I think it's fake, something about the shadow of the eagle that makes me do a double take. Also, Golden Eagles are not native to Montreal and I think we'd hear about this on the news.

An interesting social experiment is to toss it on Facebook, with some blurb about how animals are fighting back against humanity, then see how far the nutjobs take it. =)

Wtf is this? It seems forced and awful. A few people trying a social experiment?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Social Experiment Guess Who troll prank Andrew Hales' to 'Social Experiment, Guess Who, troll, prank, Andrew Hales' - edited by brycewi19

@gorillaman, my having the "same conversation" for forty years is because I have heard it all. I would LOVE for someone to present a new argument so I could think about it. However, that hasn't happened in this thread. For me, it's all same old, same old.

What bothers me? The fact that it has taken me forty years to come up with my experiment. I am deeply embarrassed that in 40 years I have never changed tactics. I just kept repeating myself, thinking that since I was talking to a different person, a different group, the result of the conversation would be different.

Unfortunately, this is my personality -- guileless, obstinate, passionate, deeply sure of my own point of view (because I have constantly tested it against new information, constantly changed my opinion based on new information). But I never had the personal skills to think -- hey, try a new tactic.

There is a reason I am not in politics or sales. I lack some real people skills.

I have told people for 40 years that I was changed when I did this experiment on myself. Well, actually, my personal experiment was more radical. Every time I heard the word "girl", I imagined the subject was a black man, changed the word to "boy" and checked in with how comfortable or uncomfortable I was. That little experiment knocked my socks off as it revealed the power of words to subjugate a group of people. [In the 1970s, you DID NOT call a black man a "boy." The stereotype of a white Southern sheriff with a see-gar in his mouth, calling a grown black man a "boy" was very powerful and real back then. Not so much anymore. Thank goodness.]

But in 40 years, I have never asked anyone to do this experiment, with a time frame so it isn't too onerous. Never framed it as a scientific and social experiment. Never changed my tactics.

I am deeply embarrassed by that. I am also deeply thrilled that I finally figured this out.

If you are willing to do it, of course. It does require effort on your part.

You game? You wanna play? I honestly would love to hear how it goes for you. If that Southern sheriff stereotype resonates with you, feel free to try that version. If you want.

>> ^bareboards2:

@Stormsinger... then maybe you should do it for a week, if those four words don't show up in daily life? Two days? Three days? Especially if you don't watch TV.
If the sample size is too small, then the scientific and social experiment won't have enough data.
It'll show up in videos though. Titles on videos. Comments on videos. That might be a good source. After all, it popped on this video, which prompted this whole conversation!
FYI -- Your "different views" aren't different to me, which is why I say it is the same conversation. I have heard all this before, at various times over the past 40 years. It may be new to you. It isn't to me.
Really happy that you are up for it. This is something new for me, asking folks to try this. I'm really excited to learn about your experience. However it plays out.
Yippee!

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter how many conversations you've had...what's going on -here- is three separate conversations, not one. Just because they blur together for you, doesn't actually unify them.

Nor is the conversation new to me...although the last time I had it, was in college with my then rabidly feminist girlfriend. The girls I grew up with, and the women they became, made it impossible to think that they were in any way less than men. So even then it was mostly just tweaking her...she was cute when she got all wound up. She still is, but she's mellowed quite a bit and reserves her energy for fights that will make an actual difference.

@Stormsinger... then maybe you should do it for a week, if those four words don't show up in daily life? Two days? Three days? Especially if you don't watch TV.

If the sample size is too small, then the scientific and social experiment won't have enough data.

It'll show up in videos though. Titles on videos. Comments on videos. That might be a good source. After all, it popped on this video, which prompted this whole conversation!

FYI -- Your "different views" aren't different to me, which is why I say it is the same conversation. I have heard all this before, at various times over the past 40 years. It may be new to you. It isn't to me.

Really happy that you are up for it. This is something new for me, asking folks to try this. I'm really excited to learn about your experience. However it plays out.

Yippee!

>> ^bareboards2:

Same conversation for forty years. Sigh.
I woke up thinking about this. And before reading what awaited me here, I had an idea. An experiment.
A rational, non-paranoid experiment.
@Stormsinger @gorillaman.... Wanna do a scientific and social experiment? Just for laughs?
Spend one day and use the word "woman" to refer to anyone female over the age of 20. Doesn't have to have any big meaning to it. Just try it. If you happen to hear or read someone use the word "girl" to refer to a female over the age of 20, substitute the word "woman" in your mind.
During this day, for this rational, non-paranoid scientific and social experiment, substitute the word "boy" in your mind whenever you hear the word "man." Say the word "boy" instead of "man" when speaking.
Doing it for a week would be better. I'll settle for a day.
If you decide to try this rational, non-paranoid scientific and social experiment, I'd love to hear about your experience.
One day. Rational. Scientific. Social. Experiment.
Since the words are interchangeable, then you really shouldn't have any trouble doing this rational, scientific, social experiment.
You up for it? I think it would be intellectually interesting. Anybody else out there game for it? We could have a Sift-wide rational, scientific and social experiment!

