Far too long....

>> ^quantumushroom:
QM:I'm happy to see that you accept the label 'right wing nutjob', that saves us time.
If it makes you happy to believe that, go right ahead. And there is no time being saved here at the sift.


Make me happy? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
It saved me time to waste on other stupidness.


I wonder where you get your 90% figure (or your implication that 100% of teachers unions are democrat)...if true, why don't right wingers believe in education and journalism? No one is stopping them from being teachers or journalists.
"MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.
The pattern of donations, with nearly nine out of 10 giving to Democratic candidates and causes, appears to confirm a leftward tilt in newsrooms."


So, in your small sampling, it's 87%. I somehow think the sampling may have been intentionally skewed, but OK. Note I didn't disagree with your stat, just questioned it's origin, if it was Faux, I would discount it offhand.


You're part right about McCain, I did respect him for the most part (but didn't always agree with him) until he sold his soul and lost his mind in/after 2000 when the 'straight talk express' took a 90 deg right turn into a sewage filled ditch of lies, direction changes, blatant pandering, and BS. It makes me shudder to think what might have been if he had been president during his 'right wing wind sock' days, turning whichever way the right wing wind blew that day.
Yeah, because things are going SO great with the clueless community organizer at the helm. Did you see the Dow drop 500 points today? No confidence in the Obamateur, from Americans or the world.


You seem to assume that because I think McCain is worthless now that Obama must be my preferance, and that I support his policies and actions and think he's leading us strongly. That is an incorrect, and all to often made assumption. Why must you continue to make an ass out of umption, do what you like to yourself.


You have no idea when or how I was raised, so you should refrain from commenting on that subject. Let's just say your statement is wrong, as I'm sure are most of your assumptions about me.
Well, you're not overtly libertarian or conservative. So what's LEFT?


I'm what used to be republican. I'm a social liberal, and fiscal conservative. There is no sane party I can call home today.


The idea that the left is 'running roughshod' over the right is more complete insanity, the left is incapable of being cohesive enough to do much of anything intentionally. The right is cohesive, but their ideas are insane and proven repeatedly to be wrong for the most part. I do give them credit for knowing how to get their agenda furthered, I just disagree with their agenda as enacted.

Obama is on track to spend more than bush, but he has not yet. The reasons for the respective spending sprees and amount of each is another discussion in itself.
Sorry, this is untrue. Obama so far has spent 3 trillion in 3 years, whereas Bush spent close to 5 trillion in eight years, much of it opposed by the Right.


This is why people call you nuts...you are insisting that 3 trillion is more than 5 trillion, and that spending sprees and tax (revenue) cuts under total republican control were against republican (the right's) wishes.


All taxpayers tired of being 'over' taxed are not right wing nutjobs, or even right wingers. That's an utter falicy and insulting BS. It's seemingly easy for you to point at the failings of one underfunded, over administrated program (public schools) and make the leap to the theory that all governmental programs are failures, but that is a gross simplification of a multifaceted problem.
Goverment schools are "underfunded"? On what planet? BTW, there is no direct correlation between school performance and how much money is spent per student. I believe DC spends the most per student and you can see how well that turned out.


Underfunded because of insane administration costs, better? More money doesn't automatically make better schools, but it helps, but not if it's all spent on non-school related administration expenses.


Even so, that theory doesn't hold water. The 'free market' for higher education shows that many, if not all completely 'private' schools provide sub par education (if any at all) while many schools using 'public' funds are among the highest ranked in the nation.
And yet how many liberal politicians send THEIR kids to private schools, even as they need teacher union votes? Competition weeds out crappy private schools while failing government schools keep churning out dummies. Government schooling is a racket, as well as unconstitutional at the federal level.


I'm not sure your arguement here...I'm not a liberal politician, or a true supporter of them, so how does what they do relate to me? I've been to good and bad private and public schools, the ones with money always had a leg up. I really believe if you have children, you should be taxed the cost of a decent education and allowed to spend it at the school you prefer (excluding religious school, that's another issue). Since this doesn't happen, I prefer decent public education be purchased with my tax dollar rather than prison cells and barbed wire. I do see it as an either or situation.


