Because no one has been all butthurt about it this time. The whole spook thing was bull shit, I think.
>> ^xxovercastxx:

How come blankfist was suspended for saying "spook" but GorillaMan has been on a 2-year "nigger" streak with not even a finger wag?

How come blankfist was suspended for saying "spook" but GorillaMan has been on a 2-year "nigger" streak with not even a finger wag?

I don't deny that 9/11 really happened, nor do I forsake the threat or the security measures if they actually helped to prevent terrorist attacks.

But, in all honesty, I have yet to hear about cases in which these specific measures actually prevented an attack.

Instead, they participate in episodes like this one.

Just take a look at the 20+ TSA-related videos in the VS search alone to note how the organization botches its mandate more than not.

In any case, I would have promoted the video if I had been able to find it -- I could not. Feel free to *isdupe if you can.


>> ^entr0py:

>> ^Trancecoach:
Wouldn't be surprised if this was a dupe. I posted this (again), in light of the recent changes at the TSA, and the rationale that they've given us that the violation of our civil rights is to protect us from the spooks they created.
I don't enjoy defending the TSA; and I think the body scanners and intimate massage pat-downs are outrageous. But the threat isn't imaginary; 9/11 actually happened, and the near misses since then seem credible. Indeed, if someone is going to blow up or hijack your plane, he probably belongs to a small independent group, not a large, structured, mafia-like organization. But that distinction is unlikely to make a damn bit of difference to anyone who gets exploded.
Still, it's a really interesting video, and the point made is an important one. Though if you knew it was a dupe, promote is the best way to give it attention again.

>> ^Trancecoach:

Wouldn't be surprised if this was a dupe. I posted this (again), in light of the recent changes at the TSA, and the rationale that they've given us that the violation of our civil rights is to protect us from the spooks they created.

I don't enjoy defending the TSA; and I think the body scanners and intimate massage pat-downs are outrageous. But the threat isn't imaginary; 9/11 actually happened, and the near misses since then seem credible. Indeed, if someone is going to blow up or hijack your plane, he probably belongs to a small independent group, not a large, structured, mafia-like organization. But that distinction is unlikely to make a damn bit of difference to anyone who gets exploded.

Still, it's a really interesting video, and the point made is an important one. Though if you knew it was a dupe, promote is the best way to give it attention again.

Wouldn't be surprised if this was a dupe. I posted this (again), in light of the recent changes at the TSA, and the rationale that they've given us that the violation of our civil rights is to protect us from the spooks they created.

>> ^eric3579:

Dupe? http://videosift.com/video/The-Al-Qaeda-Myth

Somehow, I think TYT sort of missed the point of their own argument when processed from Facebook's shoes.

Is Facebook just feeding us a line of crap when they say that they pulled the add because they are against all tobacco products? Yes. Clearly. "Spin".

However, are they turning away perfectly good advertising revenue and offending pro-legalization supporters to an extent that might encourage them to do their social networking elsewhere? That one doesn't easily boil down to black and white.

Yes, they are turning away an advertising client. Presumably they have done that before with standard tobacco companies. However, I seriously doubt that in either case the decision to disallow the ads was made with morality or ethics being the primary impetus. I'm sure it was $$$. Facebook is concerned that if they accept the "perfectly good" advertising revenue from pro-pot (or pro-tobacco) clients, they risk offending other, bigger sources of advertising revenue.

This is why you don't see porn on the sift. Advertisers see any content that can offend people as carrying a risk of "guilt by association". They think it isn't worth the risk, so they pull their ads and go elsewhere.

The more logical among us can see that just because Facebook might allow an ad supporting the legalization of pot, it doesn't necessarily mean that Facebook must be the "High Times" of social networking, and might not even preclude them from taking advertising dollars from a contrary viewpoint and running anti-legalization ads also. However, there are a whole lot of illogical people out there, and advertisers are in the business of knowing what spooks the herd, er "target demographic". So, their assessment of what risks offending their audience are their own to make, whether we agree with them or not.

Of course, TYT is also making a $$$ based decision to approach the pro-pot group and encourage them to become an advertising client. Their accountants just ran the numbers and came to the opposite conclusion, probably because they don't have any existing advertising accounts that they feel they risk offending. I guess one can think about it all and become cynical and annoyed with how shady everything is, or they can bask in the glorious machinations of capitalism.

Thanks for the story! When/if it gets to be my time I hope they have little nanobots to do it (maybe not that probable) or that my crying and begging will somehow move the doctor enough to sedate me for the procedure ahahahaha. I seriously don't know if I could take the pain and discomfort.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
In fairness, cystoscopy is a lot better than it used to be. The first time I had one was in 1988. They didn't use any anesthesia, and they probed all the way through my right ureter (the long tube connecting the kidney to the bladder), right up to the entrance of the kidney. I could feel the probe moving around in my back. When I got back to my place after the appointment my roommates thought I should go back to the doctor because I looked so pale.

The next time I had one was just two years ago. It still sucked, but at least they used some anesthesia (it only numbs the urethra), and they didn't go past the bladder. Still no picnic, but much less traumatic than the first time.

