see a LOT of assumptions about fellow sifters here on this thread.representing a microcosm of presumption which i see all the time here.
and this presumption is based on WHAT..exactly?
posts?comments?
lame lame lame.
in particular i refer to the comments towards qwiz.do you know qwiz?or are you basing your perceptions solely on his snarky (and mysoginist) comments?

many different voices have left the sift or receded to their "quiet place" because of this intellectually stunted practice.
why?
because group-think has slowly drained these people of any desire to share or to even offer their voices to the amalgamated conversation which is the sift.
so what was once a vibrant and often chaotic discourse has become a much more vanilla-pastuerized-bland cookie with little or no flavor and the crunch has become a flaccid, milky piece of toast.

and no offense BB but this thread is about as civil disobedient as pulling the tags off your pillow.


now pass the popcorn @rottenseed

I think I should clarify a little here.
1) The c-punching in question is here: http://videosift.com/video/The-new-Olympic-sport-Cunt-Punching

2) the "malicious" downvoting was a direct response to http://videosift.com/video/The-new-Olympic-sport-Cunt-Punching?loadcomm=1#comment-1204756 because I was annoyed that you votewhored so explicitly solely because it was a controversial video getting many views. It was not really fair to do it, so I'm sorry for that one.

3) The escalating talk against anyone who said they didn't like the C punch was nothing of the kind - it was escalating talk against the people who had nothing against the video. "All you people who like this video are bad people blah blah" I don't like people downvoting my videos, but that is their prerogative. I don't say they're bad people because of it.

I think it's interesting that you get all up in arms on behalf of the site. That seems like an excuse to remove things you don't like. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Oh the terror in having a boob on the front page. It's NSFW, it's hidden for people not logged in. We have had a legitimate video on the front page that was a straight up vagina shot (http://videosift.com/video/The-ins-and-outs-of-a-Vagina). Now, I'll certainly agree that, that thumbnail was a bit too much - like I said in the comments, if I could have changed the thumbnail at the time, I would have.

In any case, the sift is business as usual, so if something's crossed the line for you, maybe you've just moved the line. Anyways, I'm not gonna dig any deeper into this particular grave. I hope you get over it and come back reinvigorated to improving the sift one video at a time. You're a good sifter and you're good to have around here.

>> ^bareboards2:

What prompted this post wasn't the C punch, or the malicious downvoting of a vid of mine, or the escalating snarky talk against anyone who said they didn't like the C punch...
It was the promoting and qualitying of a vid with a naked woman, seated on a chair, head obscured. A bewb shot. On the front page. For the million plus visitors per month, or whatever we are at to see first.
I don't care about bewb shots. I have a pair.
It was the conscious decision to troll the whole site that I found offensive. It was meant to be demeaning. I felt demeaned. And it was meant to punish the site. And I'm sure it has cost the site.
Look, I have been here for years. I see sexist stuff ALL THE TIME that makes me cringe. I say nothing, because there is nothing to be said. It just ... is.
But something has happened in the past two days that crossed a line for me.
I'm still trying to figure out what it is. I just know something isn't okay.

Why do you give the trolls the power to offend you? Placing blame on anonomous people for you being offended is just empowering the jerks.

This is not meant to make less of your thoughts or feelings but really...letting the assholes get to you is your choice.

The web is the Wild Wild West, thus all websites start with WWW. =) There are vids in this site that I don't like but hey...it's not my house...I just hang around and drink the beer in the fridge.


>> ^bareboards2:

What prompted this post wasn't the C punch, or the malicious downvoting of a vid of mine, or the escalating snarky talk against anyone who said they didn't like the C punch...
It was the promoting and qualitying of a vid with a naked woman, seated on a chair, head obscured. A bewb shot. On the front page. For the million plus visitors per month, or whatever we are at to see first.
I don't care about bewb shots. I have a pair.
It was the conscious decision to troll the whole site that I found offensive. It was meant to be demeaning. I felt demeaned. And it was meant to punish the site. And I'm sure it has cost the site.
Look, I have been here for years. I see sexist stuff ALL THE TIME that makes me cringe. I say nothing, because there is nothing to be said. It just ... is.
But something has happened in the past two days that crossed a line for me.
I'm still trying to figure out what it is. I just know something isn't okay.