I'm sure you did call the feds attempt at stoping the failed CEO's from looting the failing companies we had just bailed out "obamatrons trying to loot corporations in the name of "social justice" ", so why isn't it 'the far right trying to loot the pensions and paychecks of the teachers' in the name of social justice? What's good for the goose...right? A legal contract is a legal contract, right?
I was never a fan of any bailout. Bush was barely conservative as it was. The left was too busy hating Bush to notice him rubber-stamping most of their spending requests. Stupid Hillary is on record claiming she'd like to seize all of the oil companies' profits. To the best of my knowledge, some states are making some teachers pay a tiny fraction more for their own health insurance and/or pension. Hardly the a$$rape by unnamed "far right" specters you're insinuating.


I'll never understand the arguement that, when confronted with their own abhorrent behavior people answer with 'look, that other guy I always call an a$$hole is doing bad stuff too'.
As I understand it, many states are cutting back on pension payments, or not paying them at all. At the same time they are regulating teachers, denying them union status, and forcing renegotiation of in place pay and work hours/load contracts. Not total a$$ rape, but close, and certainly not fair or acceptable treatment.

I'm not sure if you are ignoring my last statement there or if that's some kind of 1/2 assed, racist response. Either way, TOTAL FAIL.
Knowing me, I probably just didn't give a sh1t. Nothing personal. Youse guys have such thin skins when it comes to these faux-racial matters. What part of 'Kenyanesque Hawaiian' is racist? Odumbo's fadda was Kenyan and he (the son) was purportedly born in Hawaii. Where's the racism? Only in your mind.

I said:Letting right wing nutjobs re-write contracts and negate our obligations was one of our biggest mistakes.

You replied: Fail. The Kenyanesque Hawaiian never met a spending cut he liked. He's overclocked this economy because he wants to cripple it. Here comes the broom to sweep the moonbats out of the belfry.

The ridiculous infactuation with his ancestory (race) is where the racism is. Kenyanesque only applies if he acts Kenyan, and he does not. It is intended to be racially insulting, you know it, we know it. Either give it up or own it.
It's sad that you just don't give a sh!t about your people being so unstable that you can't trust any agreement made with them. That's my issue, not so much their political party, but their actions and trustworthyness. I'm hardpressed to find a politician of either party I wouldn't call fectless and feculant. I call out the right more often because they went bat sh!t crazy and deserted me, leaving me partyless.

QM:I'm happy to see that you accept the label 'right wing nutjob', that saves us time.

If it makes you happy to believe that, go right ahead. And there is no time being saved here at the sift.

I wonder where you get your 90% figure (or your implication that 100% of teachers unions are democrat)...if true, why don't right wingers believe in education and journalism? No one is stopping them from being teachers or journalists.

"MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.
The pattern of donations, with nearly nine out of 10 giving to Democratic candidates and causes, appears to confirm a leftward tilt in newsrooms."

FOX news appears to 'tilt' right. You may have heard of them.

As for conservative educators, they're out there but are a minority on kollij kampii.

You're part right about McCain, I did respect him for the most part (but didn't always agree with him) until he sold his soul and lost his mind in/after 2000 when the 'straight talk express' took a 90 deg right turn into a sewage filled ditch of lies, direction changes, blatant pandering, and BS. It makes me shudder to think what might have been if he had been president during his 'right wing wind sock' days, turning whichever way the right wing wind blew that day.

Yeah, because things are going SO great with the clueless community organizer at the helm. Did you see the Dow drop 500 points today? No confidence in the Obamateur, from Americans or the world.

You have no idea when or how I was raised, so you should refrain from commenting on that subject. Let's just say your statement is wrong, as I'm sure are most of your assumptions about me.

Well, you're not overtly libertarian or conservative. So what's LEFT?

The idea that the left is 'running roughshod' over the right is more complete insanity, the left is incapable of being cohesive enough to do much of anything intentionally. The right is cohesive, but their ideas are insane and proven repeatedly to be wrong for the most part. I do give them credit for knowing how to get their agenda furthered, I just disagree with their agenda as enacted.



Obama is on track to spend more than bush, but he has not yet. The reasons for the respective spending sprees and amount of each is another discussion in itself.