I do find it a bit odd that you call these different views "the same conversation". I see each of us talking about somewhat different issues.


I'll give it a try...and what's more, I'll make a prediction, based on my own knowledge of my life.

If I hear any of those four words (man, woman, boy, girl) about someone over the age of 20, it'll be an unusual day. They're not words that come up in my normal conversations, and I don't watch TV. If I'm talking to or about someone, I tend to use names. If I'm talking about groups of people, they're rarely segregated by gender, so I would usually use "folks" or "people".

P.S. this quoting thing is starting to get annoying again. It can take anywhere from 1-3 carriage returns to get a blank line between paragraphs now. Did something change recently?

Same conversation for forty years. Sigh.

I woke up thinking about this. And before reading what awaited me here, I had an idea. An experiment.

A rational, non-paranoid experiment.

@Stormsinger @gorillaman.... Wanna do a scientific and social experiment? Just for laughs?

Spend one day and use the word "woman" to refer to anyone female over the age of 20. Doesn't have to have any big meaning to it. Just try it. If you happen to hear or read someone use the word "girl" to refer to a female over the age of 20, substitute the word "woman" in your mind.

During this day, for this rational, non-paranoid scientific and social experiment, substitute the word "boy" in your mind whenever you hear the word "man." Say the word "boy" instead of "man" when speaking.

Doing it for a week would be better. I'll settle for a day.

If you decide to try this rational, non-paranoid scientific and social experiment, I'd love to hear about your experience.

One day. Rational. Scientific. Social. Experiment.

Since the words are interchangeable, then you really shouldn't have any trouble doing this rational, scientific, social experiment.

You up for it? I think it would be intellectually interesting. Anybody else out there game for it? We could have a Sift-wide rational, scientific and social experiment!

none of this solves the problem of psychotic teachers and the fact that google is a better educator.

missing out on a social experience? please... missing out on how to learn to talk like a moron and be dick more like it.

Home school for kids if i ever have em, sports and hobbies for socializing

I don't live in California so
1) I am not sure what you are talking about besides everyone suffering economically since 2007-2008.
2) I am not saying socialism is the way to go, but ignoring it's merits and continuing down a path that is not producing desired results is not helping the situation.
3) How do you insulate yourself from society when by interacting with it, you are apart of it?
4) Who is that second line directed at? I can assure you I did not cause any permanent decay of society. People with money and power are the culprits you seek, not your neighbor.
5) I am not sure of the time period when you classify California as one of the nicest places in the world. Many people probably think it's still pretty nice given it's mild weather.

>> ^chilaxe:

>> ^Porksandwich:
So what socialism experiments plunged California into the state it is in now that didn't exist when it used to be one of the nicest places in the world?

>> ^chilaxe:
@Porksandwich
The US does experiment with socialism.
Here in California, we have some of the highest taxes and most liberal policies in the country, but our academic scores are now literally the dumbest in the country and the state is on the verge of bankruptcy.
If that's what you mean by socialism, nobody wants more of that. People would much prefer how California used to be (one of the nicest places in the world, with high academic scores and a globe-leading economy).


If smug liberals can't figure what they did even in retrospect, these discussions are a waste of time.
Focus on building your own life and career to insulate yourself from the permanent decay of society you caused.

>> ^Porksandwich:

So what socialism experiments plunged California into the state it is in now that didn't exist when it used to be one of the nicest places in the world?

>> ^chilaxe:
@Porksandwich
The US does experiment with socialism.
Here in California, we have some of the highest taxes and most liberal policies in the country, but our academic scores are now literally the dumbest in the country and the state is on the verge of bankruptcy.
If that's what you mean by socialism, nobody wants more of that. People would much prefer how California used to be (one of the nicest places in the world, with high academic scores and a globe-leading economy).



If smug liberals can't figure out what they did even in retrospect, these discussions are a waste of time.

Focus on building your own life and career to insulate yourself from the permanent decay of society you caused and are still causing.

So what socialism experiments plunged California into the state it is in now that didn't exist when it used to be one of the nicest places in the world?



>> ^chilaxe:

@Porksandwich
The US does experiment with socialism.
Here in California, we have some of the highest taxes and most liberal policies in the country, but our academic scores are now literally the dumbest in the country and the state is on the verge of bankruptcy.
If that's what you mean by socialism, nobody wants more of that. People would much prefer how California used to be (one of the nicest places in the world, with high academic scores and a globe-leading economy).

@quantumushroom If facts are so important to you, then why is it that you never employ them while making implausible comments like liberalism causes black people to have babies out of wedlock, or that gays don't want equal marriage rights, or that California is broke because of liberalism.