What prompted this post wasn't the C punch, or the malicious downvoting of a vid of mine, or the escalating snarky talk against anyone who said they didn't like the C punch...

It was the promoting and qualitying of a vid with a naked woman, seated on a chair, head obscured. A bewb shot. On the front page. For the million plus visitors per month, or whatever we are at to see first.

I don't care about bewb shots. I have a pair.

It was the conscious decision to troll the whole site that I found offensive. It was meant to be demeaning. I felt demeaned. And it was meant to punish the site. And I'm sure it has cost the site.

Look, I have been here for years. I see sexist stuff ALL THE TIME that makes me cringe. I say nothing, because there is nothing to be said. It just ... is.

But something has happened in the past two days that crossed a line for me.

I'm still trying to figure out what it is. I just know something isn't okay.

There there, @siftbot. Is @GeeSussFreeK snarky with you? I'll make it alright again.

*isdupe

sighs..
/doublefacepalm
this is becoming....tiresome.
i came to the decision to stop being a snark towards shinyblurry because his tone had softened a bit and he appeared more willing to interact in a more human and engaging way.
since he stated he had been studying for years (specifically what he never states) i put forth a few questions.
i put a lot of thought in to those questions.
not to be an ass,or pull a gotcha nor even to be "right" but rather to hear his response.
the questions were really not that important but his answers would reveal much on how he viewed certain dilemmas facing todays evangelical christian.
and since he says he has studied for years i framed the questions with tidbits and items a first year seminarian would know and would have already dealt with.
i now suspect that when shinyblurry says he "has studied for years" he means personal study.
nothing wrong with that.
thats how i did it too for many years and then was blessed to meet one of the most amazing people who decided to mentor and teach me..dr paul.

@smooman
you totally missed the point of my post.
i was not attempting to prove the existence of these resurrection deities and by proxy disprove jesus.nor did i gank that from zeitgeist..so lets not get derailed.
the question was how does shinyblurry resolve this issue?
his answer was "satan did it".
now that answer from an evangelical perspective is expected but from an intellectual one it is weak.
i am NOT being an ass here,just pointing out what should be obvious.
"satan did it" is a cheap and lazy way out.

@shinyblurry
the questions i asked were conundrums.
you have to think your way through them...not dismiss out of hand.
you have focused on zoraorastrian.
posted links to pages.
may i just say up front that i am not interested in someones elses research nor their conclusions but rather very interested in yours.
my point bringing up zoraorastrian was to illuminate the fact that the bible has been influenced by MANY different and sometimes conflicting theologies,and written by many different authors.
thats why i mentioned gilgamesh.
does the fact that so many authored the bible take away from the its beauty?literature? wisdom?
not at all,but it does paint a picture that is far more human and i was curious how you resolved that issue being an evangelical.
you did answer.."satan"..(i really find that answer unsatisfactory btw)...but you did not say how you resolved that issue.unless "satan" is your true answer and in that case.ok..fair enough.

you never answered which school of theological thought you adhered to (you made me guess).
nor did you answer if you were a preterist.
which is just somebody who believes that messianic prophecy has already been fulfilled.(you wont find any these days.2000 yrs ago you would have though).
this question was in relation to how christianity has evolved over the centuries.
now my question concerning the nicean creed is actually a trick question because it has never been resolved.
325 a.d and the nicean creed was the third attempt and the council decided to stick with it but it never really resolves the trinity.because of this theological failure of the elder council millions over the years have perished and not a small reason chirtianity began to fracture in to smaller subsets...all gaining (and losing ) and gaining again prominence in the christian world.

the questions i asked would reveal if shinyblurry has limited his studies to the 66 books of the KJV or if he has expanded his studies.
again..not for a gotcha moment nor to belittle him, but rather so i would have an idea the parameters in our discussion.