Sorry, this is untrue. Obama so far has spent 3 trillion in 3 years, whereas Bush spent close to 5 trillion in eight years, much of it opposed by the Right.

All taxpayers tired of being 'over' taxed are not right wing nutjobs, or even right wingers. That's an utter falicy and insulting BS. It's seemingly easy for you to point at the failings of one underfunded, over administrated program (public schools) and make the leap to the theory that all governmental programs are failures, but that is a gross simplification of a multifaceted problem.

Goverment schools are "underfunded"? On what planet? BTW, there is no direct correlation between school performance and how much money is spent per student. I believe DC spends the most per student and you can see how well that turned out.

Even so, that theory doesn't hold water. The 'free market' for higher education shows that many, if not all completely 'private' schools provide sub par education (if any at all) while many schools using 'public' funds are among the highest ranked in the nation.

And yet how many liberal politicians send THEIR kids to private schools, even as they need teacher union votes? Competition weeds out crappy private schools while failing government schools keep churning out dummies. Government schooling is a racket, as well as unconstitutional at the federal level.

I'm sure you did call the feds attempt at stoping the failed CEO's from looting the failing companies we had just bailed out "obamatrons trying to loot corporations in the name of "social justice" ", so why isn't it 'the far right trying to loot the pensions and paychecks of the teachers' in the name of social justice? What's good for the goose...right? A legal contract is a legal contract, right?

I was never a fan of any bailout. Bush was barely conservative as it was. The left was too busy hating Bush to notice him rubber-stamping most of their spending requests. Stupid Hillary is on record claiming she'd like to seize all of the oil companies' profits. To the best of my knowledge, some states are making some teachers pay a tiny fraction more for their own health insurance and/or pension. Hardly the a$$rape by unnamed "far right" specters you're insinuating.

I'm not sure if you are ignoring my last statement there or if that's some kind of 1/2 assed, racist response. Either way, TOTAL FAIL.

Knowing me, I probably just didn't give a sh1t. Nothing personal. Youse guys have such thin skins when it comes to these faux-racial matters. What part of 'Kenyanesque Hawaiian' is racist? Odumbo's fadda was Kenyan and he (the son) was purportedly born in Hawaii. Where's the racism? Only in your mind.

>> ^Sagemind:

I think of the word gay as something fun, the way the word was intended.
Time and culture is re-defining the word.
When I hear it used to describe something not cool, I often think of Michael Jackson's "Bad". Meaning the slang intention of describing something using the opposite term. (wow, That's "Sick!")


OK, a couple of things here. First off, I think it's generally fine when a word's meaning gradually changes, as in the words "bad" or "cool" (even "nice" used to mean something else, way back when), and I'm not generally opposed to language evolving. When a word changes so that its connotations become negative, in the case of a word used to describe a minority, it is damaging to members of that minority.

The major point I want to make is that the word "gay" has the connotations of "generally bad" because of the homophobia of many of those who use it that way. To these people, "Gay" has come to mean "generally bad" because being gay (ie being a homosexual) is bad. This is one change in the language that shouldn't pass without protest, just as we wouldn't tolerate the use of the word "jewish" should kids start using it to refer to things they think are bad, as in "I hated that film, man, it was so jewish". If that started happening, I think the opposition to this new usage would be a lot stronger than it is for "gay".

Also, I don't believe for a minute that the first meaning that comes into your head when you hear the word "gay" is "happy" or "something fun", unless you're a time traveller from the 1930s.

>> ^Sagemind:

Not so much as using "reverse gendered" individuals as the target but taking an innocent word, meaning good and great and fun and turning it around to mean un-good, un-great or un-fun.
Gay people need to realize that the term was there before they started using it and it has a true meaning, even if they are upstaging it.


You have the wrong end of the stick there. The history of the word "gay" as applied to homosexuality started as a polite euphemism for homosexuals, particularly those flamboyant individuals for whom its connotations of "happy and merry" and "homosexual" would have been most apt. Gay people did not start using the term themselves until after it had been applied to them. The community didn't just start using this new connotation of "gay" and decide that everyone should go along with it, any more than Native Americans walked up to the colonists upon landing and introduce themselves as redskins or Indians. Therefore "gay" doesn't have a "true meaning" that gay people are undermining. I think the desire to prevent its mutation into a pejorative term is entirely reasonable, especially considering the gay community has still so much to fight for in terms of equal rights and the right to live without fear of prosecution.