In both cases, the first piss you take afterwards burns like you would NOT believe. Now with a prostate exam, you only experience discomfort while it's in progress. No burning, just some pressure pain. It's quite uncomfortable...sort of like someone stuck a finger up your ass. But when it's over, so is the discomfort. Hemorrhoids are more painful, really, and that pain doesn't go away quickly.

Don't mean to spook you, but I figure it's better to know these things ahead of time, so you can mentally prepare yourself. Deep breathing has always helped me, in virtually all pain situations.

In reply to this comment by chtierna:
Yeah, the prostate exam doesn't look so scary but I would lose my mind if I needed to do a cystoscopy or any surgery down there. I would just run until I died.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Prostate exams are unpleasant, but not as bad as some people would like you to believe. I'd rather have 50 prostate exams than one cystoscopy. (Yes, I've had both procedures, and more than once for both of them.) Besides, what's worse: A finger up the ass, or dying from prostate cancer?

In fairness, cystoscopy is a lot better than it used to be. The first time I had one was in 1988. They didn't use any anesthesia, and they probed all the way through my right ureter (the long tube connecting the kidney to the bladder), right up to the entrance of the kidney. I could feel the probe moving around in my back. When I got back to my place after the appointment my roommates thought I should go back to the doctor because I looked so pale.

The next time I had one was just two years ago. It still sucked, but at least they used some anesthesia (it only numbs the urethra), and they didn't go past the bladder. Still no picnic, but much less traumatic than the first time.

In both cases, the first piss you take afterwards burns like you would NOT believe. Now with a prostate exam, you only experience discomfort while it's in progress. No burning, just some pressure pain. It's quite uncomfortable...sort of like someone stuck a finger up your ass. But when it's over, so is the discomfort. Hemorrhoids are more painful, really, and that pain doesn't go away quickly.

Don't mean to spook you, but I figure it's better to know these things ahead of time, so you can mentally prepare yourself. Also, deep breathing has always helped me, in virtually all pain situations.

In reply to this comment by chtierna:
Yeah, the prostate exam doesn't look so scary but I would lose my mind if I needed to do a cystoscopy or any surgery down there. I would just run until I died.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Prostate exams are unpleasant, but not as bad as some people would like you to believe. I'd rather have 50 prostate exams than one cystoscopy. (Yes, I've had both procedures, and more than once for both of them.) Besides, what's worse: A finger up the ass, or dying from prostate cancer?

Well crap.

>> ^sillma:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^joedirt:
He is going 100mph to about 115mph at most.

I'm making the assumption that the speedo is in kph as I don't think anywhere right-hand-drive cars are made/sold uses miles. The first time they show the speedo it's about 165kph (102 mph) and the second time it's around 180kph (111mph).
Of course, the guy's still a dick for driving like that. Even if he's perfectly capable of handling the car at that speed, it doesn't mean he won't spook someone else and cause an accident.

In UK they're right side with mile meters.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^joedirt:
He is going 100mph to about 115mph at most.

I'm making the assumption that the speedo is in kph as I don't think anywhere right-hand-drive cars are made/sold uses miles. The first time they show the speedo it's about 165kph (102 mph) and the second time it's around 180kph (111mph).
Of course, the guy's still a dick for driving like that. Even if he's perfectly capable of handling the car at that speed, it doesn't mean he won't spook someone else and cause an accident.


In UK they're right side with mile meters.

>> ^joedirt:

He is going 100mph to about 115mph at most.


I'm making the assumption that the speedo is in kph as I don't think anywhere right-hand-drive cars are made/sold uses miles. The first time they show the speedo it's about 165kph (102 mph) and the second time it's around 180kph (111mph).

Of course, the guy's still a dick for driving like that. Even if he's perfectly capable of handling the car at that speed, it doesn't mean he won't spook someone else and cause an accident.

From LiveLeak: A B.C. filmmaker says he's lucky to be alive after narrowly avoiding a grizzly attack while filming in the Robson Valley, southeast of Prince George.

Leon Lorenz, who lives in Dunster, B.C., was filming grizzly bears in a nearby valley last Monday evening when he spotted a bear and her cub.

Lorenz said he took cover behind a spruce tree so he could film the bears without disturbing them, but the mother bear picked up his scent.

She turned suddenly, he said, and looked him right in the eyes.

Then, roaring, she charged through the trees right at Lorenz.

He recalls thinking, "This is for real. This is … no bluff charge."

Lorenz set the camera down on a tripod, capturing everything on film, and grabbed his handgun with the hopes of firing a warning shot to scare the grizzly off.

Crouched behind the tree, he aimed his gun high and pulled the trigger — just as the grizzly burst through the branches of the tree, a few feet from where he was hiding.

Lorenz said the shot spooked the bear, which he estimates weighed between 400 and 500 pounds, and she ran off with her cub.

"I knew if I would have run, I wouldn't be here," he said.