i read the gospels far different than mainstream christianity.
i study origins.
i study the socio-economic and education of that period of time.
the cultural practices and institutions.
when you put all these factors together you gain a much more insightful and complete picture.
i guess i dont understand when someone ignores that very vital part of the equation.
hence my questions.
i wanted to know how shinyblurry dealt with these dilemmas or if he thought of them at all.

living in the bible belt i deal with evangelicals all the time.
in fact i spoke at a local baptist church a few weeks ago.
my sermon was "the mechanics of prayer".they were welcoming and responsive,conversely i have also been told by another group of evangelicals that i will burn in the pit of fire because my idea and understanding of scripture happened to be different from theirs.

i do not understand how some people conflate their religion as themselves.
as somehow they ARE their religion and if their religion comes under any criticism or scrutiny they react like it is THEY who are being personally attacked and lash out with violent intentions (disguised as righteousness).
religion is a system of doctrine and dogma with written scripture as a vehicle.
since scripture is the written word, it is tangible and therefore subject to scrutiny and/or criticism.
and thats how it SHOULD be.i do not know ONE theologian who would disagree with that statement but i have encountered hundreds who feel that ANY scrutiny of their holy text is tantamount to a personal attack upon them.

i was unsure if blurry was a troll or if he was even aware that he was coming across like one.
i am still not sure.
i was ok with making snarky remarks and match blurry tone for tone.until i realized i was behaving poorly and nothing positive would really come out of that form of interaction...maybe amusement for a time.
so i decided to take a different approach and all i got was more of the same.
sad..really.
what a wasted opportunity.
my expectations for this discussion have dwindled considerably.
religion is communal..
faith is personal.
i guess mine is so far removed from shinyblurry's that we are incapable of having a decent discussion with each other.

so there it is folks.as openly and as honestly as i am able.
with sincerity and humility i say this to you shinyblurry.
namaste.

>> ^BoneRemake:

What a bunch of cement dust encrusted city dwelling yuppies most of you sound like.


Well, if we want to sound snarky and condescending, we'll know who to turn to =P

I can't tell if some of you are being facetious.

The difference: These people are celebrating the death of a man that started a war, killed thousands and thousands of innocent people (no, not just Americans), was proud of this, etc. etc. etc.

I don't know which instance of extremist Muslims celebrating that you're thinking of, but they have often celebrated the deaths of the innocent people. Just because they were Americans. That would be like thousands of Americans swarming streets and celebrating the deaths of a bunch of random Muslims, just 'cuz. Have you seen that?

These people aren't cheering because, "Yeah! We got a dirty brown person!" This is Osama bin Laden. This is the psychological (if not practical) equivalent of the death of Hitler. V-ME day isn't going to follow, no, but this is as close as we're going to get. People that celebrated the death of Hitler, were they savages? People that celebrated V-E day? Celebrating the deaths of millions of people in war by kissing in the streets--gasp!

Get over yourselves. Put the snarky superiority down.

Well, it's not about just calling him a war criminal - he is a war criminal (or that's what the evidence I've seen so far leads me to believe, at least). I wouldn't want diplomatic relations with him, I would want to topple him by force. Like Hitler.

In answer to your question. No, you are not morally responsible for the misery in the world. No more so than your conscience dictates. I do think there's a difference between someone actively forcing someone as opposed to someone who have made some bad choices. At some point we, as a society, should say when enough is enough. If there is a benevolent dictatorship, if you can imagine such a thing, then we should not break that up for the hell of it, if the people don't care. If the people are actively rebelling against their dictator and he strikes back with full force, then I think that we should try to minimize the suffering from it

Do the least harm is basically what I want to live by, but I don't want it to be "I go out in the world to fix suffering where I see it", it's a balancing act, eh? When a certain threshold of suffering is passed, it seems prudent to me to take action.

For instance, if someone was homeless I would not necessarily give him money and stuff, but if someone fell over and hurt their leg, I would. It's all a cost/benefit analysis, the benefit being a limiting of suffering.

/ramble
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^gwiz665:
The people are trying to stand up to him, and he's committing outright genocide. Of course, we must do what we can to help the people liberate themselves. Unlike Iraq, this is not just for the hell of it - we are helping the people free themselves, when they do not have the strength themselves, as opposed to Egypt, Tunesia and so on.
If we sit and watch as the civilians are butchered, we are no better (or at least very little better) than the butchers ourselves.