"Reverse gendered"? Is that what you think gay people are? I'll put that down as a bad choice of words.

Ryjkyj, anyone who has truly been bullied will tell you that words can indeed hurt. We all know this; to pretend otherwise is naive, and I'm sure we've all been hurt by someone in this way. Don't forget, you can do something about being lazy, if you're lazy - I can't do anything about being gay (I tried, when I was 16: it was absurd, the girl never spoke to me again).

And I'm not just being thin-skinned. It can take a long time to get over genuine hurtful homophobic abuse, as I know from first-hand experience. Homophobic bullying can and does drive kids and adults to depression or worse, and the casual tossing around of the word "gay" by their peers to mean "bad" creates an atmosphere where even self-identifying as gay becomes fraught with unease and self-doubt.

I doubt it..want to have a bible-off? In my mind, if you truly understood the Word you never would have abandoned Him. Also, that no one can comprehend the bible without the Spirit.

I am not so thin skinned, btw..but I am conscious of having Gods name dragged through the mud..

how about we start over and see where the thread takes us?

>> ^longde:
hehe. An atheist quoting the bible is a bit like a prisoner suing the victim of his crime.
I'm not an atheist, but I certainly don't believe in Christiantiy, and I got here from being a devout christian from the cradle to high school. I dare say I know the bible better than you do, having studied it at length and daily for all those years.
It just strikes me as strange that you are put off at scorn from nonbelievers. At least you are honest, though. I'm not saying I was never wary of being made fun of when I proselytized people. But back then, it was face-to-face; while today you have an anonymous handle and avatar to hide behind.

@bareboards2 to your comments directly relating to me.

The title was deliberately over the top. The word doesn't carry as much weight outside of the US as it does there, and it was deliberately chosen to cause as much outrage as possible (but not this kind of outrage). Lann did want me to call it "Cooter punching", but I said fuck that and went all out. I'm sorry that you felt particularly hurt by it, it was a joke.

The description is also a joke of course - I have a persona to maintain, and boy do I maintain it. I do think you have a thin skin, and I'm sympathetic - I really am, but I think you should say your piece in the comment of the video "I really don't like this and this is why (...)" or, if it's title and description you have a problem with, you could speak directly with the poster in private PMs. In this case moi.

Regarding the video larsarus posted, I don't like it either. I love my nordic brother (or you know, as much as you can love a Swede.. ), but that video was a lot worse than the one I posted, in my view, because it seems like the girl isn't in on the joke. So that's a whole other level of abuse/violence.

I'm not sure I even saw the thumbnail of the boob video before I promoted it, so I didn't troll you with that deliberately. It wasn't even aimed at you, it was aimed at the many white knights who said "it's never, ever, ever OK that a women is hurt by anything" (I wanted to say violence, but really it's too harsh of a word for what happened in the jousting video).

I'll end with this. I'm sorry that you felt so bad about the incidents. I'm sorry that the other people who decried the stuff felt bad. The title/description was over the top by design, so it was bound that some people would be pissed about it - I'm OK with that - that was the joke. It'll probably happen again some time, maybe not by me, but maybe by me. By then I hope you'll take it for what it is, or at least have built up more of a resistance to it. Or hell, just grab me by the collar in a PM and say what's on your mind.

I was deliberately vague in my Sift Talk opening, because I didn't want to get into an argument about specifics. I wanted to convey an idea, not argue back and forth. (By the way, my actual questions were never answered, not that I really expected them to be.)

There has been a lot of speculation on what pushed me over the edge into starting a Sift Talk, after 5 years of reading comments here. I know the culture. I have grown calloused, burlapped undie'd up, to quote dag. I even, after some initial horror, have grown to understand the nature of "sexist" comments, a little bit. They don't bother me as much as they used to. I see them, I sigh, I move on, sometimes I even enjoy them. So why now? What happened that pushed me over the edge?

