<sexy voice> Would you remove my body?

<confused introspection wondering what I just said>

<outward commitment to original ambiguous statement to avoid perceived social stigma>

<ponderance of self-reflective statements in the comments of a long-dead philosophical video>

That's a great question. The area is semi affluent and known for being pretty conservative.

My guess is that along with people feeling like they are personally successful they are being fed media that describes the progression of scientific understanding as "proof" that scientists who are forming recommendations don't know what they are talking about.

With this type of narrative clouding the purpose and reasons behind the recommendations these people feel like their own success makes them a better judge of what they should be doing for everyone's health and safety.

Add in a little talk about freedom and stigma of being a nerd and you have large social groups that deny the need to follow scientific recommendations that are meant to statistically reduce the broad impact of the virus' affects.

I look at it this way....in the time they would likely serve in prison for aggravated rape and kidnapping, (that time likely made much longer due to the racial components), the likelihood they would both be raped themselves nears 100% (that likelihood also higher due to the racial components, racial revenge rape), assuming they survive. Add to that the 15+- years in prison and lifelong stigma of being a class 1 sex offender. Considering all that, the rape accusation carries far worse consequences than a one evening kidnapping and rape would, although both are excessively egregious. Also, keep in mind that every false accusation effects the likelihood of successfully prosecuting real rapists. I have no stats about that, but I would guess easily 5 rapists go free for every proven false accusation....to pull a number right from my ass. The consequences of the false accusations can easily be the more serious of the two, imo, when all is considered.

I see your point and agree, and I think there should be stringent requirements to prove an accusation was false before pursuing prosecution, but in cases where there's no question like this one, convict and send a strong message with a long....long sentence, not one year (in most places meaning no prison, local jail, and probably under 1/4 of that time actually served since it's considered non violent).
And yes, major compensation is in order. This accusation will follow and haunt them for life, even though it was retracted.

I agree, this is an outlier, but it's a devastating, life altering crime and needs to be treated as such when it's proven. Because rape is much more prevalent than false rape charges is not an excuse to ignore this or in any way hinder aggressively prosecuting it, in my mind it's a reason to go after it harder.

Edit:also, I'm completely irrational in my hatred of liars.

Sorry, that's pretty culturally-ignorant thinking right there.

Japanese people are not "meek" or "inhibited" any more so than Americans are. There are different cultural rules about self-expression but there are most certainly loud, aggressive, and flamboyant people here. They just express themselves in different ways than your typically loud, aggressive, and flamboyant American would.

You might think socioeconomic factors were a reason for the lack of crime, but you'd be wrong there too. Japan has a higher poverty rate and lower median income than the U.S.

The low crime rates here can much better be attributed to cultural factors. Every Japanese person is raised with the belief that it is shameful cause problems to the people around them, whether that be family, schoolmates, or co-workers. Getting arrested is about the most shameful thing you could do here. Just being suspected of a crime will likely get you fired from your job, before you are even tried.

And let's not forget the role the justice system here plays. If you get arrested you are almost 100% going to get convicted because the odds are massively stacked against you in the court system. You are basically guilty until proven innocent. Read this for more info about it.

And people here know this. They also know that Japanese prison is hellish. You won't be raped or assaulted there like in the U.S. but you will know exactly what is like to have all of your freedom stripped completely away.

You add to all of this the low unemployment rate of Japan, the high regulation of all weapons (including knives), a robust social system for helping the unemployed (although unfortunately lately a lot of people seem to be falling through the cracks), a nationalized health insurance plan (I pay a $1 co-pay to take my daughter to the doctor and all prescribed medicines are free), a strong social stigma against drug use, and the ability as an island nation to strictly police the borders to prevent the influx of illegal goods (i.e. drugs/guns) and you get the low crime rates in Japan.

tl;dr

There is little incentive to commit crime in Japan because the both social and legal repercussions are extremely severe, and there is little need to resort to crime to survive (plentiful jobs and robust social security). Likewise the opportunity to commit crime is lessened because of the strict regulation of weapons, drugs, and borders.

EDIT: I will say that on more than one occasion I've thought that a career criminal in the U.S. who suddenly found himself in Japan would feel like a kid in a candy store. Because of the lack of crime, people here don't take precautions against it--some people leave doors and windows unlocked when leaving the house, you'll see laptops or iPads left in cars in plain view, and people carry ridiculous amounts of cash on them (I'm talking like on the order of $1000 or more in some cases). On the one hand it can be reassuring but on the other hand I seriously worry about these people when they travel overseas.