You proudly admit to getting your media from questionable, corporate funded sources that a) carry no credibility outside of hardcore sympathetic ideologues, and b) have been shown to be less effective at keeping you informed than no media at all. This should be a big red flag.

http://www.good.is/post/poll-finds-fox-news-is-worse-than-no-news-at-all/

Beyond all this, you support a political ideology that has been on the wrong side of history, from slavery to women's rights to civil rights, to labor rights, and continuing with campaigns against gays, Muslims and Mexicans, as well as a continuation of the prejudices of old.

Do you ever wonder how regular German citizens got sucked into supporting fascism? Well wonder no more.

Let's take a look at the 14 defining characteristics of fascism and see how you do....

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

CHECK

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

CHECK

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

CHECK

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

CHECK

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

CHECK

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

CHECK

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

CHECK

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

CHECK

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

CHECK

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

CHECK

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

CHECK

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

CHECK

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

CHECK

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

I've seen nothing to suggest you support fraudulent elections.

13 out of 14. NOT GOOD DUDE. NOT GOOD AT ALL. You are free to dispute which ever ones you like, but you've got years of incriminating comments on this site to back this up.

But of course if you could see it, then the Germans would have been able to see it too, and we wouldn't have had to fight that war.



In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
My problem is only with intellectual dishonesty, whether it's via curable ignorance or deliberate deception is almost irrelevant.

I've been where you are now politically, only LONG ago. I worked my way UP from liberalism, wiped the slate clean with anarchism, aimed toward libertarianism and am now floating in the undefined, invisible world of 'conservatarianism'. I do not agree with liberal policies based on liberals' good intentions. As a taxpayer and citizen, I demand positive RESULTS, and anyone foisting social experiments on society better be ready to defend them when they fail. Do you know the stats on Black crime and births out of wedlock? "Racism" did not cause a 70% illegitimacy rate in the Black community, LIBERALISM did. Crazy Johnson's "Great Society" garbage. The results of holding Blacks to lower standards--including standards of behavior--is self-evident.

There is even a fair argument for gay marriage, but the gay "lifestyle" generally is a sad one, with rampant promiscuity and diseases. It's not established that most gays even want legal marriage. And though no one else cares to acknowledge it, AIDS is a behaviorally spread disease. Remember that the billions politically steered towards AIDS research could also have been spent on cancer research, and cancer affects FAR more people.

California is broke. It got that way due to liberalism. RESULTS. Not good intentions, RESULTS.

You have a right to your opinions, but no one has the right to their own facts. If I had to judge you, I would say you're highly intelligent but misguided, not because your political views don't mirror mine, but because you refuse to step back and view the entire picture.


>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The bottom line is that your problem with gays, blacks and other minorities is just that: your problem. It's not their fault that they have ended up on the wrong side of your emotional development. It's something you need to come to terms with on your own.

Christianity doesn't make distinction between people, or races. We're all equal before God. It does make a distinction between male and female, however, as well it should. It is abnormal to want to eliminate that distinction. Look at the abnormal behavior this is breeding:

http://mommyish.com/childrearing/parents-treat-newborn-child-as-massive-social-experiment-on-sex-and-gender/

That child is going to be screwed up for life, guaranteed. Homosexuality isn't natural. If you were to put 20 homosexuals on an island, what would happen? Within a generation, they would die out.

Homosexuality is a sin and at odds with Gods plan. The humanist position of eliminating all distinctions is what is abnormal and is sign of a sinful culture that is in rebellion against God. It didn't go well for Sodom and Gemorrah, and it certainly won't go well for us either.

>> ^alcom:
Excellent point, luxury_pie.
In a broader sense, I was thinking that rather than poking fun at Canucks for indicting people or groups for advocating genocide or inciting hatred, it is a sign of inevitable progress as evidenced by the numerous developed and developing countries listed on the wiki. This shift towards a humanist coexistence rather than one divided by religious, gender and racial intolerance seems only logical. Unfortunately, we have a long way to go as a species.
>> ^luxury_pie:
Way to go comparing apples with pedophiles @shinyblurry.
@quantumushroom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
not only the canucks, my dear troll.

There is such a huge contrast in demeanor, reasonableness, and verisimilitude between those representing Occupy and other protests around the country/world, and the politicians and talking head tools of the plutarchy. I don't understand how anyone with a brain and just a modicum of tangible social experience can observe the bearing, manner, and intonation of an Eric Cantor, Mitt Romney, John Boehner, any given Republican Presidential candidate or Fox & Friend and, unfortunately (for me), a Barack Obama, and not just feel played, condescended, and lied to. Perhaps it's what happens when one is finally exposed to intelligent, real people, and not just those studied in syntactical ambiguity and the dissemination of bullshit.