I couldn't have answered coherently a couple of days ago. I think I can now.

It actually started two months ago. @Morganth posted a great video, part of a series.

http://videosift.com/video/Killing-Us-Softly-vertising-s-Image-of-Women

There were some great, thoughtful responses to this video. There were also some increasingly ugly, misogynist, hateful, ignorant comments. Each new ugly comment spawned another. I kept hoping it would drop into the archives, but instead, it sifted to the Top 15, with over 100 votes -- clearly not because of the content of the video, but because of the feeding frenzy of ugly comments, specifically targeted towards women. That video's comment thread could be used as a case study of unconscious -- and perhaps conscious -- male anger and hatred towards women. It could also be used to show the deep ignorance of men about what it means to be a woman. (Before you jump on me, believe me I know that most women are ignorant of the pressures put on men. But this isn't a contest about who has been hurt worst by cultural stereotypes and expectations, who is the bigger victim. I have been saying since 1974 that men need to fight against their oppression just as women had begun to.)

I also thought -- man, the Sift is being to change, who are all these people, this isn't the Sift I know and love. This is qualitatively different than the normal razzing that goes on here.

I didn't say anything. I just gritted my teeth and waited for it to go away. It eventually did.

Then a couple of days ago, eric -- who is one of my favorite people on the Sift, kind, observant, generous, a true feminist/humanist -- posted a link to what would become the C Punch vid in the sift lounge and said -- hey, somebody post this, this cracks me up. (He does that all the time -- shares links to vids. I have gotten several Top 15 vids and I think even one #1 -- eric is generous, remember?)

I watched it. I saw -- as I have said elsewhere -- what everyone else saw -- a woman trying to fit into an existing clique, wanting to belong, who allowed herself to be hit in accordance with the "rules" of the group. I have opinions about the idiocy of a pack of males and what their senses of humor devolve to, but I didn't think she was any more pressured than any man would have felt in the same group.

I also knew -- suspected -- feared -- that the troll crowd that showed up for the advertising vid would come out in force. That something really ugly would be unleashed. I didn't think that men who clearly have a problem with women (the new crowd from the advertising vid) would understand what was happening in the vid. That all they would see was a woman being hit in the genitals, and the feeding frenzy would begin.

I tried to stop the posting of the vid. Out of fear of what might happen.

And then it didn't. Because spoco2 spoke up quickly, became the human sacrifice, and the conversation got heated, intricate and wordy. It didn't devolve -- well, it devolved, but it devolved as most heated discussions do here. I was fine with that.

What I wasn't fine with, was the title. The title did not match the video. The title reflected (sorry gwiz, I know the word has different connotations in Denmark) my worst misogynist nightmare. I am not going to explain the nuances of why that is so -- I tried in the sift lounge after the fact, and I realized that if you aren't a woman, it is too complicated to communicate in this medium.

But the description of the vid was worse -- REALLY had nothing to do with the video, only had to do with the systemic, cultural violence towards women (sorry, gwiz, I know for you it was a joke. It wasn't for me.)

There are also generational differences, and experience differences, and not every woman would react the same way I did. So I didn't take any positive action to fix my distress -- it isn't up to me to enforce my views onto others.

But then it got promoted. By eric, who I adore, who I knew liked the vid (because it showed a woman acting as stupid as a man, which is funny theoretically). To the front page. With THAT title. And then it got promoted again, by someone who linked to a vid that was clearly domestic violence and was exactly the kind of comment that I feared beforehand (sorry Lasurus, I have no idea of you personally, but guy, please know -- that was Not. Cool.)

Now I am really beginning to feel uncomfortable. Promoted to the front page. Having to look at that title every time I came to the Sift (which is too much, but that is my particular brand of OCD.) But still I don't do anything, because hey, it is just my opinion. I'll wait for it to slide down into the archives.

But it couldn't be left to die away. A vid that reduced a woman to her naked torso in the thumbnail was promoted twice and qualitied. To the front page. Where I can't avoid it. It felt like there was an (unconscious) assault against women would never end, and that what I felt during the advertising comment stream was now spilling out onto the front page of the Sift. And yes, I know it was all meant as a joke, but it was increasingly not funny, it was increasingly uncomfortable to be a woman here.