@Diogenes

Thank you for your detailed answer. I do agree with you that context matters and that words are neither inherently good or bad by themselves. However, I think you’re looking at the situation from a more microscopic point of view as a simple joke between two people. I prefer to take a more macroscopic view of the situation. Allow me to explain.

Going back to my hypothetical example, it’s true that I didn't mean any harm when I used the term "retard" towards my brother. I think all people like to think of themselves as "good" people. For example, I would never in my life point at person with Down Syndrome and scream "Retard!" at the top of my lungs or attempt to belittle someone with an actual mental disability. The problem, however, is that by using the word in the way I did in the example I am tacitly--and quite publicly (remember this is happening in a parking lot)--endorsing the equating of people with mental disabilities to stupidity. I may be making a joke towards my brother but it isn’t just my brother that winds up being the butt of the joke.

Now maybe from your perspective, it’s just one person saying a joke. Look at the context, you might say. It’s a distasteful joke but no big deal, right? And I could agree with that if it was just some off-color joke limited to a single individual. Unfortunately, and I think we can both agree on this, the use of “retard” to mean “stupid” is a relatively common occurrence in American vernacular. You couple that with the stigma against mental illness and mental disability and I think it becomes fairly plain to see that on the macroscopic level (i.e. society) we have a problem: a group that is socially disadvantaged and historically discriminated against is even further marginalized by the language people use in their everyday lives. Now, if you don’t agree this is a problem, I’m afraid the conversation has to end here since the logical conclusion of such a stance is that people should be free to say whatever they want and be immune to criticism, damn the consequences.

But if you do agree it is a problem, how are we going to solve it? My take on the situation is that doing absolutely nothing when witnessing a situation like the one I've described is unlikely to improve society in any way. The status quo will be maintained if people are not confronted about their language use.

That being said, people often say things without fully comprehending the implications of what they are saying. They often talk the way they were raised and never once questioned whether what they were saying was actually harmful or not. I don’t think people should be pilloried for that, but in the event that they are unaware of how they are contributing to the discrimination and oppression of others they certainly need to be educated.

This necessarily entails confrontation, although that confrontation might be very low key. Continuing the example above, I think a good way for the woman in the example to “enlighten” me about my misguided use of the word “retard” would be something along the lines of this:

“Excuse me. I really wish you wouldn’t equate having a mental handicap with stupidity. My nephew has Down Syndrome and even though, yes, he can’t do everything that a person without an intellectual handicap can do he is most certainly not stupid.”

Now, all of that said, I see nothing wrong with publicly shaming those who clearly understand the implications of what they are saying and out of either stubbornness, a need for attention, or actual spite willfully continue to use language that is degrading or oppressive. A white person frequently using the N-word in public to describe black people, for instance, is a situation where I’d be completely fine with them getting verbally eviscerated. We don't always have to be polite, even when being politically correct.

As a final note, I want to make it clear that I believe in free speech in the sense that everyone should be free to say whatever they wish. However, as a caveat to that I also believe that free speech comes with the responsibility that people must own everything they say. If someone wishes to use offensive, degrading, or oppressive language that is their choice. Free speech in no way gives them a free pass from criticism of that choice, however.

Better than skinemax -- not to say I haven't watched plenty of those movie late at night hahaha!

Funnily enough Zatoichi is a masseuse because of his affiliations with the zakuza and being blind; essentially he can't find any other work due to social stigmas and is picked on for the nature of his lower class status. The lower class status which thrusts criminality and an association with sexuality upon him.

Being a masseuse is associated with being a prostitute, therefore he is disregarded even more so.

So your natural inclination to be amused and associate that profession with sex is almost proof of a portion of Zatoichi's struggle.

The struggle against those whose tendency is to mock rather than perceive.

So...if a fetus is created from only female DNA, it would be sinless?
Why aren't the church and all Christians pushing for cloning research then? It's only logical that, if sin is only from the father, and that sin, untreated, leads to eternal damnation, there should be an all out push to eradicate it like polio, by removing the offending relatives....but there's not. It seems the church either disagrees with you, or has completely failed to consider the implications and responsibilities of that stance. Today, given funding and removing the stigma, it's totally possible to make all the female Jesuses one could ever ask for, complete with virgin births, that could start the new era of sinless humanity, removing any need for Jesus or God. ;-)

The bit about pop culture portraying New Yorkers as criminals, with the "stigma" leading some to intentionally lose their accents, that was pretty lame for an otherwise intelligent video. It gets presented as a researched fact when it sounds more like a ridiculous theory.

From my experience, current generations weaned on those movies shown in the clip would be more inclined to adopt that accent as just another affectation, tattoo, piercing, meme, avatar, email signature, sampling, bumper sticker.