I don't exactly prescribe to your exact moral position on this, but it does seem like a "better" version of Iraq as open rebellion has been happening in the whole region. The tricky problem is, how do you support rebels without directly supporting rebels (look at how well cruise missiles helped stop the fighting in Iraq), while also having to maintain diplomatic relations with the ruler if the rebellion fails, even more so if you are saying he is a war criminal? I can't bring myself to vote for this video though, this lady seemed like she was harboring some irrational hatred for anything US, even though I think it is France (lol?) leading the charge on this one.
Just a little moral question for ya. If you buy a CD player that you don't need, are you morally responsible for the homeless person you didn't give lunch money? Not trying to be snarky, I just find problems with believing in that exact moral position. It would result in a complete stimy of action because you actions could never be probably meshed with all outcomes of maximum happiness. Technocratic morality boredom, signing out!

>> ^gwiz665:

The people are trying to stand up to him, and he's committing outright genocide. Of course, we must do what we can to help the people liberate themselves. Unlike Iraq, this is not just for the hell of it - we are helping the people free themselves, when they do not have the strength themselves, as opposed to Egypt, Tunesia and so on.
If we sit and watch as the civilians are butchered, we are no better (or at least very little better) than the butchers ourselves.


I don't exactly prescribe to your exact moral position on this, but it does seem like a "better" version of Iraq as open rebellion has been happening in the whole region. The tricky problem is, how do you support rebels without directly supporting rebels (look at how well cruise missiles helped stop the fighting in Iraq), while also having to maintain diplomatic relations with the ruler if the rebellion fails, even more so if you are saying he is a war criminal? I can't bring myself to vote for this video though, this lady seemed like she was harboring some irrational hatred for anything US, even though I think it is France (lol?) leading the charge on this one.

Just a little moral question for ya. If you buy a CD player that you don't need, are you morally responsible for the homeless person you didn't give lunch money? Not trying to be snarky, I just find problems with believing in that exact moral position. It would result in a complete stimy of action because you actions could never be probably meshed with all outcomes of maximum happiness. Technocratic morality boredom, signing out!

KnivesOut? Since KnivesOut only had one word (promote) in his comment, I suppose you mean someone else, and since I used the dreaded f-word once in my comment, is my comment the "profane rant" to which you refer? Oh well... I would perhaps agree that it was snarky and in a mocking and sarcastic tone, and perhaps not very polite, but "Profane rant"? Hardly.

Anyway, I think you misunderstood the "why do you want us to burn in hell" question that the hosts in the video asked Mark, they werent complaining that he disagreed with them or that he didn't like their opinions, they are atheists, thats what you would expect from any believer. What they did was to ask an honest question: WHY? it wasnt a pleading whimpering "ooh please dont attack our precious,frail belief/disbelief!" Quite the contrary, they wanted him to elaborate and explain why.

Like them, I am not frightened or threatened in any way by the expression of beliefs contrary to my own, in fact I welcome it. But If I found them to be faulty in their reasoning. Like your rather arrogant claim that Mark, surely a dedicated Christian if there ever was one, had no idea what "true faith" was, and that you could tell us. If its all faith anyway, how is Mark, or anyone else supposed to know the difference? Its all based on arbitrary interpretations of mistranslated text, and a good chunk of wishful thinking. Your true faith is probably blasphemy to mark, who knows?

And deciding which one of you is right , is like using a third chicken to see which of the two first were kicking in the right direction.