Someone helped me find a solution to that problem -- I sent the vid to discuss and asked that the thumbnail be changed. Having a blatant bewb shot stuck at the top of the page wasn't good for the Sift, with its millions of visitors. That was clear to me and I knew that changing the thumbnail was a reasonable action, not just my personal queasiness.

But that is when I broke. When I got pushed over the edge. The advertising video making Top 15 with its horrendous comment stream, C Punch as the (inaccurate) title on a promoted vid, and then the trolling of pushing a thumbnail to the front page -- it was a combination of events that proved too much for me.

I needed to speak up. I did not want to stay silent anymore. I needed to break the polite silence.

But even then -- all I said was I didn't like it. And that I don't understand this need to be provoking and shocking -- one of my first interactions with blankfist was to send him a PM, asking him to explain to me what the thrill of trolling is. (He never answered me. But it was an honest question.)

You would have thought that I took an axe to the genitals of every man on the sift. For saying I didn't like it.

I find that amusing in the extreme. Netrunner figured it out. There is the most vicious trolling and personal attacks on the Sift ALL THE TIME. But a reasonable person speaks up and says "I don't like that?" WTF!

Look at the number of comments here. Just who are the sensitive, thin-skinned ones? And if you have the courage to ask yourself -- just how much of your anger is rooted in the cultural pressures you have been subjected to your whole life? (That is a college course or five years of therapy -- I'm not going to unpack that sentence for you.)

Women have been told to shut up and be nice for centuries. I have stayed silent for years here (not perfectly silent, I'm sure you can find examples proving that statement wrong -- but believe me, I have been silent far far far FAR more than I have said things.)

And now I spoke up. Said my piece. Learned some things about myself, and how I might use different tactics in the future to deal with things that disturb me, met some really cool new folks, and I have fallen in love with the Sift all over again.

Thin skin.

+5 respect points. If we can avoid the incendiary nonsense, I'll drop back by the convo after work and add my thoughts. I just wanted to quickly give kudos for your latest comment.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Thanks guys and you know this is a pretty quality conversation..I've been too heavy handed and thin skinned and im sorry..when I wake up I will address some of the more insightful replies I ignored because I was paying attention to the incindiary ones..

Thanks guys and you know this is a pretty quality conversation..I've been too heavy handed and thin skinned and im sorry..when I wake up I will address some of the more insightful replies I ignored because I was paying attention to the incindiary ones..

"resident racist" isn't much of a title. I'd much prefer Resident Racist/Sexist/Capitalist. I'm not doing a very good job....

Thank you for reminding me that THE PRESIDENT has attacked private citizens like Rush Limbaugh. That is far less sanguine than a private citizen calling out the president; criticism comes with the job.

Observation about the Presidency itself. Observation about Obama's failure--IMO--to maintain the dignity of the office.

RACISM: NONE

Thurston hasn't yet learned that in America you define who you are, no one else. If he wants to play the role of victim, that's his choice, there's a whole political party dedicated to winning his vote by defining him as one.

RACISM: only from the patronizing left

Leftists need victims/oppressed to get votes. When there aren't enough victims, they make them. This is born of the foundation of liberalism: powerlessness at the hands of life's lottery, with anyone not a random winner an exploited loser.

If Baratunde "puppies on a hovercraft" Thurston wants to specifically address Blackness in America, shouldn't he be far more incensed at the 70% illegitimacy rate in the Black community, a literal blueprint for cultural and economic failure?

YES IT'S UNPLEASANT, BUT FACTS ARE FACTS. LOOK UP THE STATS. Btw, the overall illegitimacy rate in America across all races is now 40%. Also nothing to celebrate.

AND I call bullshit on BT's "outrage". He's the host of a TV show as well as a paid comic. He may be somewhat upset, but I don't buy for a second he's this thin-skinned; he'd never have made it in the entertainment industry. His potential for happiness is his choice and problem, not yours or mine.

And while we're on the subject, this collective phony "outrage" every time something is read or heard that you disagree with is tiresome. For fck's sake, there aren't enough white sheets in the world to cover everyone the left has accused of racism. Don't you have ANYTHING else to talk about?