And the bit about the accent losing favor after WWII, "as Americans were focused on their own identity, rather than maintaining ties to England". Sounds like something a college freshman would write at the last minute to fill out a 1000 word essay.

@RedSky

here is what i don't get.
how is it the governments business what i ingest in my own body for whatever reason?

may be it is for the relief of pain.
may be it is to alleviate stress or mental anguish,and even,in some cases,mental illnesses.
or maybe i just want to get high.

i realize you have already addressed the hypocrisy and horrible execution of,what basically comes down to a social issue,but how is this the governments business?

the science is in and weed has been proven to be fairly harmless,even in abusive situations.

the biggest problem america faces today,which includes booze and smokes,is prescription pain medication.which is basically heroin addiction,but since pain pills do not hold the stigma of heroin,it is not been addressed in any substantive way.oh..this country is arresting people in droves for selling and carrying but almost nary a PEEP in the form of education.

so why is government stepping into my business?
something i engage in at home,bother nobody and keep to myself.yet i am still deemed a criminal.yet my crime is a victimless crime.

if i drive my car,or operate heavy machinery while high,that is a different story and the law should be applied exactly as it is with booze for the exact same reasons.

the state should get out of my house and stop telling me which intoxicants are "state approved",because,quite frankly..i dont give it a shit.

this archaic and destructive social policy needs to go the way of the do-do.it serves no purpose any longer,and the massive propaganda campaign that was initiated by henry anslinger at the behest of big textile in the fucking 40's should not be given even the remotest credibility by todays standards.

people like their hooch.no matter what form it takes and the government has zero business dictating which "hooch" we choose.

I would say that in general that both parties have extreme Members that do more harm to the public good and are more about lining their own pockets. The old timers time have come and do need to be replaced with those who reflect today's ideals. Harry Reid and John McCain types need to go.

Yes Republicans are the holier than thou and come up short often enough. We all fail from time to time but at least they try.
Democrats doesn't even try to be holy and to me that is frustrating.

The only good thing about our government is that the people are the final check and balance. However people are too busy being self absorb to pay attention to government. No one is watching the hen house.


The purpose of this video was for this man to show that the 7% of the black population who do not feel that the democrat philosophy is the correct way to go.

This is this mans opinion.
Granted the black face brings a stigma from yesterdays past.
But this is from a black man. He can get away with it. Like white people cant say N but the black man can and it is ok.

Since he does not hold the majority view as seen by his counterparts ( blacks and sifters )this video was discarded as racist trash.

I look at racist as one group feeling superior over another.
This black man is not doing this. He is not demonstrating this belief.


As far as the FU we all at times are quick to do this. I have done this also.

Enjoy the Superbowl

Since panthers are my home town team I will root for them tonight. Beside they have one heck of a season.

I used to become physically ill because my wife likes watching these for some reason, and I'd pass through the room, look, and become nauseous.

I think it was the idea that the puss oozing out of these holes is reminiscent of insects. Once I reminded myself that it wasn't a worm being unburrowed, it got easier.

It's still not my go-to for entertainment, but it's tolerable now. It's also admirable that this Dr. realizes the stigma associated with conditions like this and is helping to change that & help people to take care of their skin free of charge.

What is 'Pizzamas' and what cult do I need to join to celebrate?

Also, it's always good to talk about mental illness. Stigma sucks.

I don't think it's supposed to be taken in a general way and applied to "gay" people, but rather telling the story that isn't very often heard about those people who don't identify as either gay or straight, or who fall into the bisexual, asexual or questioning (gay/bi/trans curious) categories of the LGBT[QIA].

The truth is, we want to believe SO BADLY as a society that we are either gay or straight. And then we want to label ourselves to find community and identity SO BADLY, that some people get caught in the middle of two (or more!) different worlds, and that neither normative communities quite describe their sexuality. Hence the final comparison with the romantic comedy Sliding Doors. Also, that's why these crazy parties exist in the first place. (You're NOT invited.)

Let's see, there's:

L is for Lesbian, which is women's special gay letter. Technically you could just call LGBT, GBT, as some women identify as gay but not lesbian, or vice versa, or both. But women are special because of feminism, so they get L and G but men only get G.

Don't get on my ass because I speak the truth. I attend plenty enough GBT events to know the fluctuating social stigmas within the group, as well as the bitter rivalries between different letters of the acronym (or those who want to lengthen or shorten the representative letters). It's confusing to people who have this misconception that all stories of gay or lesbian people apply to all gay or lesbian people. It's so diverse, what's even the point of labels any more?