Lastly, Please dont make the false comparison suggesting MSNBC is the "FOX news of the left". Its not. Its biased as hell, but its nothing like fox. It doesnt pretend to be balanced, it doesnt systematically lie and distort and its hosts are not insane conspiracy nuts. Compared to FOX, MSNBC is actually fair and balanced.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

KnivesOut - profane rants accomplish nothing in these kinds of discussions. Perhaps your passions run high and you feel your beliefs are 'under assault' merely because I presented a different perspective. But is not the argument of these atheists a condemnation of such broad-brushed insult/attack screeds? Is not their initial point, "Hey - why are you thinking bad things about us just because we believe something you don't?" I happen to agree with that.
So then, is it not innately hypocritical to claim immunity from such attacks but to then turn around and attack someone because they believe something you don't? If you agree with that message, then should you not practice it? Isn't that what atheists are always complaining about in regards to religious followers - that they don't practice what they preach? Why should we take any atheist seriously if they complain about Christians telling him he's 'going to hell', but then calls Christians a bunch of monsters?
It is the presentation of these intolerant positions that bugs me on both sides. Looking at the religious world, there is clearly a continuum of people who range from the truly admirable to the wicked scoundrel. That isn't God's fault. Likewise, in the "atheist world" there are people who are truly admirable and people who are wicked scoundrels. That isn't the Universe's fault. People are people, and in any population you are going to have both ends of the spectrum represented by respectively sized proportions.
It intellectually dishonest to get all "FOX News" or "MSNBC" and use the extremes to condemn the whole. There's some great things about religious faith. They do a lot of good things, and help a lot of people. And no - not all religious help "holds your sandwich hostage"; much of it is completely gratis. To throw the baby out with the bath water does not encourage people to take the atheist position seriously any more so than a Christian who says they love their neighbor while telling them they're going to hell. Both stand equally guilty in my view of rank hypocrisy.

i like the part where TF is snarky

all power to the engines

this video isn't too bad... still don't like the snarkiness

Bill O'Reilly posing that question to Bush is sort of like Bill quoting from an editorial and presenting it as a legitimate statement/question worth questioning someone over. He may have spoke to Bush about something around that topic but I'm pretty sure O'Reilly would not actually ask the same question he did to Obama to Bush in that antagonizing tone. "Does that annoy you?"

I am not an Obama fanboy but I do think he works spectacularly in debate - at the beginning I think he lobs a snarky remark to O'Reilly immediately: "Those guys showed enormous courage as do so many journalists do around the world."

And Bill O'Reilly replied (fictiously of course), "Courage, a journalist? The man's clearly a communist."
>> ^shagen454:

Do you really believe Bill O'Reilly posed that question to GW?

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^shagen454:
It's silly to me that he asked him about how he takes people "hating" him. Did anyone ever ask Bush that

@14:14 "I asked this to President Bush when I talked to him a few weeks ago; Does it disturb you that so many people hate you?"

>> ^ipfreely:

Mel Guzman could have purchased it from a pawn shop, flea market or by any other legitimate means, for all we know. Yet some of you here and on youtube are passing judgement on this person. And I "love" how the speaker makes a snarky remark about having an unemployment form.
How many of you have not had to fill out an unemployment form?
Maybe this person couldn't afford the latest machine because he's, I don't know... unemployed? Maybe he didn't know how to reformat the drives on this machine? Since all the anecdotal information tells us is that Mel got the computer recently and just turned it on.
And before you people jump on my ass... lets read upon the law of Possession of Stolen Goods.
If the individual didn't know the goods were stolen, then the goods are returned to the owner and the individual is not prosecuted. Innocent possession is not a crime.. If Mel was the original thief, why would he still have the computer? Wouldn't a thief sell it quickly as possible to make money... Not hold on to it for 2 years then use it himself?
So it's okay to virtually lynch Mel Guzman... Vigilante Justice in a form of a Hacker Hipster is acceptable in Videosift world?
Videosift is liberal minded, yet there are 98 of you who just assume Mel Guzman stole this computer. You fuckers don't believe in due process before passing judgment?
And yes, it is true it's not the court of law. Yet this video has been viewed by over half of million people... What if one of these people were someone who wanted to hire Mel Guzman. Now because of some smug smart-ass douche bag, Mel Guzman will continued to be unemployed.
You know what would be true justice... If the authorities finds mp3's downloaded from Limewire and RIAA sue the speaker, because we all know Mel does not have the password to install any applications on this machine.
You bunch of phony liberal fuckers. I consider myself a center-right, yet even I know this is wrong.
Merry Fucking Christmas and Happy New Years Assholes.