RACISM: NONE

@Xaielao It's not Republicans who are frightened, it's conservatives, peeps who understand the Constitution and the assault it's under.

RACISM: NONE

If Trump is a "Klansman" (an outrageous charge) that would make him a democrat.

I apologize for my thin skin.

However, please know that I have read exhaustively both video submission threads and Sift Talk threads. I dare say all of the Sift Talk threads through the evolutions of to the current generation of the invocation. That having been said I not unmindful of the issues and perceived precedents.

If they are all encompassing, well established and regarded as you posit, then why are the seconds of my initial invocation representative of all levels of seniority of membership? Additionally, missing many dupes and I do and must, find ample representation of the same criteria of selection mirrored again by the complete strata of membership. Certainly, if I am mistaken, unaware, or just recalcitrant, why do others not adhere to the precedent you proclaim and am I and others not censured?

You, and others here, seem to perceive a solid, cohesive, and save for a few mavericks of insufficient time and hence experience who are mucking up the place, pervasive unassailable consensus. I submit you reassess. There is disagreement and dissention and the powers that be are not quashing it in favor of your "precedent." dag himself apprised the poll regarding excerpts.


>> ^blankfist:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/chicchorea" title="member since October 15th, 2009" class="profilelink">chicchorea, you misread. I didn't say time grants any of us superiority. I said those who've been here long enough to remember the dupe debates should know better. That is, they should know we've time and time again reached a consensus that duping partial videos is bad form.

You know if any significant number of people are getting up in arms about this they are way too thin-skinned and should have far better things to do than bashing a comedy motoring programme.

Yes these are lazy stereotypes but they happily take the piss out of themselves and anyone else. It's a silly programme, not always as funny as it thinks it is and always much better when they do serious motoring items.

And what about the millions of websites saying unpleasant things about Mexico? Is someone going to spend time and money getting those censored? No of course not, free speech is always going to bring you into contact with things you don't like to hear. Suck it up.

As an Englishman if I spent my days explaining we don't all have crap teeth, live in Castles, are rubbish in bed and dress like tramps I'd never leave the house.

This has reminded me of a program in Jeremy Clarkson's CV that might be interesting. Called Jeremy Clarkson meets the Neighbours he travelled around Europe seeing if people matched their stereotypes. And then at the end a representive from that country would be interviewed and happily mock their nation.

i remember MINK from TayTV.
we used to have glorious arguments!
smart,witty and he laughed at my jokes..what was NOT to like about him?
you could not be thin skinned around him thats for sure, but he was by no means stupid.

Don't be a cunt.

>> ^schmawy:

Oh really? You were joking? I find that hard to believe. Choggie's banned any you're dancing on his grave. Well I've had it with the flaccid PC legions of Sift. From now on I'm taking on his task, so just because he's gone don't think no one's going to call you on your infantile crap. As a matter of fact I might come down a hell of a lot harder than he ever did. Same goes for the thin skinned over-reactionary milquetoasts around here. I'm fucking sick of the pogromes of anyone who doesn't prostrate themselves to Olberman, Maddow and TYT. Tolerant, are we?
I'm going to shove tolerance and understanding so far up your ass that it'll tickle your uvula. Is this a vernacular you understand? It's got rectal references for additional elucidation.
And mother raping? You're disgusting.

Date: April 27th, 2010

The Forgotten Man

By Robert Ringer

Why have the combined mudslinging voices of the media (so called), Congressional Democrats, and the thin-skinned boy wonder who occupies the Oval Office not been able to turn the tide against the tea partiers? If you look at the poll numbers, the answer is obvious: Most Americans are tea partiers.

However, most of them are not yet in enough pain to skip a day at the ball park and stand in a crowd of thousands (sometimes tens of thousands) and listen to tea-party speakers. That’s a shame, but it doesn’t change the fact that they identify with the tea-party movement.