Anyway, moving on.

G is for Gay, which is women or men, but in common usage was (or is, depending on your perspective) for men. Yet as time goes on and the information age fills in our social gaps, women have begun to identify as gay. In fact, I have a genderfluid friend who was born female, but often identifies as a gay male, and has even been accepted into the ranks of the the Gay Men's Chorus. Take that label obsessed society!!

B is for Bisexual, which is a broad category that I'd say more aptly covers this situation, but even more so I think the Q (Questioning) with a little or a lot of A (Asexual) of the greater acronym LGBTQ or LGBTQIA is an even better term for these two star crossed lovers.

T is for Transgender, which is another broad category but with very specific splinter factions of crossdressers, transexuals, transvestites, genderfluid, etc. etc. Some of these terms, depending on the context are either outdated, have new or older and more specific defining characteristics, or even more often, people define themselves as the umbrella term itself, transgender, because the feelings of one or the other specifics oscillates and changes as transgender people (male and female) age. I know trans people of all ages and wow, the perspectives are vast, and are rarely consistent throughout the years. (You just DON'T know how you'll identify at the age of 65+.)

Q is for Questioning, which is for people who just don't know what they are. This one is really an open ended letter and often isn't included because it represents an ignorance of the self. Maybe you figure out your sexuality or gender specifics right away or maybe it takes you years of experimentation to find your niche. Or maybe you transcend the boundaries forever, always changing and never staying the same throughout the years. The main thing here is that you don't know. Maybe you have a gay romance and then you're like, "Damn, I'm definitely straight" and now you're not even part of LGBT. Q is like the gateway letter. lol

I is for Intersex, which is for people who have genitalia or other gender defining anatomy which is different, not entirely present, is equally both, or more of one than the other. Look it up, because I'm the least familiar with this one, though I do have friends who are intersex. I just haven't asked them enough specifics out of respect. Also, recent research into genetics has shown that you could have a portion of your body that isn't gender defining, but which is made up of the opposite sex's genetic code. I've heard of people who have had their toe or their heart identified as male, but the rest of their body is female. Some people will never even know they're intersex, and depending on what part of their body is intersex, may not experience any feelings other than their body's dominant sex. (I don't have a scientific link, but it was part of a topic that I attended at PRIDE.

A is for Asexual, which is for people who don't have sexual feelings, or who don't act on sexual feelings for any number of reasons intellectual, physical, or both. I don't know how broad this category is but I myself go through periods (sometimes years) of asexuality. A defining characteristic for some people who have misidentified as gay or bi. For example, my parents thought I was gay and I had friends who would openly call me gay, despite me not showing ANY sexual emotions towards either sex. Though I did have both guys and girls who would hit on me or have sex (oral or otherwise) with me on the down low, despite my half interest in both! People are curious and when you can't figure out someone's sexual identity, some people will lay it on so thick, it could be seen as sexual harassment. I knew several girls that just wanted to have sex with me so bad to figure out if I was gay or straight. I just didn't care about either sexes at the time, though I was pleasantly stimulated to varied effects.

I think this is the story that isn't told. If you're asexual or going through an asexual period, that doesn't make you gay!

There could be more movies or shorts out there telling this story, but this is the first honest look into the Q and A of LGBT that I've ever seen. Shit, and I thought when I published my book I'd be the first. Damn. heh

I disagree. You can't show up at Uni at 18 expecting to do medicine without having spent the preceding years learning biology, and probably maths as well. Of course, it's true that this knowledge is eventually eclipsed, but I don't think you can look at the cap stone and dismiss all the stones at the bottom as unnecessary.

That said, I do think there is too much focus on Uni as the sort of aspiration for everybody. Vocational routes have been looked down upon for much too long. The stigma is real. Every politician will applaud apprenticeships as a vital and honoured progression route...but how many will be happy with their kids dropping out at 16 to do one?

I'm going to contribute to it just because I believe in the research & science of the compound. I have no idea of how they are going to test it considering they never actually go into any detail. It needs to be studied. It's hilarious that these days the other psychedelics are being studied more intensely than ever by medical firms, Universities etc, all over the world for their positive attributes considering science has come a long way enough and the BULLSHIT stigma that was placed on those substances still remains but has somewhat subsided to a large degree.

As for people that have never experienced this substance - that is 100000% beyond the other psychedelics (probably since it's actually endogenous) - what you can take away from such an absurd idea like this (and even I think it's a pretty ridiculous experiment for a few reasons) is that - oh shit, this stuff is beyond anything that you could imagine and that alone is a reason to research.