"If I didn't have my handgun, even if I would have fired a shot a quarter of a second later, the blast would have been too late. She would have been on me."

'I just thank God that I'm still here'
Lorenz said it's an experience he'll never forget.

"It's something that will stay with me for life. … It was really something that I never expected and I think I've grown from it," he said.

"I think even if I would have hit her, even a very fatal shot … she would have had enough life left in her to do me in."

He believes it would have been nearly impossible to survive an attack at such a close range.

"They were both so fast. It's unbelievable — the speed — and I just thank God that I'm still here."

Lorenz said he's grateful both he and the grizzly survived the encounter.

"The timing couldn't have been more perfect," he said. "The outcome couldn't have been more perfect as far as, you know, I wasn't touched, she wasn't wounded, she wasn't killed, her baby's OK … and I was able to capture the whole thing [on film]."

Lorenz said he has had about a dozen grizzly encounters, but a bear had never charged at him before.

"It just really shows … that their personalities are all different, just like people," he said.

"But also, it shows that they're unpredictable because they can be one way one day and totally different another day and … you just have to be as careful as you can."

1. banning people is a terrrrrible idea.
2. choggie is not a racist, he's an envelope pusher with a history against him.
3. i do believe blankfist has been baiting bt with "spook" and "nigger" comments and innuendo for months, as recently as maybe a week ago with his since edited rock n roll nigger sift.
4. this brings us back to banning people is a terrrrrible idea.

I talk about race because it pisses me off to see the kinds of racism that people are willing to tolerate these days and on this site. You do nothing to help by brushing it aside, and you achieve even less when you preach the gospel of STFU. And why the fuck would I need to be 'called upon' to speak my mind on something I care about?

You say I have no authority, and that no one wants to hear me and that I'm borrowing grief from black brothers? (Wow, did you really just say that? Yikes!) Three intimidating and fallacious arguments that all want me quiet. Why?

Why is it so important to you (and pennypacker and qm) that I shut up on race? You haven't asked me or tried to shame me into not talking about politics, so what's the big deal about race? I'm honestly asking. And why would I need authority? Or your permission? And why would you assume that I speak out solely for the approval of others? And why is it that you think it so wrong for a white guy to stand up for his black brothers? I think you are very, very misguided when you say things like this. I think you should rethink this. I think you should stand up for your black brothers, and they should stand up for you.

As for banning, I don't care. I found his act pretty stale, but it was easy enough to step around. I've got no objections to letting the old coot back in. My point here is not to justify the banning, but just to make it clear that, yes, the dude did have some issues with race, and, no, that kind of shit is not alright, not even if you say it in a cutesy, folksy, eccentric manner. I'm certainly not calling him a hooded, pitchfork wielding klansman - because that kind of overt racism is no longer culturally accepted - if that's what you think. Choggie's racism was less overt than that for sure.

A leading question*: How did the overt racism of yesterday transition into less overt racism of today?? Because people stood up and decided not to tolerate it anymore.

How will the less overt racism of today transition into the even less overt racism of tomorrow? I'll give you three guesses. (hint: same answer as the first question)

What level of racism is acceptable in your eyes?

*the only kind of question a lawyer knows how to ask
>> ^schmawy:

Choggie often used the term "passive aggressive", and I think that for the most part is correct. The small contingency of self-satisfied and judgmental members who use their influence to control content and members disgust me. And he complained about "copypasta" and I see why now, because the first thing you do is run a search. Slimy as a fucking lawyer or angry girlfriend.
Choggie did boatloads to celebrate black culture. You and your crew are so eager to prove how enlightened you are, how right you are, you fly into a tizzy over the slightest invocation of race. Who called on you to perform this duty? Who told you we needed it? Race is only an issue when you whiteys start borrowing grief from our black brothers. Do you think they want your help? Do you really think someone saying "nigger" "spook" or "monkey" is going to cause the Sift to collapse? Jesus Christ. Take it somewhere else.

No, I am not a sycophant for Choggie as so many allege. and it has become clear to me that he shouldn't be here, and I've chastised him behavior many, many, times. Now it's your turn.

I do agree with his perception of the small retinue of ultra PC alpha male thought police who get their rocks of by being superficially righteous and show more clear disdain for diversity of thought than anyone on the site. Burdturgler actually said "If i could vote X off the site I would". I think that's disgusting and show's who's really unable to be tolerant.

Choggie often used the term "passive aggressive", and I think that for the most part is correct. The small contingency of self-satisfied and judgmental members who use their influence to control content and members disgust me. And he complained about "copypasta" and I see why now, because the first thing you do is run a search. Slimy as a fucking lawyer or angry girlfriend.

Choggie did boatloads to celebrate black culture. You and your crew are so eager to prove how enlightened you are, how right you are, you fly into a tizzy over the slightest invocation of race. Who called on you to perform this duty? Who told you we needed it? Race is only an issue when you whiteys start borrowing grief from our black brothers. Do you think they want your help? Do you really think someone saying "nigger" "spook" or "monkey" is going to cause the Sift to collapse? Jesus Christ. Take it somewhere else.