So, what is the common bond with which they identify? Taxes? Healthcare? Financial regulation? I thought about this question as I was rereading Amity Shlaes’ landmark book, The Forgotten Man. In it, she quotes Yale philosopher William Graham Sumner, who, clear back in 1883, explained the crux of the moral problem with progressivism as follows:

”As soon as A observes something which seems to him to be wrong, from which X is suffering, A talks it over with B, and A and B then propose to get a law passed to remedy the evil and help X. Their law always proposes to determine … what A, B, and C shall do for X.”

Shlaes goes on to add: ”But what about C? There was nothing wrong with A and B helping X. What was wrong was the law, and the indenturing of C to the cause. C was the forgotten man, the man who paid, ‘the man who never is thought of.”’

In other words, C is the guy who isn’t bothering anyone, but is forced to supply the funds to help the X’s of the world, those whom power holders unilaterally decide have been treated unfairly and must be compensated.

FDR, however, did a switcheroo on Sumner’s point by removing the moniker of ”the forgotten man” from C and giving it to X – ”the poor man, the old man, labor, or any other recipient of government help.” Very clever … very Obamanistic. As I recall, FDR originally used the phrase the forgotten man to refer to the victims of the dust bowl in the 1930s. Zap! Just like that, Sumner’s forgotten man was transformed into the opposite of what he was meant to be.

Today, I believe it is the tea-party people who represent Sumner’s Forgotten Man. They are taxed and told what they must do and what they must give up in the way of freedom and personal wealth every time a new law is passed. I believe it is this reality that bonds the tea-party people together.

Put another way, it is not healthcare or any other single issue the tea-party people are most angry about. It is all of the issues combined that have to do with impinging on their individual liberty. Above all, they are outraged by the fact that immoral politicians and bureaucrats not only violate their God-given right to live their lives as they please, they dismiss them as ”extremists.” Collectively, the tea-party people are today’s Forgotten Man.

In his essay (http://mises.org/books/forgottenman.pdf), Sumner went on to say:

”All history is only one long story to this effect: men have struggled for power over their fellow-men in order that they might win the joys of earth at the expense of others and might shift the burdens of life from their own shoulders upon those of others. It is true that, until this time, the proletariat, the mass of mankind, have rarely had the power and they have not made such a record as kings and nobles and priests have made of the abuses they would perpetrate against their fellow-men when they could and dared.

”But what folly it is to think that vice and passion are limited by classes, that liberty consists only in taking power away from nobles and priests and giving it to artisans and peasants and that these latter will never abuse it! They will abuse it just as all others have done unless they are put under checks and guarantees, and there can be no civil liberty anywhere unless rights are guaranteed against all abuses, as well from proletarians as from generals, aristocrats, and ecclesiastics.”

Sumner was a man of great insight. He saw the absurdity of assuming that the poor man is morally superior to the rich man. This is where I believe that sincere revolutionaries go wrong. While their initial intentions (to help ”the poor”) may, at least in their own minds, be well-meant, they begin with a false premise (that the misfortunes of those at the bottom of the economic ladder are a result of the evil actions of those who are more successful) and, from there, leap from one false conclusion to another.

Which is why politicians who pose as conservatives to get elected so often take the Mush McCain-Lindsey Graham-Charlie Crist route and continually rush to the aid of their progressive Democratic pals. I believe that these philosophically lost souls do the bidding of the intimidating left because they have never given any serious thought to the possibility that the very premise of progressivism is morally wrong.

As a result, they have no feeling for the (perceived) rich man. In plotting their do-gooder schemes, he is easy to forget. They see nothing whatsoever wrong with society’s sacrificing his liberty for the ”public good.” Bring out the guillotine! As Montaigne said, ”Men are most apt to believe what they least understand.”

What gave birth to the tea parties is that the Forgotten Man syndrome is like a metastasizing disease. As politicians long ago realized, there aren’t enough rich people to support all of the X’s. As the number of X’s (i.e., those who live off the surpluses of others) increases, a lot of A’s and B’s must, by necessity, be reclassified as C’s. And that is when they become candidates for joining the tea-party movement.

Put simply: When A’s and B’s are transformed into C’s, they mysteriously lose their enthusiasm for new laws to help out X. Put even more simply, they suddenly realize that they are now the Forgotten Man. And that realization is what automatically qualifies them as tea-party people. No recruitment necessary, thank you.